Irreducible Functionality

back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Irreducible optimized functionality
To achieve the function or purpose of catching mice needs five parts. There can't be less than five parts or the optimum functionality won't be achieved. This is if a factory owner wants to mass produce mouse traps. For his own experimental versions he could remove the base and staple the trap to the ground, but now it can't be mass produced and sold. Think of the intent a designer at the factory would have.

Removing two parts as Kenneth Miller does achieves the fuctionality of a powerful paper clip: it no longer can catch mouse automatically. Miller is equivocating between different types of functionalities with the word "complexity" to obfuscate Behe's overarching thrust.

A better term for Behe's (Irreducbile Complexity)IC is Irreducible optimized functionality. The purpose of the mouse trap is to catch mouse unattended which as far as mouse trap engineers can determine needs a minimum of five parts.

More importantly, it uses key functional parts(KFP) which in a specific combination achieves and optimized result. 'Key functional parts are individual mechanical entities like springs, coils, gears, stators, rotors, encasings, bases etc. Washing machines, watches and mousetraps all have a base for example. Thus it isn't the number of parts per se but the optimum combination of KFP to achieve a functional outcome, that we must evaluate.

With the TypeIII and flagellum the same overlapping of individual functional parts appear; to create different functional machines. In optimizing for the function of time keeping(watches), laundry(washing machines), mouse traps and flying we note that different machines use many of the same KFP, like English uses 26 letters of the alphabet. Both a washing machine, catapult(Kenneth Miller) and mouse trap use a spring to achieve different functionalities.

In English e is the most common letter, likewise we would find a wheel to be the most common shape out of the lexicon of identifiable KFP.

Removing the mouse base and stapling it to the floor doesn't remove the purpose of the original base but replaces one type of base for another and it removes the mobility of the mouse trap thus reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality.

With the mouse trap is that three interdependent events need to take place in order to catch mouse. These are potential energy to kinetic energy at the right point and time.

The debate surrounding this issue circled around the actual parts, confusing functionality with an object. It is possible to remove actual parts in a mouse trap, but not possible to remove the these three interdependent functions that the parts fulfilled automatically. The parts automated or replaced human physical intervention in the quest to catch a mouse.

Each object only symbolically represents the one of these three functions. Three actions must take place simultaneously] whether by parts that automate the function or manually by a human. Removing key parts didn't remove the functional requirement.

When the mouse comes into the kill-zone by taking the cheese, the human manually releases the spring. To automate this a catch/bar is used. When the argument is made that we could reduce the parts, it isn't realized that the catch/bar can be removed by replacing their combined function with a human manually holding the hammer. In order to automate this function, the two parts of catch and bar is needed. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html for diagram. By reducing parts, it's meant that the function, as performed by the parts are now replaced with manual human intervention. In order though to have an automated mouse catcher we must have five individual parts. The catch/bar combination is actually one functional entity to replace the manual human action.

To make a human held manual mouse catcher, we would have four objects.
 * The human glues the loaded spring to the floor - (spring, hammer and platform 1,2,3)
 * He holds the hammer away from the strike zone with his right hand. (catch-bar 4). In a mouse trap the catch,bar combination will replace the right hand, visual mouse identification, target zone function. The mouse visual cue will trigger the right hand to release the bar. In the mouse trap the weight of the mouse acting on the catch, will remove the bar enabling the spring to release energy.

Thus a human can only enact a mouse trap using some sort of base, spring, hammer and right hand(four objects), all operating at the same time. If any of these four elements are missing the purpose of killing the mouse at the exact time and specific place won't be achieved. For an automated solution, five parts are needed. The fourth part(right hand) is replaced by two parts(catch-bar) combination. If we added the human will, intention to the description then it could be argued the human employed five parts. His visual system told him when to release the bar. The catch 'instructs'(metaphor) the bar when to release the hammer.

The mouse trap converts potential energy to kinetic energy at the right time and contact point. Thus there are three interdependent functions:
 * Conversion of potential to kinetic energy - spring.
 * Energy directed at strike zone - platform/hammer.
 * Timing of this energy release - catch/bar.

The spring(1), platform-hammer(2), catch-bar(3) symbolically represent these three interdependent and timed functions. We could replace the catch-bar with a camera(a),relay(b), image processing software(c) and computer(d) for example. Then these four elements would symbolically represent the function of timing the potential to kinetic energy conversion.

All three of these functions must take place at the same time using any combination of parts(five in Behe's mouse trap example, more if we include the staples tying the spring to the base.

Behe stated that removing any of the five parts renders the mouse trap inoperable. Lets rephrase this: The purpose of directing kinetic energy unto the mouse(1) at the correct time(3) and strike point(2) can't be achieved if any parts which individually or combined symbolically represents one,two or three, are removed.

In the arguments of reducing the number of parts from five to four, it overlooked that the human mind replaces the function of the catch.(NOTE: Thus I will probably have to rewrite this whole section)

With the flagellum the purpose is to achieve Irreducbile Optimized Functionality(IOF), the number of parts will be a side-effect of this functionality.

Lets presume a designer at a factory produces mini-robots to swim through a higher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity fluid like blood(water has lower viscosity). We could speculate as to what type of design statement the designer could wish to make. He also produces a toxin injector.(Pending: this section will be fleshed out later). The part count is a side-effect of the desired function.

The type III secretory mechanism which injects toxins needs x parts to achieve a different IOF. purpose. They both use some of the same shapes, they both have a certain number or parts as a side-effect to achieve their optimized functions. Some IC systems could still function with less parts but like the mouse trap stapled to the ground at the cost of reduced functionality. Thus it isn't the number of parts per se but the integrated functionality for a purpose using specified mechanical shapes. Like the print function in Cobol, Basic, Python and other programming languages, the spring from a mousetrap will be used across multiple designs, from watches to washing machines. The Type III and flagellum as mechanical,carbon devices will use some of the same overlapping shapes just like all programming language use print as some sort of universal access method.

With flagellum if less than 40 parts are used, a Calvin and Hobb's creation is made, more a Rube Goldberg contraption. Both the toxin and flagellum use a round shape reducing friction the most. A watch, turbine, car etc. use round shapes because it achives optimized fuctionality.

Re-using 'lower' parts to construct a more complex flagellum machine is a mark of engineering insight. Due to the fact that the Designer didn't try to make a IFRG statement(we don't have to view the flagellum every morning) he optimized the functionality to such an extent that by adding a few parts to the Type III a more complex machine was built.

If we could go from a washing machine to a swimming pool cleaner by adding a few more parts or removing KFP, it would indicate better design and engineering insight if acceptable functionality results. In the same way the TypeIII is re-used in the flagellum, or it could be in reverse: a KFP was re-used in the TypeIII secretory mechanism. We must not assume that if the part count is lower that the functionality is reduced. We could have a highly complex machine, that isn't functional in terms of weight,dimension and cost.

Miller states that because the same parts are found in both the flagellum and TypeIII that therefore the flagellum evolved?(Naming Conventions) from the TypeIII: how does he know it wasn't the reverse. Which dead Common Ancestor monkey bone did he use to reason in a circle?

Aesthetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics. Human designers making watches don't always strive for the most optimized solution with minimal parts but a combination of Rube Goldberg(RG) and optimality(more parts than needed). Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed:
 * 1) There will exist biological machines that are purely IOF(irreducibly optimized functional).
 * 2) There will exist biological machines that combine IF(irreducible functionality) with Rube Goldberg geniality to make a statement of aesthetics: Irreducible functionality Rube Goldberg.
 * 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, as we go smaller it will become more IOF until we reach the smallest micro machines such as as bacterial flagellum which will be fully IOF and not IFRG.

In poetry and essays we use combination of words to communicate ideas. The KJV says that the Lord Jesus '.. took captivity captive ..' meaning that Christ by dying on the cross, took Satan which held us in bondage, captive himself. With this poetic sentence we remember and appreciate what Christ did better than a whole page full of sentences. Thus it isn't always the length or combination of KFP that achieves better functionality. In many cases using less mechanical parts or words achieves a better function.

Darwin in one of his passages on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tit speculated that larger feet would have been a better design for the bird. He insinuated that if it was made by God ,that he didn't know what he was doing. Instead we should view every single biological design as oscillating between IOF and IFRG. The titmouse is optimzed for both its functions of grasping twigs and flying: feet that are to large will induce excessive wind drag, feet that are to small won't grasp twigs. Viewed from an IFRG, IOF or IF perspective the feet are just perfect, made by a perfect Designer(Jesus Christ).

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird-of-paradise could probably be made more IOF at the expense of its astetics. With the bacterial flagellum we probably have IOF and none IFRG, in its environment it has to optimize every single appendage for its function. But with the fowls, the Lord Jesus made a different statement. Bacterial flagellums expresses its optimum function by not having as an aesthetic appearance as a titmouse has. We humans as aesthetic beings want our fowls to be both functional and pleasing to the eye.

The primary consideration with the B-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_bomber was low radar signature and not aesthetics(IOF). With the non-stealth bombers the designers were more at liberty to work from an IFRG perspective. Stealth bombers aren't adapted to their condition of existence but are described by their attributes. No biological micro or macro machine is adapted to its condition of existence. It expresses only an attribution formulation.

Specified complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity ....Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers" ....

Rephrase in terms of what Darwin meant:

....Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection,preservation,survival is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers" ....

Notes1
Is selection used in the pattern or design sense?

Confusion with NS
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/carl-zimmer-on-irreducible-complexity/#comment-301112

An IC machine cannot, by definition, be the result of a Direct Darwinian pathway. Direct means that the steps are selected for the improvement of the same function we find in the final machine. IC makes a direct Darwinian pathway impossible.

So, only two possibilities are left: either sudden appearance of the complete machine (practically impossible for statistical considerations), or step by step selection for different functions, and with the target function COMPLETELY INACTIVE for natural selection. This is a point that Darwinists tend to bypass. The components specific to the functionality of a bicycle will be quite useless to the functionality of the unicycle until the IC core is assembled.

In order to have positive selection the changes being made to a unicycle not only have to pull together a functional bicycle but they can’t have a negative effect that is worse than the positive of having the fully functional IC core set of bicycle components. It could be argued that some changes to a unicycle could be considered neutral mutations in that a skillful unicyclist could still ride the unwieldy contraption. The addition of the frame and handlebars “might” be helpful for balance, although that’s a question for a unicyclist since the addition of extra unbalanced weight would likely outweigh any limited benefit (I suppose you could argue for a scaffolding-type mutation that acts as a counter-weight). And there will be instances of co-opted components like ball-bearings, screws, etc. But that still leaves all the problems listed in comments #3 and #13 (never mind the ones I did not bother elaborating on) which cause negative selection.

Links
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=747 Do cars run on lugnuts

http://www.jstor.org/pss/188646 Redundant complexity

Dutch
http://www.wetenschapsforum.nl/index.php?showtopic=81509&st=555

Het begrip IC komt voort uit de manier waarop wij een systeem ontwerpen: De onderdelen als geheel verkrijgen door de manier waarop ze samenwerken functionaliteit die de onderdelen afzonderlijk niet hebben. Het geheel is meer dan de som der delen. Als we dan willekeurig een deel wegnemen of veranderen verliest het geheel vrijwel altijd een deel of de gehele functionaliteit. De functionaliteit is dan niet reduceerbaar. Persoonlijk vind ik 'complexity' in deze context veel te ambigu, Behe had beter irreducible functionality kunnen gebruiken.

Baseclass
We are derived from a given OOP Baseclass interface. Much of the complexity is hidden or we wouldn't be able to function at all. Like OOP it allows you to excute say bloodClotting.print.diagnose. The Baseclass is Language, Truth and Life itself, a trinity of Logos. What the fire/water, yin/yang mythology is forcing University students to do, is add .evolution at the end of every baseclass instance so we have: Baseclass.bloodClotting.....evolve.

Their diagnoses will still work, the added layer of meaningless 'evolve' will still allow a well reasoned cause/effect description. But it will be a Calvin and Hobbs narrative, not an IOF(Irreducible Functionality) type elucidation, because of the Baseclass's ability to deal with akward method calls. See Philipskell.

Most scientologist can still somehow function even though they are mentally ill. So can evolutionists, even though their descpriptions are saturated in grammatically correct but meaningless sentences. Every creature in whom is the breath of Life, as the KJV puts it, is an instantiation of the Baseclass.

The Baseclass have allowed mentally ill people to still function. For it is written "....the Lord sends his rain on both good and evil people..." Evolutionists are tacking on .evolve as some sort of universal method instantiation to everything, thinking they have now explained the abstract,unseen partial differential equations in the Baseclass.

The complexity if the Baseclass is hidden or we would be overwhelmed, had we to derive every single perscription for bloodclotting from first principles. We are given thus an OOP interface by the Designer who is the Baseclass, without having to mentally calculate the vortex flow of blood so the veins don't burst.

Evolutionists want to start at what they physically see: .bloodclotting.print (diagnose).....

We need to start at the math Language of for example IPC(inverted pendulum control) that humans and chickens independantly of one another implement: Baseclass.Genes.IPC(legs) Which will involve the transition matrices, algorithisms etc in the Baseclass to which we have no access. Paul wrote that now we only know in part but when we see Jesus face to face we will know in full. The Designer who is the Baseclass incarnate haven't given us full access to his knowledge,like a human OOP programmar doesn't always allow full access to all his functions in the baseclass. Only the Holy Spirit has full access for it is written "... he searches even the depths of God...."

Programers in OOP are given a Blackbox(baseclass), which they access without having to understand as to how or what exactly the designer did because it is an unneeded layer of complexity that will make it difficult to achive a function if the programmer had to comprehend it as in procedural programming.

Genes represent computer like binary code. Physical computers use binary codes. Jesus Crhist the designer have given us a BLACKBOX and told us that there will be things we can't yet access. Which is consistent with Godel's theoremPerry Marshall and Tarski's semantic theorem of truth. Like for example we won't be able to get the following answer in terms of a materialistic paradigm: blackbox.GENES.materialism.print(Life,truth) = ????? Tarski semantic theorem of truth gave us the following

blackbox.GENES.Tarski.print(Truth,empirical reality) = ANSWER UNDEFINED.

blackbox.GENES.bloodclotting.

your thread on automated selection on usenet(at a later date as time allows) Genes isn't the full answer, but only an OOP style interface to the blackbox. They are a method interface to the blackbox(Baseclass). Genes 'inherits' the methods from the baseclass and then finally we have bloodclotting,birds,frogs etc. The control algorithim(no physical location) is accessed via GENES but isn't the full story. GENES represent information at a dense incomprehensible level, above genes is pure information that has no physical location. Below Genes are the actual bones,muscle,blood clotting. Genes as molecules represent information, they don't constitute information itself. The algorithm comes from the black box OOP which the Lord Jesus haven't given us access to.
 * Will Place in section about eagles transmitting information to other eagles as per 

Before time,space and genes as molecules was information. With evolutionary gene sequence comparisons to deduce that animals had a common ancestor we are thus making gross assumptions, assumptions for which we have not evidence, thus reasoning in a circle. The gene sequence similarities should rather be seen like 'Print' functions in very nearly all OOP baseclasses: As a universal method used in order to achieve a function or purpose. In math, d/dx functions as a universal operator. We only know in part. Without the math in the blackbox the language instructions won't result in bloodcloting. Without the base class no OOp derivation will result in a function that works, no bloodclotting, no rocks, nor birds - nothing.