PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity

[buffalo]

PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity

Summary: A recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) purports to explain the evolution of a relatively small molecular machine in the mitochondria that transports proteins across a membrane, thereby allegedly refuting irreducible complexity. Phrases and assertions like “‘pre-adaptation’ to bacteria ahead of a need for protein import,” “parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together,” “machines emerge before there’s a need for them,” or intelligently “engineered” macromutations are part and parcel of this latest failed attempt by critics of intelligent design (ID) to answer Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity. As would be expected, when evolutionists are forced to resort to such goal-directed and teleological language and mechanisms, this shows that inherently, blind and unguided materialist explanations are not sufficient to produce irreducible complex systems. As discussed in more detail below, this latest attempt to answer irreducible complexity unwittingly shows the need for intelligent design. A summary of the problems includes:

more…

 

[tonyrey]

The term “teleonomic” was invented to describe purposeful activity in living organisms in order to evade the term “teleological”! Jacques Monod used it in his book on evolution “Chance and Necessity”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity

Summary: A recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) purports to explain the evolution of a relatively small molecular machine in the mitochondria that transports proteins across a membrane, thereby allegedly refuting irreducible complexity. Phrases and assertions like “‘pre-adaptation’ to bacteria ahead of a need for protein import,” “parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together,” “machines emerge before there’s a need for them,” or intelligently “engineered” macromutations are part and parcel of this latest failed attempt by critics of intelligent design (ID) to answer Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity. As would be expected, when evolutionists are forced to resort to such goal-directed and teleological language and mechanisms, this shows that inherently, blind and unguided materialist explanations are not sufficient to produce irreducible complex systems. As discussed in more detail below, this latest attempt to answer irreducible complexity unwittingly shows the need for intelligent design. A summary of the problems includes:

more…

They could explain by simply saying that the information that forms complex systems is inherent in particular chemical reactions which simply produce complexity with out a fully formed mechanism.

 

[Shredderbeam]

…It’s really not teleological at all. Various parts do not appear and sit around, waiting to be assembled, so I don’t understand why they even mentioned the word “teleology”.

 

[tonyrey]

…It’s really not teleological at all. Various parts do not appear and sit around, waiting to be assembled, so I don’t understand why they even mentioned the word “teleology”.

How do you explain the integration of the parts?

 

[Shredderbeam]

How do you explain the integration of the parts?

My guess would be that if a population of cells have molecular mechanisms A and B, after a while, A may become associated with B to produce something entirely new.

If that’s not satisfying, check out:

rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm

Especially the “proposed evolutionary pathways” part.

Also, aren’t you using the argument from incredulity?

 

[tonyrey]

My guess would be that if a population of cells have molecular mechanisms A and B, after a while, A may become associated with B to produce something entirely new.

If that’s not satisfying, check out:

rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm

Especially the “proposed evolutionary pathways” part.
Also, aren’t you using the argument from incredulity?

Is it surprising when one reads such passages as the following:
“This is a very tentative sketch, but it does seem that a fully detailed evolutionary explanation for eubacterial flagella is not so distant. While the details of the motor/rotor/filament system assembly seem reasonably clear, the details of the evolution of the FliG,M,N torque generating sytem are lacking, as we know little about how these systems generate torque.”?

There are many biologists who are dissatisfied with mechanistic explanations of living organisms:

“Complexity is a serious biological problem, and it is likely that
biological systems are the most complex known. Increasingly,
scientists are going to have to depend on computational biologists
to construct models that can then be tested back in
laboratory conditions. However, as indicated here, laboratory
conditions are only one environmental circumstance among
many in which plant systems develop. In 10 years, my own
estimate is that plant molecular research groups will be half
modelers and half wet investigators producing new data for
modelers. While mechanistic approaches will still be a valuable
first step, their relevance will diminish as the need for understanding
the construction of system design modules increases.”
plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/18/10/2420.pdf

You can read the following online:
The Directiveness of Organic Activities by E.S.Russell
and
Cell and Psyche - The Biology of Purpose
books.google.co.uk/books?id=p9sH2HwmvlIC&dq=sinnott+directiveness+life&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=qBU4vO7le3&sig=TgpqD7vM53Md2U2pMtf9Jfbm2Kc&hl=en&ei=nxakSrKWEuGrjAf10YTADg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[edwest2]

Irreducible complexity is real and the current explanations are not logical. Among them is the idea that a cell could suddenly, perhaps through some chemical binding, acquire a part that serves some new, novel function.

Take a car engine. You want to add a part to enhance performance. Can the part go anywhere? Of course not.

Take a cell that, let’s say, acquires a part that just happens to go into a location where it does something useful. A little while later, the cell wants to divide. It has no instructions for duplicating the new part so it duplicates itself without it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

Is it surprising when one reads such passages as the following:
“This is a very tentative sketch, but it does seem that a fully detailed evolutionary explanation for eubacterial flagella is not so distant. While the details of the motor/rotor/filament system assembly seem reasonably clear, the details of the evolution of the FliG,M,N torque generating sytem are lacking, as we know little about how these systems generate torque.”?

I don’t find it very surprising, since cells are fairly complex, and it’s sometimes hard to pin down the exact workings of biological machinery.
"tonyrey:

There are many biologists who are dissatisfied with mechanistic explanations of living organisms:

“Complexity is a serious biological problem, and it is likely that
biological systems are the most complex known. Increasingly,
scientists are going to have to depend on computational biologists
to construct models that can then be tested back in
laboratory conditions. However, as indicated here, laboratory
conditions are only one environmental circumstance among
many in which plant systems develop. In 10 years, my own
estimate is that plant molecular research groups will be half
modelers and half wet investigators producing new data for
modelers. While mechanistic approaches will still be a valuable
first step, their relevance will diminish as the need for understanding
the construction of system design modules increases.”
plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/18/10/2420.pdf

That quote indicates that biologists may turn to computer modeling to help figure out how certain systems may have evolved, not that biologists are dissatisfied with mechanistic explanations of organisms.

tonyrey:

You can read the following online:
The Directiveness of Organic Activities by E.S.Russell
and
Cell and Psyche - The Biology of Purpose
books.google.co.uk/books?id=p9sH2HwmvlIC&dq=sinnott+directiveness+life&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=qBU4vO7le3&sig=TgpqD7vM53Md2U2pMtf9Jfbm2Kc&hl=en&ei=nxakSrKWEuGrjAf10YTADg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

It’s difficult for me to find the time to read two textbooks outside of my studies.

Irreducible complexity is real and the current explanations are not logical. Among them is the idea that a cell could suddenly, perhaps through some chemical binding, acquire a part that serves some new, novel function.

Take a car engine. You want to add a part to enhance performance. Can the part go anywhere? Of course not.

A car engine really isn’t a fair analogy, because there is no selector as is proposed in evolutionary theory (natural selection).

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t find it very surprising, since cells are fairly complex, and it’s sometimes hard to pin down the exact workings of biological machinery.

In other words you have absolute faith that there will be a scientific explanation for all biological phenomena?

That quote indicates that biologists may turn to computer modeling to help figure out how certain systems may have evolved, not that biologists are dissatisfied with mechanistic explanations of organisms.

It indicates that information theory is required to supplement mechanism.

It’s difficult for me to find the time to read two textbooks outside of my studies.

It is not a question of reading but skimming… You probably prefer not to know the full story…

 

[Shredderbeam]

In other words you have absolute faith that there will be a scientific explanation for all biological phenomena?

Not absolute faith, but fairly strong confidence.

tonyrey:

It indicates that information theory is required to supplement mechanism.

I can’t see where. Can you explain?

tonyrey:

It is not a question of reading but skimming… You probably prefer not to know the full story…

I would like to know the full story, but being told to read/skim large volumes of text (or in some circumstances, watch a very long video) is a bit off-putting.

 

[buffalo]

Not absolute faith, but fairly strong confidence.

I can’t see where. Can you explain?

I would like to know the full story, but being told to read/skim large volumes of text (or in some circumstances, watch a very long video) is a bit off-putting.

So let the gatekeepers tell you what you should believe.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So let the gatekeepers tell you what you should believe.

The gatekeepers? Can you explain that statement?

 

[hatsoff]

PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity

Summary: A recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) purports to explain the evolution of a relatively small molecular machine in the mitochondria that transports proteins across a membrane, thereby allegedly refuting irreducible complexity. Phrases and assertions like “‘pre-adaptation’ to bacteria ahead of a need for protein import,” “parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together,” “machines emerge before there’s a need for them,” or intelligently “engineered” macromutations are part and parcel of this latest failed attempt by critics of intelligent design (ID) to answer Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity. As would be expected, when evolutionists are forced to resort to such goal-directed and teleological language and mechanisms, this shows that inherently, blind and unguided materialist explanations are not sufficient to produce irreducible complex systems. As discussed in more detail below, this latest attempt to answer irreducible complexity unwittingly shows the need for intelligent design. A summary of the problems includes:

more…

So, instead of focusing on the research and its implications or lack thereof, creationists would prefer to criticize the language used by the scientists!

How typical.

EDIT: They’re not even correct in their linguistic criticisms, but who the heck cares about that anyway?

 

[edwest2]

So, instead of focusing on the research and its implications or lack thereof, creationists would prefer to criticize the language used by the scientists!

How typical.

EDIT: They’re not even correct in their linguistic criticisms, but who the heck cares about that anyway?

The scientists in this example are inventing explanations out of whole cloth. Machines are preexisting, ready to be plugged in. Come on. This isn’t even good fiction. Machines waiting around, waiting to be useful? Give me a break. I write fiction and this stuff doesn’t even qualify as bad fiction.

The only implications most here want to focus on is the one that provides an explanation, any explanation, that keeps evolution true and right forever, otherwise the creationists might win. Can’t have that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

This thread is actually painful to read…

This is just another in the long line of “irrefutable complexity”, just like the flagellum and eye and whatever else before it - and just like before it’s based on the philosophy of ignorance - that instead of seeking an answer we should say God did it and be done with it.

 

[edwest2]

This thread is actually painful to read…

This is just another in the long line of “irrefutable complexity”, just like the flagellum and eye and whatever else before it - and just like before it’s based on the philosophy of ignorance - that instead of seeking an answer we should say God did it and be done with it.

Ignorance has been redefined as anything that opposes evolution. And evolution has been placed in the same category as God. With evolution, all things are possible. Punctuated equillibrium, machines just floating around, without purpose, just waiting to be connected to the right cell, at the right spot, to do some exact, specific complex thing. That is called making up an explanation out of thin air.

A cell with a flagellum that rotates at 3,000 RPM? So far, there is no reasonable explanation of how this “just happened” to pop into existence. Better that science says “I don’t know” than coming up with far-fetched, completely fictional stories and calling fictional stories an explanation. OK? You don’t like hearing God did it? Fine. But at least be honest and say nobody knows why the flagellum exists. No – watch carefully – I’m not saying don’t look for an explanation, just don’t offer wild imagination as an explanation. Even comic book stories, good comic book stories, need some plausible premise to make you think, “You know, that seems plausible or even possible.” Heck, science, right now, is in the process of building bipedal robots that can carry weapons. It may not look like the Terminator but it exists. It’s doable.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Ignorance has been redefined as anything that opposes evolution. And evolution has been placed in the same category as God. With evolution, all things are possible. Punctuated equillibrium, machines just floating around, without purpose, just waiting to be connected to the right cell, at the right spot, to do some exact, specific complex thing. That is called making up an explanation out of thin air.

A cell with a flagellum that rotates at 3,000 RPM? So far, there is no reasonable explanation of how this “just happened” to pop into existence. Better that science says “I don’t know” than coming up with far-fetched, completely fictional stories and calling fictional stories an explanation. OK? You don’t like hearing God did it? Fine. But at least be honest and say nobody knows why the flagellum exists. No – watch carefully – I’m not saying don’t look for an explanation, just don’t offer wild imagination as an explanation. Even comic book stories, good comic book stories, need some plausible premise to make you think, “You know, that seems plausible or even possible.” Heck, science, right now, is in the process of building bipedal robots that can carry weapons. It may not look like the Terminator but it exists. It’s doable.

Peace,
Ed

I believe your issue is that because you don’t understand things, you believe others can’t understand them. I mean, I don’t mean this as a personal attack, but you’re ranting a bit as if evolution is some kind of magic trick by atheist scientists bent on ruling the world. Many things are likely not possible with evolution. Science often says that it doesn’t know… but then looks for answers and will eventually come up with some. You seem to be so intent on demonizing evolution that you appear to be condemning reality itself. You want me to admit the flagellum can’t evolve? Why would you believe something so un-intuitive to begin with? There is a ton of information on the topic… there’s even a nice video on it if you want. You’ll likely toss that aside as ludicrous or simply far fetched, but as I said just because you don’t accept or understand it doesn’t mean others can’t or that they are wrong. Next you’ll be telling me that entire organisms can’t possibly grow out of a single cell… that’s just ludicrous right? That much complexity and information can’t possibly fit into a single zygote.

 

[edwest2]

No offense to you or to atheists, but the current formula is this:

Evolution is science is rationality is reality. It is a pillar of belief for those who worship the mind of man.

I do not understand? No, that’s not it. When I see some TV pundit browbeating a politician with “Do you believe in evolution?” I have come to realize that all that is going on is a Clash Of Orthodoxies. One Ultra-Orthodox belief system against another.

Rally for Reason, an organization primarily sponsored by atheists, protested outside of the Creation Museum. I watched a video of the event. Did they challenge in a specific way any of the claims made by the museum? No, of course not. But there are specific anomolies that what is called science refuses to deal with. The video went on with various people making very vague comments about the very vague danger of parents and their kids going into the museum and believing what they see. Gasp! What exactly will happen? They didn’t say.

But one lady revealed their only real concern “If this ends up in schools, I’ll sue. They aren’t going to use my tax money to teach this.”

So please don’t attempt to tell people you just don’t understand. There has been too much time and effort expended here and elsewhere on the internet to explain science. This isn’t about explaining science. This is 99.9% about convincing people that some mindless, non-goal oriented, self-starting process led to all life. That is the goal.

The biology textbook alone is not able to explain the origin of man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

That quote indicates that biologists may turn to computer modeling to help figure out how certain systems may have evolved, not that biologists are dissatisfied with mechanistic explanations of organisms.
It’s difficult for me to find the time to read two textbooks outside of my studies.

Perhaps this will enlighten you:
"Evolution does not explain how the power of regeneration could have been acquired…
It is the nature of this control, of this fundamental organising activity which eludes us and which constitutes the most formidable problem of biology. Organising relations are easy to observe and measure but are very difficult to explain physiologically. The beautiful structure of chemical molecules especially in the proteins with a great size and complexity may in some way be determined by that of the specific proteins it contains. It is hard however to picture the mechanism which would bring this about. Baisell and others have gone even further and suggested that the organism itself is a gigantic molecule and that the forces which integrated are the same as those which hold together and organise atoms. We must frankly admit that **no adequate explanation of biological organisation is forthcoming. **The fact of organisation has so impressed some biologists that they are even inclined to rank it as one of the basic facts in the universe. LJ Henderson, a biochemist who thought deeply about these matters, said: “I believe that organisation has finally become a category which stands beside those of matter and energy”. Needham wrote: “Organisation and energy are the two fundamental problems which all science has to solve.”