Yet another argument on Irreducible Complexity

[John316]

There are many web sites and books written on the subject that uses scientific evidence to support the case of a creator. i.e.. “The Case For a Creator” Auth. Lee Strobel.

The biological evidence that supports a Creator is the fact that there are

tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

In our cells we have hundreds of processes occurring in harmony but no explanation why organelles without intelligence perform functions to sustain the cell.

The eye is another irreducible complex system, parts that work together that can only be explained by design.

Our bodies are made up of systems, working together and without them there would be no life, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, Nervous, ect, made up of organs, to perform functions, the mystery of life remains a mystery and is only explained by a creator.

SKELETAL SYSTEM

Components: bones, cartilage, ligaments

Function: supports and protects body; muscles attached to bones; provides calcium storage; site of blood cell formation

Specific features:

-Supports body via bony framework

-Protects delicate vital organs (for their weight, bones are nearly as strong as steel)

-Bones are levers that transmit muscular forces; muscles are attached to bones by bands of connective tissue called tendons. When muscles contract, they pull on bones. Bones are held together at the joints by bands of connective tissue called ligaments.

-Marrow inside some bones produces blood cells (specifically inside flat bones: skull, ribs and breastbone)

-Bones serve as banks for storage and release of minerals like calcium and phosphorus

MUSCULAR SYSTEM

Components: skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, smooth muscle

Function: moves parts of the skeleton, locomotion; pumps blood; aids movement of internal materials

Specific features:

-Muscle cells contract and become shorter and thicker; because muscle cells are long and narrow, they are called fibers

-Skeletal muscles are attached to bones; they are voluntary muscles, which make our bodies move. They are striped or striated in appearance.

-Cardiac muscle is found in the walls of the heart; it contacts involuntarily and is also striated.

-Smooth muscle is found in the walls of the digestive tract, uterus, blood vessels and other internal organs. The fibers are not striated and they are involuntary.

NERVOUS SYSTEM

Components: nerves and sense organs, brain and spinal cord

Function: receives stimuli from external and internal environments, conducts impulses and integrates activities of other systems

Specific features:

-Two divisions of the nervous system: central and peripheral

-Central nervous system consists of the brain and spinal cord

-Peripheral nervous system consists of the sense organs (eyes, ears, taste buds,

olfactory receptors, touch receptors) and the nerves which connect the spinal cord with the rest of the body. These nerves are classified as either afferent (transmit information from the periphery to the spinal cord) or efferent (transmit information from the spinal cord to the periphery).

-Peripheral nervous system is subdivided into two divisions: somatic division (consists

of receptors and nerves concerned with changes in the outside environment; the sense organs and afferent nerves) and the autonomic division (regulates the internal environment; primarily the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems of the efferent system of nerves).

ENDOCRINE SYSTEM

Components: pituitary gland, adrenal gland, thyroid gland, hypothalamus gland, pineal gland, kidney, pancreas, ovaries, testes and other ductless glands (which are defined as tissues that secrete hormones that diffuse into the blood vessels)

Function: regulates body chemistry and many body functions

Specific features:

-These glands are regulated by feedback control: information about hormone levels or

their effect is fed back to the gland to regulate the hormone's release

-Endocrine activity is controlled by the hypothalamus gland (which is located in the brain). This gland links the nervous and endocrine systems. As a result of nervous stimuli, it secretes several releasing and inhibiting hormones that affect the activity of the other glands.

CIRCULATORY SYSTEM

Components: heart, blood vessels, blood; lymph and lymph structures

Function: transports materials from one part of the body to another; defends body against disease

Specific features:

-Consists of two subsystems: the cardiovascular system (includes the heart which pumps the blood through the blood vessels) and the lymphatic system (which helps to preserve fluid balance and protects the body against disease)

-Transports nutrients from the digestive system to all parts of the body

-Transports oxygen from the lungs to all the cells of the body

-Transports carbon dioxide and other metabolic wastes from the cells to the excretory organs

-Transports hormones from the endocrine glands to the target tissues

-Helps maintain normal body temperature

-Helps maintain fluid balance

-Protects the body against disease-causing organisms. The lymphocytes, which are a

type of white blood cell, are formed in the lymph tissue: lymph glands, spleen, thymus, tonsils and lymphoid tissue in the gut. There are two types of lymphocytes: T lymphocytes (the mediators of cellular immunity; these cells destroy the invader) and B lymphocytes (the antibody-producing cells; humoral immunity).

RESPIRATORY SYSTEM

Components: lungs and air passageways

Function: exchanges gases between the blood and the external environment

Specific features:

-Respiration includes breathing, gas exchange between lungs and blood, transport of gases through the body by the blood, gas exchange between the blood and the cells and cellular respiration (the chemical reaction pathways by which chemical energy is obtained from food).

DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Components: mouth, esophagus, stomach, intestines, liver, pancreas

Function: ingests and digests foods, absorbs them into the blood

Specific features:

-Salivary glands, liver and pancreas are not part of the digestive system but secrete digestive juices into it

-The digestive system involves four major processes:

1. Ingestion-taking food into the mouth, chewing and swallowing

2. Digestion-breakdown of food into smaller pieces (catalyzed by enzymes)

3. Absorption-transfer of digested food through the wall of the intestine and into

the circulatory system

4. Elimination-removal of undigested and unabsorbed food from the body (in feces)

URINARY SYSTEM

Components: kidney, bladder and associated ducts

Function: excretes metabolic wastes; removes substances present in excess from the blood

Specific features:

-Urine is made by the kidneys; it's transported from the kidneys to the bladder by the ureters; the bladder stores the urine then the urine leaves the bladder and exits the body via the urethra.

-95% of urine is water. Also present is urea, which is produced in the liver (urea is the excretion form of nitrogen waste).

REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM

Components: testes, ovaries and associated structures

Function: reproduction, which provides for continuation of the species

https://quizlet.com

Our world is a system, our Solar system is a system, our Universe is a system, systems are designed, by a creator, but if you are searching for the Creator, he gave the formula: when you search for me with all of your heart, you will find me.

[Strange]

The biological evidence that supports a Creator is the fact that there are

tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

 

No there aren't. All of these "irreducible" systems exist in simpler forms.

There are many web sites and books written on the subject that uses scientific evidence to support the case of a creator. i.e.. “The Case For a Creator” Auth. Lee Strobel.

 

He doesn't seem very credible: https://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/the-case-against-lee-strobel/

[John316]

The biological evidence that supports a Creator is the fact that there are

tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

No there aren't. All of these "irreducible" systems exist in simpler form

you may find similar structures, to some of the structures found in the cell, but does not explain why they perform essential functions in the cell. The complexity of the system and the sum of its separate parts, is what makes it irreducibly complex, because they work in conjunction without reason.

[Phi for All]

because they work in conjunction without reason.

 

Except, you know, that they provide a platform where life can make best advantage of converting light into energy. You know, the same as it does with all the plants and animals. That's a pretty good, no-need-for-a-designer reason. Life takes advantage of what's there.

 

Don't be the puddle, John316.

[Acme]

...

The biological evidence that supports a Creator is the fact that there are

tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level....

Wrong.

 

Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that postulates that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.[1]

...

... evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved.[6][7] There are many examples documented through comparative genomics showing that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

[John316]

John316, on 22 Nov 2015 - 7:43 PM, said:

because they work in conjunction without reason.

Except, you know, that they provide a platform where life can make best advantage of converting light into energy. You know, the same as it does with all the plants and animals. That's a pretty good, no-need-for-a-designer reason. Life takes advantage of what's there.

 

If life can choose it must have intelligence, although you can image how life could have evolved, there is no conclusive evidence, Indoctrination can, and has infiltrated the sciences. Can I prove God exists, I believe if you search for Him you will find

HIm.

 

We will now consider the purportedly "positive argument" for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the "purposeful arrangement of parts." Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79–80https://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

[Moontanman]

John316, on 22 Nov 2015 - 7:43 PM, said:

 

If life can choose it must have intelligence, although you can image how life could have evolved, there is no conclusive evidence, Indoctrination can, and has infiltrated the sciences. Can I prove God exists, I believe if you search for Him you will find

HIm.

 

We will now consider the purportedly "positive argument" for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the "purposeful arrangement of parts." Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79–80https://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

 

 

Instead of Gish galloping us how about you pick one thing at a time that you consider to be irreducibly complex and allow us to either agree or refute. It serves no one to make such a long list and it certainly does nothing for your argument.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

 

If life can choose it must have intelligence,

 

Life chooses to form cellular structures that the physical laws allow it to form. It can't do anything outside that, outside of nature, so it takes advantage of systems and processes that help it develop efficient ways to use sunlight. It's simple, yet complicated, but most certainly non-intelligent. It doesn't need to be.

 

Humans are amazing, but we're certainly not designed. If we were, you'd be smart enough to know you shouldn't get your science from your preacher.

 

The puddle shouldn't think the world was intelligently made to have him in it. He just took advantage of a low spot, like water always does.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

John 3 16

 

Do not hijack threads!

 

I have split off your hijack into a new thread as it had received some replies - please ensure that your next post in this thread is a progression to your argument or a counter to the differing viewpoints expressed.

 

To forestall problems remember: Preaching will not be tolerated from any participants so please make sure both your arguments against evolution or your counters are science-heavy and dogma-lite.

 

No responses to mod notes please - report if necessary

 

[Strange]

We will now consider the purportedly "positive argument" for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the "purposeful arrangement of parts."

 

By changing the subject, I assume you are agreeing that the irreducible complexity argument is false. Thank you for that. No need to apologise for introducing it. I will assume you didn't realise it had been solidly refuted.

 

 

Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose.

 

But there is no reason to infer design on that basis. So the rest of the argument is moot.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified.

 

Don't you think Behe is being intellectually dishonest with the bolded part of this statement? Did you parse this out, to see what he's really saying? "Since it looks designed, in spite of what science knows about it, we can conclude it IS designed." That's what "notwithstanding" means. It means Behe is choosing to ignore what science knows about evolution, willfully, in order to draw his conclusion that the universe has a designer.

[Arete]

A) The argument for irreducible complexity falls under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium - also known as the argument from ignorance. Put simply, just because you personally can't perceive that a part of the whole can't be under positive selection due to a functional utility, does not mean that such a functional utility, and therefore positive selection does not exist.

B) A trait does not have to be functional, or under positive selection to become fixed in a population. Through genetic drift, neutral traits can become fixed in a population.Therefore, a trait does not need to have any benefit for an organism at all to evolve in a population - it only needs to not place individuals at a selective disadvantage. As such, irreducible complexity as an argument addresses an oversimplified caricature of evolution which is not representative of reality, and becomes something of a strawman argument.

C) You've simply copied and pasted a list of organ systems from a pre-med textbook. It's a non-sequitur with regards to the argument of irreducible complexity. No one questions that organ systems exist and their existence does not support the notion that they are irreducible. I would say you need to produce evidence that they are irreducible, not just that they exist, but as irreducible complexity is a null hypothesis based on incredulity, its not possible, and thus not a scientifically acceptable argument.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Arete

[John316]

 

C) You've simply copied and pasted a list of organ systems from a pre-med textbook. It's a non-sequitur with regards to the argument of irreducible complexity. No one questions that organ systems exist and their existence does not support the notion that they are irreducible. I would say you need to produce evidence that they are irreducible, not just that they exist, but as irreducible complexity is a null hypothesis based on incredulity, its not possible, and thus not a scientifically acceptable argument.

 

 

 

 

The anatomy list was not given as an example of a irreducible complex system, but it does beg the question, is the heart created be cause of necessity, and how was it cataloged within the Genes, if complex systems arise from lower life forms, then when kidneys are needed to remove waste, what dictates its formation? not only do the kidneys need to form, but they need to be transcribed in the Genes, so future generations of the species will have these Genes. Its the chicken and the egg syndrome, are organs developed because of need? And if so then by what force. Or are Organs designed within the Genes to accommodate more complex life forms?

 

 

 

The Cell is the best example of irreducibly complex. science can explain how it functions, but not why.

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

 

The anatomy list was not given as an example of a irreducible complex system, but it does beg the question, is the heart created be cause of necessity, and how was it cataloged within the Genes, if complex systems arise from lower life forms, then when kidneys are needed to remove waste, what dictates its formation? not only do the kidneys need to form, but they need to be transcribed in the Genes, so future generations of the species will have these Genes. Its the chicken and the egg syndrome, are organs developed because of need? And if so then by what force. Or are Organs designed within the Genes to accommodate more complex life forms?

 

 

 

The Cell is the best example of irreducibly complex. science can explain how it functions, but not why.

 

 

 

I am beginning to have trouble taking you seriously, it is quite obvious you have not so much as googled the things you question or at least pay no attention to anything but creationist sites. Organs have clear origins and cells are probably one of the easiest to show how they formed.

 

I wonder if any information would change your mind since you already think you know the answers or think that religion has the answers.

 

It's quite pitiful to see someone blindly clinging to non answers to questions that have relatively well known answers, you are beginning to sound more and more like someone who only wants to disrupt instead of learn.

[John316]

I am beginning to have trouble taking you seriously, it is quite obvious you have not so much as googled the things you question or at least pay no attention to anything but creationist sites. Organs have clear origins and cells are probably one of the easiest to show how they formed.

I wonder if any information would change your mind since you already think you know the answers or think that religion has the answers.

It's quite pitiful to see someone blindly clinging to non answers to questions that have relatively well known answers, you are beginning to sound more and more like someone who only wants to disrupt instead of learn.

 

Can you give references to the "clear origins of Organs"? although that was not the crux of the question, if a species evolved into a more complex life form how was the information translated into adding Gene's or adding more Chromosomes to pass along to future generations? Do you see intelligence or at least some form of communication between the appendage and the code. My beliefs are a foundation that causes me to challenge evolution, and I do occasionally

visit some Creation Web sites, But as I said before there are many Scientist who also believe in intelligent design.

[Arete]

The anatomy list was not given as an example of a irreducible complex system,

 

If that was not the purpose, I'm confused as to what you intended it to convey. Care to clarify?

 

Is the heart created be cause of necessity, and how was it cataloged within the Genes, if complex systems arise from lower life forms, then when kidneys are needed to remove waste, what dictates its formation? not only do the kidneys need to form, but they need to be transcribed in the Genes, so future generations of the species will have these Genes. Its the chicken and the egg syndrome, are organs developed because of need? And if so then by what force. Or are Organs designed within the Genes to accommodate more complex life forms?

 

As Moontanman points out, it's sad and frustrating to see these questions as somehow pertinent to creation. They are all covered in basic biology classes, I would suggest reading the chapters on developmental biology, cell differentiation and gene expression in your introductory biology textbook of choice.

 

The Cell is the best example of irreducibly complex. science can explain how it functions, but not why.

 

Again, it's sad and frustrating how flawed this statement is. Which type of cell are we talking about here? A Eukaryotic cell is reducible in the sense we have strong evidence for the emergence of organelles, so are you talking about a prokaryotic cell? Gram negative or positive, because gram positive cell walls are simpler than gram negative. How about endosymbionts who have jettisoned much of their genomes? What about viruses and self replicating molecules?

 

As you can see, the suggestion that "cells" cannot be reduced is observationally false, and even a modest understanding of biology would lead you to that conclusion. One reason arguments like irreducible complexity are often so trivially dismissed is that often, the people putting them forward don't even have a basic understanding of the science they are attempting to refute.

 

Furthermore, the eye, which you use in your OP is a ridiculously bad example, as it is extremely reducible even on an extant level. We have multiple independently evolved vision organs, with complexity ranging from a simple photosensitive single cell, through to the variety of complex eyes we see across the tree of life. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/

 

Can you give references to the "clear origins of Organs"?

 

Try this basic review article.

 

But as I said before there are many Scientist who also believe in intelligent design.

 

The vast, overwhelming, majority do not.

 

Regardless of the examples you put forth as supposedly irreducible, the crux of the issue remains unresolved - the assertion that they are in fact irreducible relies on argument from ignorance, which is logically fallacious reasoning. Without some sort of acknowledgement of the central flaw in the logic of the proposal, no number of purported "examples" can help establish its validity.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Arete

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

John 3 16

 

I left this thread-branch open in the hope that it would allow some questions to be answered - from my perspective this has happened. Arete has provided a referenced and cogent argument which refutes your points - forum rules dictate that any response to this should be a scientific and rational counter (preferably with citations); it is not acceptable for you to move on with a "Yeah - but what about this..." argument. You can ask for clarifications, challenge assertions, criticise logic etc. - but you cannot just ignore the fact that your argument was refuted and move on to the next spurious contention.

 

If you have genuine uncertainty about another question then feel free to open another thread

 

[Moontanman]

Can you give references to the "clear origins of Organs"? although that was not the crux of the question, if a species evolved into a more complex life form how was the information translated into adding Gene's or adding more Chromosomes to pass along to future generations? Do you see intelligence or at least some form of communication between the appendage and the code. My beliefs are a foundation that causes me to challenge evolution, and I do occasionally

visit some Creation Web sites, But as I said before there are many Scientist who also believe in intelligent design.

 

 

Genetic material is not information, they are chemicals, we humans label it as information to allow us to investigate in a manner that is understood but in no way is genetic material information, nothing but chemicals that act to control and or catalyze other chemical reactions. The fact that we label genes as information to make is easier for us to understand and study doesn't make it information.

[John316]

A Eukaryotic cell is reducible in the sense we have strong evidence for the emergence of organelles, so are you talking about a prokaryotic cell? Gram negative or positive, because gram positive cell walls are simpler than gram negative. How about endosymbionts who have jettisoned much of their genomes? What about viruses and self replicating molecules?

 

Interesting argument, will need to do further study. I did not have an opportunity to actually make an argument for Irreducibly Complexity of the cell, but my question was never answered, and I will rephrase it, you have kidneys because Genes in the cells of that region were turned on to build that structure, do you agree with that statement? each cell has a full copy of 21 chromosomes, excluding red blood cells, the question is did the Gene for the kidneys “evolve” or mutate to create an organ such as the Kidney? or did the kidney evolve and was then added to the Gene pool, hence written into our DNA? either way it turned out to be very beneficial, being a vital organ.

Can genes be turned on and off in cells?

Each cell expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed, or turned off. The process of turning genes on and off is known as gene regulation. Gene regulation is an important part of normal development. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. Gene regulation also allows cells to react quickly to changes in their environments. Although we know that the regulation of genes is critical for life, this complex process is not yet fully understood.

[Acme]

Interesting argument, will need to do further study. I did not have an opportunity to actually make an argument for Irreducibly Complexity of the cell, but my question was never answered, and I will rephrase it, you have kidneys because Genes in the cells of that region were turned on to build that structure, do you agree with that statement? each cell has a full copy of 21 chromosomes, excluding red blood cells, the question is did the Gene for the kidneys evolve or mutate to create an organ such as the Kidney? or did the kidney evolve and was then added to the Gene pool, hence written into our DNA? either way it turned out to be very beneficial, being a vital organ.

Evidence for evolution: development of our kidneys

 

...This bizarre formation of three successive kidneys, with the first not functioning at all and the first two degenerating completely, begs explanation. It doesn't make a lot of sense under a creationist hypothesis: why would a creator bestow the embryo with three kidneys, trashing the first two (one of which doesn't do anything) before making the final one? The explanation involves the fact that the first two kidneys resemble, in order, those of primitive aquatic vertebrates (lampreys and hagfish) and aquatic or semiaquatic vertebrates (fish and amphibians): an evolutionary order. The explanation, then, is that we go through developmental stages that show organs resembling those of our ancestors. For we are, after all, descended from fish and amphibians (though cladists might argue with those terms).

 

Why do we still retain those early developmental forms? We're not sure, but many suspect that development is such an integrated process that it's easier for natural selection to remodel existing features than to form new ones de novo. The pronephric kidney, for example, may provide a key morphological or chemical stimulus for the formation of the mesonephric kidney, and the mesonephric for the metanephric kidney. So the first two kidneys appear in a transitory way to provide those stimuli. This doesn't always happen, of course: many features form without having to first reprise the ancestral condition of those features. Recapitulation is a phenomenon, not a law.

 

This ordering of developmental events that mimic those of our ancestors is not unique to the kidney: it also occurs, for example, in the way our blood vessels form, and Darwin gives other examples. One of my favorite examples, which I'll also teach about today, is the lanugo, the coat of hair that all human embryos develop and then shed about a month before birth (see my explanation here). The lanugo forms because we carry the genes for a full coat of hair, inherited from our primate ancestors. We briefly express those genes in utero, and at about the same relative time of development as do embryonic chimps (who dont lose the hair). ...

Can genes be turned on and off in cells?

Each cell expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed, or turned off. The process of turning genes on and off is known as gene regulation. Gene regulation is an important part of normal development. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. Gene regulation also allows cells to react quickly to changes in their environments. Although we know that the regulation of genes is critical for life, this complex process is not yet fully understood.

It's not clear where you got that quote. Please give links for your citations.

Just because something is not fully understood does not mean it's not understood at all.

Note: I have quoted only a small portion of a lengthy article in accord with forum etiquette. This in no way excuses you from reading the whole article nor does it excuse you to dismiss the bit I quoted out of hand. Whether you think my evidence is good or not does not nullify the fact that I have actually presented evidence, and you are woefully short on presenting any evidence yourself.

[Phi for All]

Although we know that the regulation of genes is critical for life, this complex process is not yet fully understood.

 

This is not a completely honest statement. NOTHING is fully understood, right? NOTHING. So this statement implies that the process of gene regulation is poorly understood. That's what you read into it, that's what any creationist reads into it, am I right?

 

But the truth is, we know AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT about this process. You don't, and that's why when you hear "not yet fully understood", your brain equates that with the amount you know about it, which is practically nothing. You form a bias against the process of gene regulation, and then everything you read (but don't check for accuracy) seems to confirm your bias.

[Arete]

Interesting argument, will need to do further study.

 

This is commendable - I am glad you are willing to consider new evidence as many people are not. Bravo.

 

One text I think you would find highly interesting is a book by Prof. Franciso Ayala. Prof. Ayala was a student of Theodosius Dobzhansky, is a National Academy of Sicence Medal recipient, an AAAS member and professor of Biology at UC Irvine. He is also a former priest. His freely available book Am I a Monkey? Six Big Questions about Evolution provides explanations in plain English about evolutionary theory from the prospective of a theist.

 

That said, I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is for someone to make a statement like "The Cell is the best example of irreducibly complex. science can explain how it functions, but not why." without knowing if they are talking about prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells. The difference between the two is extremely basic biology - middle school level. To argue that something is irreducible with such exceedingly little knowledge about the topic area isn't entirely intellectually sound - it would be like someone arguing about scripture without knowing the bible has a new and an old testament.

 

 

my question was never answered, and I will rephrase it, you have kidneys because Genes in the cells of that region were turned on to build that structure, do you agree with that statement? each cell has a full copy of 21 chromosomes, excluding red blood cells, the question is did the Gene for the kidneys “evolve” or mutate to create an organ such as the Kidney? or did the kidney evolve and was then added to the Gene pool, hence written into our DNA? either way it turned out to be very beneficial, being a vital organ.

 

The difficulty here is that any comprehensive answer to your questions (plural) requires an understanding of multiple biological processes - and a science forum cannot teach you introductory biology. But to very succinctly answer the question in the simplest way possible (be aware that I'm about to use oversimplification to the point of technical incorrectness) :

 

1) The physical type (phenotype) is a result of an interaction between genes and the environment. Therefore the existence of underlying genes is required for the existence of any heritable, physical trait, although exposed to different environments, similar genes can produce divergent prototypes. The genome has many unexpressed genes, pseudogenes, noncoding regions, etc. Genes and even chromosomes can be duplicated, lost, rearranged etc. This means that there is a large arsenal of potential, but unrealized coding genes in any given genome. We all carry the raw genetic materials for evolution to produce many more phenotypes than we see in nature.

 

2) Organs don't just pop into existence from nothing. The initial evolution of say, the kidney was likely not much like an extant mammal's kidney. However, it is a misunderstanding that such a 'proto' kidney would need to be functional in order to become fixed in a population. The process of genetic drift can cause a neutral, and even sometimes deleterious trait to become fixed in a population. So it's not necessary for a mutation to benefit an organism for it to proliferate through a population.

 

3) Many organs appear to be encoded by genes which arose for a different function than the one they are currently selected to perform.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

Can genes be turned on and off in cells?

Each cell expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed, or turned off. The process of turning genes on and off is known as gene regulation. Gene regulation is an important part of normal development. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. Gene regulation also allows cells to react quickly to changes in their environments. Although we know that the regulation of genes is critical for life, this complex process is not yet fully understood.

 

 

it's a little unclear how this fits in. It's rather unequivocal that regulatory genes control the expression of protein coding genes. This isn't a problem for the contemporary theory of evolution and fits very neatly with current biological science.

 

Also it is a misnomer to say we don't understand the regulation of gene expression - we have a good understanding of how the fundamental process works. HOWEVER, understanding all the environmental, developmental and epigenetic parameters which can influence a particular given regulatory network can be exceedingly complicated - scientists can, and sometimes do spend their entire careers trying to understand how a single regulatory pathway works. Scale this up to the whole genome and it's clear there's a lot we don't understand. Another big however is that not understanding all these pathways does not logically lead one to conclude that they are irreducible. For e.g. some regulatory networks are extraordinarily redundant - meaning that while they are extremely complex and difficult to untangle, they are very, very reducible.

[CharonY]

 

For e.g. some regulatory networks are extraordinarily redundant - meaning that while they are extremely complex and difficult to untangle, they are very, very reducible.

 

Not only that. Even regulatory networks that do not appear to be redundant can to some degree self-repair themselves when knocked out. This is due to low-level regulation that can take care of e.g. disrupted metabolic pathways, but only if the environment is not too restrictive. You can (and I have) disrupt large parts of a simple bacterium and it still continues living and proliferating just fine under many conditions.

This, again refers to a point Arete made that the phenotype is dependent on genes with the environment.

[Arete]

Not only that. Even regulatory networks that do not appear to be redundant can to some degree self-repair themselves when knocked out.

 

Absolutely - apologies for the omission. I was trying to keep it simple for the OP. One project I've been sucked into as the informatics geek is looking at expression differences in lab stocks of certain cell lines following numerous serial passages. Turns out that the expression norms aren't so standard after long term adaptation to "identical" lab conditions in different labs, and you may have guessed which cell lines.

 

John316 - you're touching on some really cool (IMHO) biology here. The evolution of gene expression, developmental biology and associated molecular pathways are fascinating. Nature has some pretty cool tricks up her sleeve if you have the patience to try and understand/untangle the mind boggling way she does things.... I really hope you stick around and do some independent research to lead you down some very interesting rabbit holes.

[TheGeckomancer]

There are no systems in the human body that are irreducibly complex. There are no cellular functions we have that are irreducibly complex. Every single thing we are has been observed elsewhere in nature in varying complexities. The problem with ALL irreducible complexity arguments is it assumes your perspective now is your perspective forever. At one time earth wind water and fire were irreducibly complex. Then atoms. Then particles. It's much safer to assume that anything that appears irreducibly complex is actually a lack of knowledge on our part. As that has been the historical trend.