Michael Behe 

The phrase irreducible complexity has reluctantly entered the working vocabulary of evolutionary biologists, though they usually disparage its source (Dr. Michael Behe, leading proponent of intelligent design). The latest evidence is a paper in Science that was titled with an obvious play on words and an attempt to refute Behe’s principle.*  They called it “irremediable complexity.” [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/920.summary].

In the Irremediable Complexity paper published in November 2010, the team of biologists from Canada and the Czech Republic neither referenced Behe’s book nor mentioned his name, but it is clear they wanted to refute his thesis that complex molecular machines require intelligent design. “Many of the cell’s macromolecular machines appear gratuitously complex, comprising more components than their basic functions seem to demand,” they said. “How can we make sense of this complexity in the light of evolution?”

As examples, they produced the spliceosome and ribosome, structures they claim have “Seemingly gratuitous complexity”. From the gratuitous, they invoked the fortuitous, in a somewhat circuitous manner. By chance, they said, two independent bodies might become connected. As additional mutations occur, it becomes more difficult for them to separate than to remain interdependent. That’s the reason for their phrase “irremediable complexity” – there’s no going back.

The result is a kind of “ratchet” mechanism that increases complexity and interdependence, but not necessarily adaptation: “Thus, constructive neutral evolution is a directional force that drives increasing complexity without positive (and in small populations, against mildly negative) selection,” they explained. “Negative selection is involved, but only as the stabilizing force that keeps this directionality from reversing.” (In evolutionary theory, positive selection means increased fitness, whereas negative selection removes deleterious mutations. Stabilizing selection works to keep things running in place with neither progress nor regress.)

How, then, does adaptation occur? The ribosome and spliceosome, after all, are tremendously effective machines despite their complexity, gratuitous or not. The authors seem to say that the function must have been already been present before the complexity accumulated:

Although compensation for defects caused by “selfish” (self-propagating) DNA elements may seem intuitive, it is problematic to propose that, on the way to evolving compensatory machinery, an intermediate state had to exist that was less fit than its ancestors and sisters. Why would such an intermediate not just die out in competition before its rescue by compensatory complexity yet to be invented? A more workable model is that the compensating mechanism was already present (possibly serving unrelated functions).

They were thus trying to solve one problem with evolutionary theory (adaptationism) by introducing another – a kind of “pre-adaptation” inherent in the machinery that turned on when the circumstances needed it. This ratchet model, called “constructive neutral evolution,” they claimed, “provides an explanatory counterpoint to the selectionist or adaptationist views that pervade molecular biology.” To support their model, therefore, they had to take issue with the vast majority of evolutionists who support Neo-Darwinism.

Michael Behe

In the end, though, this was all about refuting Michael Behe’s claim that molecular machines illustrate intelligent design:

Although this model is easiest to illustrate using molecular systems of peripheral importance or limited distribution (such as splicing or RNA editing), there is no reason why it might not contribute to the generation of any cellular complexity (the ribosome; mitochondrial respiratory complexes; light-harvesting antennae in photosynthetic organisms; RNA and DNA polymerases and their initiation, elongation, and termination complexes; protein import, folding, and degradation apparatuses; the cytoskeleton and its motors). Much of the bewildering intricacy of cells could consist of originally fortuitous molecular interactions that have become more or less fixed by constructive neutral evolution. Indeed, although complexity in biology is generally regarded as evidence of “fine tuning” or “sophistication,” large biological conglomerates might be better interpreted as the consequences of runaway bureaucracy—as biological parallels of nonsensically complex Rube Goldberg machines that are over-engineered to perform a single task. [http://www.bc.cas.cz/doc/news/Gray-Science-2010.pdf]

Readers of Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (Free Press, 1996) might recall that on p. 75 he reproduced a Rube Goldberg cartoon as an illustration of irreducible complexity.

The authors of the Irremediable Complexity paper are Michael W. Gray, Julius Lukeš, John M. Archibald, Patrick J. Keeling, W. Ford Doolittle.  The shameless, aimless, lameness game these guys played with words and concepts, invoking the Stuff Happens Law (SHL) as a scientific explanation, refusing to acknowledge the name of Behe, and calling the most marvelous living machines ever discovered (including ATP synthase and the respiratory chain!) a bunch of slapdash accidents, is breathtaking.  This is another example of evolutionist ideologues talking nonsense to themselves in an echo chamber.

Science never gives Behe a chance to respond, or anyone else. They did us all one favor, though – falsifying neo-Darwinism.

Their astounding list of machines they claim could be explained by “constructive neutral evolution” (a.k.a. SHL in a cheap tuxedo) shows also how ungrateful they are. Those machines are keeping them alive. The complex cellular machines are keeping their brains capable of thinking and reasoning. If these researchers thought for a minute about the stupidity of their SHL theory, and the intricate complexity of those machines – the molecular trucks, proofreaders, editors, repair crews, and more – their response ought to be awe and thankfulness.

Michael Behe

The spliceosomes they claim are gratuitously complex are exquisitely functional. Have these biologists never heard of alternative splicing? The splicing machinery generates a multitude of protein products from the same DNA transcription. There are reasons these machines are complex, and the proof of the pudding is the brain that allows these scientists to think (although, like pudding, their thinking is mushy).

 For these researchers to think that the fortuitous (happenstance) produced the gratuitous (unplanned), they are not only reasoning circuitously, they are showing themselves to be muddle-headed ingrates. What they need is fortitude and gratitude. Then they might become circumspect, like they were designed to be.

* Source: http://crev.info/2010/11/evolutionists_try_to_outcomplex_behe/.
This entry was posted in BIOGRAPHY and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Arlin Stoltzfus says:

    I agree that “irremediable complexity” unmistakably echoes “irreducible complexity”, but in fact, the original proposal of CNE wasn’t a response to Behe. I know this because I wrote it (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10441669, or get a PDF at http://bioinformatics.bio.uu.nl/BINF/pdf/Stoltzfus.jme99.pdf).

    The more recent paper by Gray, et al. was a “think piece”, trying to stir interest and imagination, not a rigorous experimental or theoretical proof. If you want proof that a CNE model is theoretically rigorous in the sense that we can get CNE behavior from a computer program, or a set of equations, see the gene duplication model in the original CNE paper (which includes evolutionary simulations). This is merely a demonstration that the gene duplication model is theoretically possible.

    The CNE gene duplication model was proposed independently by Allan Force, Michael Lynch and colleagues in 1999, and they took the idea much further than I ever did, in terms of working out a mathematical formalism and applying it to understanding gene family evolution. Their “DDC” (duplication-degeneration-complementation) model for neutral sub-functionalization seems to have sparked a mini-renaissance in research on gene duplication. Their work has been cited over 2000 times in the scientific literature.

    The 1999 CNE paper also cites many observations of molecular biology that suggest the plausibility of hypothesized steps, e.g., the model for spliceosome evolution proposes splitting an originally intact intron into a handful of small spliceosomal RNAs, and the paper cites an actual case in which an intron has been split.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s