Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Irreducible Complexity mean Evolution Cannot Work?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 1 of 5 (614698)
05-06-2011 5:59 AM


In Darwin's Black Box, Behe defines an IC system as:
"composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
And concludes that such systems preclude the possibility of evolution of complex structures.
If I look at an engineering example I don't see how the above holds:
A) Modern automobile engines are controlled exclusively by an engine management system, which controls the injection of fuel into the combustion chambers (cylinders) within the engine. If i remove the injectors, the engine management system (or even a small number of components from it) there is nothing that will make that engine run.
Interpretation: A) represents an IC system.
However, early automotive engines did NOT rely on any electronics or injectors. Fuel was pumped into the cylinders and the amount of air could be modified via the carburetter.
Along came electronic timing control ... which could be added and removed without removing engine function.
This was developed, over time, into an integral component.
Would ID simply say: 'Ah, but this change needed a designer!' ?
OR does the situation show that IC does not preclude step-wise change within a system leading to systems with such high integration of components that removal of one means it can no longer function?
I can talk about mouse-traps if you like.
Edited by Peter, : No reason given.
Edited by Peter, : Typos changed.
Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling in title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-06-2011 7:21 AM Peter has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 5 (614712)
05-06-2011 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
05-06-2011 5:59 AM


I think the automobile engine example has to be refined to be more easily understandable. For example, be clear about what the electronic timing control is controlling when there's a carburetor, and describe how its function extends later to fuel flow.
For a long time cars had carburetors *and* distributors, if that helps.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 05-06-2011 5:59 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 05-09-2011 10:06 AM Admin has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 5 (614940)
05-09-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-06-2011 7:21 AM


Automotive Engine Control.
OK ... Not sure that this helps but, how about:
1) Early Petrol(Gasoline) Based Automotive Combustion Engines.
(Simplifying somewhat) Early petrol/Gasoline engines used a throttle cable to open an aperture into the carburettor to adjust the amount of air flowing into the cylinders. The fuel was pumped into the chamber, and for engine function a spark is required during the compression stroke. The timing of the spark for each cyclinder was accomplished by a rotating 'switch' which directed high-voltage to the spark plugs (the ditributor). The rotation was accomlished by mechanical means (rotating via a belt attached to the cam-shaft).
2) Electronic Ignition
The distributor approach meant that mechanical wear over life could cause the spark timing to drift away from the optimum point during compression, and result in mis-firing engines, and poor fuel efficiency.
The mechanical distributor could be replaced by an electoronic module which controlled the spark timing.
When I was a youngster, once could buy electronic ignition modules and fit them to replace the mechnical mechansims.
3) Today
In modern automobiles the sparking and fuelling is controlled using integral electronic control units. These use sensors in the air intake, and on the cam-shaft to determine the optimum fuelling and spark timing for engine control which leads to higher fuel efficiency.
1), 2) and 3) all meet the criteria of IC ... but they are iterative improvements of the same basic design.
Since we can have systems where parts are gradually added, and others removed leading to 'improved' systems which are themselves IC ... does that not suggest that extant IC in the biological world is NOT a barrier to evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-06-2011 7:21 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-10-2011 8:59 AM Peter has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 5 (615089)
05-10-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
05-09-2011 10:06 AM


Re: Automotive Engine Control.
I wasn't sure how your analogy represented IC but it looked promising and I thought more detail might make it clear, but the additional detail still doesn't help.
In the earlier internal combustion engines the removal of the carburetor or distributor would have rendered the engine inoperable. The later refinements of fuel injection and electronic spark distribution have the same quality - remove them and the engine becomes inoperable. The combination of spark distribution and fuel injection into a single module that if removed makes the engine inoperable is just more of the same. The IC was there from beginning (in the sense that creationists intend it, not in any real way), and I don't see any step-wise change from which IC emerges from non-IC.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 05-09-2011 10:06 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 05-10-2011 9:21 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 5 of 5 (615092)
05-10-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
05-10-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Automotive Engine Control.
Yes.
I was trying to get across that the development of auto-engine control is iterative improvement, but that at each stage the engine control itself fits the definition of IC.
I see now that the main problem with that analogy is the 're-design' in-between i.e. the steps in THIS iteractive development are too acute.
I'll have to look at an older technology where the changes came about by trial-and-error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-10-2011 8:59 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024