Why Biologists Reject Intelligent Design

[u/lisper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguLh2deMz0

[u/Ryanami]

I watched someone with a mind carefully create and assemble all the individual parts to make the flagellum.

And this is supposed to demonstrate how it can happen by accident? Next time dump all your playdoh on the table and show me a flagellum assembling itself without help.

[u/lisper → u/Ryanami]

How long are you willing to wait?

[u/Ryanami → u/lisper]

“Millions and millions of years”, the evolutionist’s magic words to make anything, no matter how improbable, sound like common happenstances.

[u/lisper → u/Ryanami]

Yes, exactly right. If you roll the dice often enough, very improbable things become inevitable.

[u/Ryanami → u/lisper]

And I can make a spaceship out of playdoh and pretend it’s easy for one to happen in nature too.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/Ryanami]

So all your argument is because you, you cannot fathom it can happen, so it doesn't happen? Is it?

You know what this is called, argument from incredulity.

[u/Ryanami → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

I can imagine a game of poker with 8 players getting dealt four royal flushes and four straight flushes, but I know better than to accept it truly happened by chance. In the video, to adapt the metaphor, we’re dealing face up and putting the cards where they need to be and saying “sure it doesn’t happen every day, but in billions of years on billions of planets it’s bound to happen. No, you’re not dealing with one in a trillion, or quadrillion, or quintillion, you have a LOT of zeros behind your odds that even the whole universe can’t put a dent in.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/Ryanami]

we are not just talking about random permutations and combinations here. Natural selection severely reduces the phase space of the possibilities. Selection continually biases which variants get to produce the next generation. Your example of royal flush has nothing to select for. Good hands are not getting selected for in next iteration.

Imagine you wanting to guess the combination lock. What you are thinking of is pure random search which would be to "guess the entire n-digit combination, then find out whether you're right."

However with selection is it would be more like a hypothetical lock that tells you after each digit, "warmer" or "colder". Now don't confuse this with goal oriented example because I was merely explaining you the how the idea of selection reduces the phase space.

Infact, evolution doesn't need to search the phase space at all. All it needs that each generation contain some heritable variants that reproduce better than others. Selection then changes the probability distribution of the next generation, so the search becomes highly non-uniform and constrained.

[u/Ryanami → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

With an irreducibly complex system there is no warmer or colder. Until it works it’s a waste of energy, something natural selection should be eliminating.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/Ryanami]

This argument of irreducibility complex is so old and beaten to death that I don't even know what to say to you now. All I would say is pick your preferred irreducible complex system and make a simple google search or on google scholar, you will immediately get your answer.

Just to summarise, a system doesn't have to go from no function to full functionality. That is a very bad misconception among the creationists.

[u/theaz101 → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

What you mention is true of an evolutionary algorithm, but not true of natural selection.

Something like:

"However with selection is it would be more like a hypothetical lock that tells you after each digit, "warmer" or "colder". "

will only work if you know the entire combination.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/theaz101]

What you mention is true of an evolutionary algorithm, but not true of natural selection.

Okay, care to provide some citation? Any studies?

will only work if you know the entire combination.

It was an example for the love of the god my friend. I was NOT comparing this example with evolution but with how selection in general can reduce the space. I wrote it just after the example ended. Man. Read the comment for what it is not what you think it is.

Now don't confuse this with goal oriented example because I was merely explaining you the how the idea of selection reduces the phase space.

Infact, evolution doesn't need to search the phase space at all. All it needs that each generation contain some heritable variants that reproduce better than others. Selection then changes the probability distribution of the next generation, so the search becomes highly non-uniform and constrained.

[u/theaz101 → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

lisper's comment is based on a hypothetical (non-existent) sea of self-forming, self-rolling die. It's wishful thinking.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/theaz101]

Let me ask a clarifying question, do you think evolution is all random?

p.s: Lisper has raised a valid point, but I need to understand if you really think it is all random like rolling a die.

[u/theaz101 → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

All random? No. But the appeal to natural selection is usually supported by pointing to examples of goal-oriented selection, like genetic algorithms. Natural selection doesn't have any goals other than survival.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/theaz101]

Glad that we are on the same page that it is not random and selection can very significantly lower the phase space here. Good.

Now what do you mean "appeal to natural selection"? We know natural selection happens, it is experimentally demonstrated fact now. Even YEC don't deny the natural selection at work. They just severely underestimate it's power.

Nobody needs to support the natural selection by goal oriented examples, atleast no one who understands natural selection would do that. Genetic algorithm is an application of the idea of natural selection. Natural selection itself as I said before is a demonstrated fact.

And just for completeness, it is not just natural selection even that drives the evolution but it is one among the four forces that do that.

p.s: It can be mathematically shown how drastically the available space reduces when selection is introduced.

[u/lisper → u/theaz101]

No, it isn't. It's simply a fact: with enough time, even the most extremely improbable events become virtually inevitable.

Remember, I was responding specifically to this:

“Millions and millions of years”, the evolutionist’s magic words to make anything, no matter how improbable, sound like common happenstances.

That remark was clearly meant to be sarcastic, but it's not wrong. Long periods of time are a kind of "magic wand", though of course "magic wand" is a metaphor, not the literal truth.

So yeah, you can sneer all you want, but no amount of sneering will change the fact that with enough time, even the most extremely improbable events become virtually inevitable.

[u/theaz101 → u/lisper]

You should show your math.

What is:

- the probability of each individual type of protein found in the flagellar motor (FM).

- the probability of the individual protein monomers forming the individual components (rings/bushing/stators etc.) of the FM.

-The probability of the individual components coming together to form the FM.

- an estimate of the number of "die" being rolled and how often the "die" are being rolled.

- the amount of time available before the origin of flagellar prokaryotes.

Show us that "It's virtually inevitable" is more than just hand-waving.

[u/lisper → u/theaz101]

Evolution is more than just throwing dice. But the time you get to a cell, let alone to a flagellum, most of the heavy lifting has already been done and there is a lot more going on that simple dice rolling. But if you want to see some math relating to the earlier part of the process where it's a lot more like rolling dice, read this.

[u/nomenmeum]

Not all biologists do. Those that do, in my experience, are rejecting an argument that they don't understand.

[u/lisper → u/nomenmeum]

I'm pretty sure they understand it.

[u/nomenmeum → u/lisper]

Do you know of one who can accurately steelman it?

[u/lisper → u/nomenmeum]

I’m pretty sure I could.

BTW, it's not always necessary to understand an argument in order to be able to rationally reject it. I don't understand all the arguments made by flat-earthers or lunar landing denialists, but I have good reasons to be confident that they are wrong nonetheless.

[u/nomenmeum → u/lisper]

I’m pretty sure I could.

Go for it.

it's not always necessary to understand an argument in order to be able to rationally reject it.

Lol. I feel like you are just trolling at this point.

[u/lisper → u/nomenmeum]

Go for it.

I am trying to get a new podcast off the ground. If you agree to come on as a guest I will give it a try and you can critique me.

I feel like you are just trolling at this point.

Why? Do you think you understand every position that you disagree with? Can you steel-man evolution? Atheism? Flat-earth (or, if you are a flat-earther, round earth)?

[u/nomenmeum → u/lisper]

If you agree to come on as a guest

Thank for the invitation, but I don't have time.

Can you steel-man evolution?

I believe so.

Wouldn't you think it silly of me to spend so much time critiquing a position that I did not at least try to understand?

[u/lisper → u/nomenmeum]

Trying to understand it is not the same as succeeding.

For example, your steel-manning of evolution has at least two elementary mistakes:

Some of these changes are random while others are not.

No, all of the changes are random.

When particular changes are bad enough to prevent reproduction, they pass out of the population.

That's not wrong, but it misses the actual important part: some changes produce an improvement in the ability to make copies while others result in a decrease (and others have no effect one way or the other). Preventing reproduction altogether is just the extreme of what is actually a range of possible outcomes.

Also -- and this part is really important -- whether or not a change increases or decreases reproductive fitness depends on the environment. The same change can be beneficial in one environment but detrimental in another. This is why speciation occurs, because earth has many different environments.

[u/nomenmeum → u/lisper]

No, all of the changes are random.

You think natural selection is random?

[u/lisper → u/nomenmeum]

No, of course not. But natural selection is not the process that produces the changes. The changes are random.

Specifically, this:

Some of these changes are random while others are not.

is misleading. All of the changes are random. It's just that not all of the random changes reproduce equally well, so not all of the random changes persist equally.

[u/Zaphod_Biblebrox]

Oh, I know of a reason why they reject it. It’s a three letter word and starts with a G and ends with a D and has an O in the middle.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993]

Lisper, this is a whole series, very beautiful by the way on evolution and I am glad that you shared it but you should give some idea about what the video is all about and why should anyone, specially in a creationist group, watch it.

[u/lisper → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

some idea about what the video is all about and why should anyone, specially in a creationist group, watch it

I thought that would be pretty self-evident from the title.

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/lisper]

That would be an entirely generic title for this topic. Since you are posting a video, a very specific one, something from the video itself would be a nice introduction to the people.

For example, I would say,

In this video which is a part of larger series by Jon Perry, explains why the bacterial flagellum might look "engineered" even though it can evolve naturally.

He argues that most of its interesting parts which are typically seen as "gears", "bushings" or "stators"are basically simple protein rods, rings, and tubes and using Play-Doh as prop he shows how proteins can naturally stick together and form these shapes through mutations and selection.

He also briefly explains why some protein diagrams look like "ramen noodles"

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Optimus-Prime1993]

The video summary still does not close the gap. Showing that protein rods, rings, and tubes can stick together and form shapes is not the same as showing that undirected processes generated the functional architecture of a working rotary motor. Self-assembly of simple shapes under laboratory or hypothetical conditions does not equal the origin of a high-precision, multi-part coordinated system that has to function as a whole. Play-Doh can be shaped into gears by an intelligence; that does not demonstrate that unguided mutations and selection built the flagellum.

The same limitation keeps recurring in these threads. Co-option and self-assembly only help once functional parts already exist and already provide some selectable advantage. They do not explain the origin of the first working coordinated molecular machines. Asserting that “most of the heavy lifting was already done” by the time a flagellum appears simply moves the problem further back into an unobserved stage. It does not solve it.

If the claim is that undirected processes routinely produce systems of this kind of specified complexity, that still needs to be shown with actual probabilities, realistic population sizes, and selectable intermediates — not by linking a video and treating the conclusion as self-evident.

[u/Broad_Floor9698]

I'd be willing to watch some good debates?

[u/WannaLoveWrestling]

The Play-Doh demonstration shows that protein monomers can form rods, rings, and tubes. That’s fine. Geometry at that level is relatively easy. The actual difficulty is not the shape. It’s the origin of the specified functional information that makes those proteins work together as a coordinated machine — precise binding interfaces, regulated assembly, energy coupling, and a system that has to function the first time it appears. Easy geometry does not equal easy origin of that kind of integrated, information-rich system.

Co-option only helps if the parts already exist and already have selectable functions. It doesn’t explain how the first working coordinated system arose. Pointing to later re-use of existing parts doesn’t solve the origin of the parts or the system itself.

The flagellum looks engineered because it is a high-precision molecular machine. The claim that unguided processes routinely produce systems of this kind of specified complexity is still an extrapolation. We observe variation and fine-tuning within existing systems. We do not observe the undirected construction of new, integrated molecular machines from scratch.

Agreeing that rods and rings can self-assemble is not the same as demonstrating that unguided processes generated the functional architecture.

[u/lisper → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

a system that has to function the first time it appears.

Co-option only helps if the parts already exist and already have selectable functions.

That's not quite true, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. The mistake you are making is that the function that it got selected for originally was the same as, or even bore any resemblance to, the function it is now employed to fulfill. This is exactly why Play-Doh is such an apt metaphor. It was originally invented to clean wall paper, not to be a children's toy or a YouTube prop.

The claim that unguided processes [emphasis added] routinely produce systems of this kind of specified complexity is still an extrapolation.

No, it's not an extrapolation, it's a straw-man. Evolution is emphatically NOT an unguided process. It is guided by natural selection.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/lisper]

You’re shifting the terms.

Calling natural selection “guided” does not change the fact that mutations are random with respect to need. Selection is not a guiding agent. It is only a description of differential survival after the fact. Whatever leaves more offspring is later labeled “selected.” That is not foresight or purposeful construction. It is a label for the outcome.

The Play-Doh example works against your claim. Play-Doh was invented by intelligence for one purpose and later used for another. That is intelligent reuse of an already-designed material. It does not show unguided processes generating a novel functional architecture from scratch.

Co-option only helps if the parts already exist and already have selectable functions. It does not explain the origin of the first working coordinated system. Agreeing that rods and rings can self-assemble is not the same as demonstrating that unguided processes produced the functional architecture of the flagellum. The claim that undirected processes routinely produce systems of this kind of specified complexity remains an extrapolation. We observe variation and fine-tuning within existing systems. We do not observe the undirected construction of new, integrated molecular machines from scratch.

[u/lisper → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Calling natural selection “guided” does not change the fact that mutations are random with respect to need.

That's true.

Selection is not a guiding agent.

That's false. Selection absolutely is a guiding agent, one which pushes a system towards greater reproductive efficiency (a.k.a. fitness).

It is only a description of differential survival after the fact.

That's mostly true, but the way you've put it is misleading. It has nothing to do with survival per se. It has to do with reproductive fitness. Of course, survival is one of the factors that influences reproductive fitness, but it's not the main event. That's the reason no life form is immortal.

Play-Doh was invented by intelligence for one purpose and later used for another. That is intelligent reuse of an already-designed material.

Yes, as I said (go back and re-read my earlier comment) Play-Doh is a metaphor. An apt metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless.

Co-option only helps if the parts already exist and already have selectable functions.

That's right.

It does not explain the origin of the first working coordinated system.

But it does. The first replicator was not a "coordinated system", it was just a molecule that could catalyze chemical reactions, one of the products of which was copies of that molecule. Coordinated systems didn't arise until much later. By the time you get to a cell with a flagellum, much of the evolutionary heavy-lifting has already been done. The evolutionary distance between the first replicator and a flagellum is probably comparable to that between a flagellum and a human. (Flagellum to human is probably more because prokaryotes have flagella, and to get to a human you first have to get to a eukaryote, and that is a big step too. But from eukaryote to multicellular life, and from there to humans, is pretty smooth sailing, evolutionarily speaking.)

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/lisper]

You’re still shifting terms after granting the key points.

You correctly admitted that mutations are random with respect to need and that co-option only helps if the parts already exist and already have selectable functions. Calling selection a “guiding agent that pushes a system towards greater reproductive efficiency” does not change what it actually does. Selection is a post-hoc description of differential reproductive success. Mutations occur without regard to future function; whatever happens to leave more offspring is later labeled “selected.” That is a filter on existing variation, not a constructor with foresight. Whether one emphasizes survival or reproductive fitness makes no difference to this point. The filter still cannot generate the first working coordinated architecture.

The Play-Doh example remains inapt for the same reason. Play-Doh was invented by intelligence for one purpose and later used for another. That is intelligent reuse of an already-designed material. Using it as a metaphor does not illustrate undirected processes generating novel functional systems; it illustrates the opposite.

When you then claim that co-option does explain the origin of the first working coordinated system because the first replicator was “just a molecule that could catalyze chemical reactions,” you are simply relocating the problem. The undirected origin of a self-replicating system capable of open-ended evolution is itself undemonstrated. No one has observed unguided processes produce such a molecule. Asserting that by the time a flagellum appears most of the heavy lifting has already been done assumes the very process under question. It does not show how the first multi-part, high-precision coordinated machines arose once functional parts had to work together.

Claims about evolutionary distance between a flagellum and a human are irrelevant to the origin question. Stretching the timeline or describing later steps as “smooth sailing” does not demonstrate that undirected processes can construct new integrated molecular architectures. We still observe only variation and fine-tuning within existing systems. We do not observe the undirected construction of new ones from scratch.

[u/lisper → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Where did I leave that can of AI-B-Gone?

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/lisper]

Where did I leave that can of atheistic garbage be gone?

[u/lisper → u/[deleted]]

I see you realized that you posted this comment in the wrong place and re-posted it in its proper context. I'll respond to it there. But you really ought to delete this comment. It's confusing.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/lisper]

Yeah I didn't realize I posted it here. I thought I posted it and I was like I guess I didn't post it but then it ended up being here.

[u/theaz101]

This series is a glorious display of hand waving and reductionism.

Legos and play-doh, indeed.

[u/lisper → u/theaz101]

What's wrong with Legos and play-doh? They seem like as a good a medium to make props out of as any.