Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evolution
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
© June 2002
In chapter four of his controversial book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe
presents the argument that Rube Goldberg machines exist in living things and that such
machines are "irreducibly complex." Behe presents the argument that the existence of
such machines cannot be explained by mindless naturalistic mechanisms and are thus
examples of deliberate design. After all, anyone who has watched cartoons as a child
knows what a Rube Goldberg machine is and that this machine will not work if any one
part is removed. So, how can something evolve in a stepwise way where each step is
functionally beneficial if there is no function until all the parts are in place? As an
example, consider the following scenario where Behe describes a popular cartoon
hurtling into the air. On its upward journey the sandpaper would strike a match
sticking out of the cliff, which lit the fuse to a cannon. The cannon would fire; on
its downward track the cannonball would hit the rim of a funnel (the only
allowance for error in the whole scenario), roll around the edge a few times, and
fall through. As it came out of the funnel, the cannonball would hit against a
lever that started a circular saw. The saw would cut through a rope, which was
holding up a telephone pole. Slowly the telephone pole would begin to fall, and
too late Foghorn Leghorn would realize that the fascinating show was at his
expense. As he turns to run, the very tip of the telephone pole smacks him on
the head and drives him like a peg into the ground.” 1
Behe goes on to say that this Foghorn Leghorn cartoon contraption, as a Rube
Goldberg-like machine, is “irreducibly complex.” This of course means that if any one
part is removed, the whole machine fails and the desired end result or function, does
not occur. Behe compares such thought contraptions to real life systems of functions
within living things, such as the clotting cascade in the blood coagulation pathway. This
clotting cascade works in just about the same way that Foghorn Leghorn was whacked
into the ground by the telephone pole. Each event in the clotting cascade must happen
before the next event can occur. If any one event is blocked, clotting will not occur at
all. Behe wonders how such a system could have evolved by mindless naturalistic
mechanisms?
rendered useless. However, the cascade is in fact still able to function from the point of
interference onwards. So, its function cannot be said to be completely destroyed just
because of a single point of interruption. Also, by the very nature of cascades, more
parts can be added on the originating end of the cascade to make it longer and longer
still... like adding more and more dominos onto the end of a chain of dominos. At first
one starts with one domino, then two, three, four and so on until one has a very long
Consider the Foghorn Leghorn cascade again from this perspective. What if the
entire cascade describing Foghorn Leghorn’s demise started simply? Foghorn picks up
the dollar that is attached directly to the telephone pole by a string. When the string is
pulled, the carefully balanced telephone pole falls over and drives Foghorn into the
ground like a tent peg. Granted, this certainly is not nearly as interesting or
entertaining. But, it would work - right? Now, what if we add just one little part to the
cascade? Lets add the rope that holds up the telephone pole and a saw that cuts the
rope. The string is attached to the switch on the saw. When pulled, the string turns the
saw on and it cuts the rope and the pole falls. A bit more interesting and it still works.
Now lets add one more little part. Lets add the cannon. The string pulls a match and
ignites the cannon and the cannon ball hits the saw switch which cuts the rope that
holds the pole… and now we are getting a lot more interesting! We are evolving a
complex cascade one small part at a time - right? It sure looks that way.
This argument is in fact commonly used as an explanation for the origins of such
apparently complex cascades as occur in blood clotting systems, visions systems, and
energy metabolism systems to name just a few. After all, according to the theory of
evolution, very large and apparently impossible tasks are broken up into manageable
parts. This is Dawkins's main argument in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable. An
impossible statistical cliff that cannot be scaled in a single bound by natural selection is
scaled in small little evolutionary steps. Actual laboratory experiments have been put
laboratory experiments actually work! It has been demonstrated in real time that the
addition of unique components onto the end of a metabolic cascade is in fact possible.
The evolutionary biologist Kenneth
tip of a long cascade that breaks down sugar molecules and extracts energy from them.
Glucose is the main sugar utilized by this cascading pathway. There are of course other
simple sugars, such as galactose and fructose etc., that can enter this pathway as well .
Each of these also requires a unique enzyme or enzyme pathway to convert them to
something that can enter the cascade. Then, just like adding more events to Foghorn’s
cascade, more events can be added to the sugar cascade. You see, there are different
kinds of sugars. Some of these sugars are more complex than glucose, but can be
broken down into glucose and/or one of the other more simple sugars that are already
part of the existing cascade. Once this breakdown occurs, a complex sugar molecule
becomes just another part of an extended sugar metabolism cascade. The problem is
that unique enzymes are needed to break down complicated sugar molecules. Some
sugars may even need more than one unique enzyme to break them down to a point
where they can enter the established cascade. However, the benefits of obtaining these
enzymes are great. If such cascades of complex sugar breakdown can be established,
any bacterium with such capabilities would survive better than its peers in an
The ability to evolve such advantageous enzymes would certainly enhance the
survival of the species. In fact, the “evolved” bacteria in Hall's experiments quickly
outgrew those that had not yet evolved the needed enzyme. Of course, this is only
natural. It is the law of survival commonly known as "the survival of the fittest". Hall
went on to demonstrate the evolution of two and even three additional steps added on
Although I do agree with Behe when he says that cascades are indeed irreducibly
complex, I do not agree with his assertions that all such cascades are theoretically or
even practically impossible to evolve via the mindless processes of random mutation
and natural selection. Cascades in living systems are certainly as complicated and
even vastly more complicated than the one that whacked Foghorn Leghorn, but even
such complexity does not seem to be completely out of reach in certain cases.
As already described, the removal of one part of a cascade may not destroy its
ability to perform. The removal of an enzyme that allows the utilization of complex
sugars does not eliminate this cascade's ability to continue to break down glucose or
galactose or fructose. Even the removal of the enzyme needed to break down glucose
itself is not vital to the function of the rest of the cascade. Even though glucose can no
longer be utilized, fructose still can be, along with several other types of sugars. A
cascade is therefore reducible without the loss of all function, but it is still "irreducible"
as far as the function that it just lost is concerned. For example, a minimum number of
parts are needed that have a fairly specific internal structure in order for a bacterium to
be able to utilize the lactose sugar for energy. This minimum part requirement creates a
degree of irreducible complexity. Not just any series of parts will do. Specific protein
"parts" are needed. In fact, Hall's experiment illustrates this specificity very well.
Hall did delete the gene needed to produce an enzyme (lactase) that broke down
the sugar lactose into two other sugars called glucose and galactose. Both glucose and
obviously, without lactase, an E. coli bacterium can no longer utilize lactose for energy.
Hall deleted that lactase genes to see if the E. coli bacteria would "evolve" back the
ability to utilize lactose when grown on a lactose enriched media. Hall's experiments
were a stunning and dramatic success. His colonies of E. coli quickly "evolved" the
ability to use lactose. There is just one little catch. Hall did not delete a spare tire gene
(the evolved beta-galactosidase gene - ebg) that required just one point mutation to
produce an enzyme with a fairly high level of lactase activity. But what if the E. coli had
not been so fortunate as to have this spare tire gene? What would have happened
then? Hall wondered about this himself. He then deleted the spare tire gene as well as
the original lacZ genes. Would there be lactase evolution now? So far, none of these
large populations with high mutation rates has ever evolved the lactase ability despite
combination with any other gene to aid in the bacterial "evolution" of lactase. Hall
described these particular bacterial colonies as having “limited evolutionary potential.” 3
It turns out that there are statistical gaps that separate unique protein/enzymatic
functions from each other. Not every protein sequence will be recognized as
sequences required for the function of a particular enzymatic activity, like the lactase
function, will not be able to produce this specified function - even a little bit. Because of
this problem, if proteins are not already very very close in sequencing to begin with, the
statistical odds that one will simply "evolve" into another are remote because they are
separated by a vast number of "neutral" amino acid sequences. Neutral proteins cannot
be guided by natural selection along any evolutionary path whatsoever. Why? Because
functionally neutral differences. Thus, nature cannot guide evolution across neutral
gaps. Obviously then, without this guidance of natural selection, evolution simply stalls
The results of Hall's experiment certainly prove Behe's point that at each step in a
cascade the required protein-enzyme is, in itself, irreducibly complex to at least some
degree. It also proves that this level of complexity is just plain out of reach for many
kinds of bacteria (not just the double mutant E. coli studied by Hall). A minimum number
of amino acids are needed in a specific arrangement in order for a specified function to
specified function will simple vanish completely. The genome that is left may not have
what it takes to cross the resulting neutral gap in function between what is and what is
needed. It is this neutral gap in function that forms the basis of Behe's argument that
Of course, a cascade is no more complicated than the most complicated link in its
chain. If this most complicated link can be overcome, then the rest of the chain would
be easy to make. The question is, can the most complicated link be overcome in a
reasonable amount of time? Professor Hall showed how simple bacteria can sometimes
evolve links in a cascade chain (but not always). If these links were all insignificant
hurdles they could simply be added up to produce something quite significant - like a
might be a few snags along the way if the links themselves are simply too irreducibly
Professor Hall never evolved anything that crossed a neutral gap that was more
than two mutations wide. The single non-functional gap of two mutations that he did
cross, he could not explain. In fact, by his own calculations, he figured this feat to be
impossible - taking an average of 100,000 years to cross. The apparent success of the
crossing of even this tiny gap of non-function astounded him. He attempted to explain
the success of this crossing by saying, “under some conditions spontaneous mutations
are not independent events.” 3 He went on to say that this is, “heresy, I am aware.” If it
is difficult for professor Hall to imagine the crossing of such a small neutral gap, what
As it turns out, Hall was mistaken in his calculations. He based his estimates on a
mistaken understanding of how the statistics of random walk works. Hall assumed that
each new mutation along the road toward the desired beneficial mutation would have to
become "fixed" or transferred to the entire population before the next mutation could
arrive in an additive way. To understand how this need not be the case, consider the
Starting with a steady state population of a trillion trillion (1024) random sequences
of 200 amino acids, each mutating every second into a new sequence, how long would
it take, on average, to find any one of the 10e200 lactose cleaving proteins?
Surprisingly, it would take around 500 trillion trillion years to find even one of the 10e200
lactase sequences on average. In order to solve this problem, one must first calculate
how many different possible proteins could be made with a series of 200 amino acids.
The answer is on the order of 10e260 (1 with 261 zeros following). Compared to this
number, even an astronomically large number like 10e200 is relatively minute. What
happens is that each of the 10e200 functional proteins is surrounded by trillions of non-
board. Each square on the chess board represents a different amino acid sequence.
Each member of a population can only occupy one square at a time. A limited
population simply cannot cover all the potential squares on the chess board at any
given moment of time. With each mutation to an individual, it changes squares. If any
one individual comes across a beneficial sequence, like the lactase enzyme sequence,
that individual and its offspring will tend to stay on that square because of the selective
advantage given by that square. This advantage will be translated into an increased
population on and immediately around that particular square of the chess board.
The interesting thing about random walk is that with each doubling of the length of
the average random walk, the time involved increases by a factor of 2. For example, if
the average random walk required for a particular colony of bacteria to achieve a
particular level of complexity required 5 neutral steps or changes in DNA, the total
number of options or potential space on our chess board would be 4 to the power of 5
or 1,024 squares. Depending on our population's size and mutation rate, we could
estimate an average time required to reach all of these squares at least once beginning
at a random starting point. The bigger our population, the faster we could reach all the
squares.
For instance, if we started out with a population of 1 trillion bacteria and if all of
these bacteria started out on one square on our chess board, it would take around
65,000 generations for them to reach equilibrium over all the squares of the chess
board. At equilibrium, about 0.098% of them will be on each one of the squares of the
chess board. Even though 0.098% doesn't seem like a big number, it actually works out
to be 9.8 billion out of a population of 1 trillion. In other words, after 65,000 generations,
there would be an average of 9.8 billion bacteria covering each of the 1,024 squares on
our chess board of potential space. So obviously a gap of 5 neutral mutations would
not be a problem for a population of 1 trillion bacteria to cross in relatively short order.
But, what happens if we double the gap to 10? A gap of 10 mutations/steps would
create a chess board with over 1 million squares of potential space (1,048,576 to be
exact). At equilibrium, our population of 1 trillion would have only 953,674 individuals on
each of the squares instead of the 98 billion it had when the gap averaged only 5 steps
wide. Doubling the gap again to 20 steps makes our chess board grow a million fold to
just over 1 trillion squares of potential space (1,099,511,627,776). Now, our population
of 1 trillion would average a bit less than one member of the population on any one
square at any given point in time. I think the trend is obvious by now, but just for kicks,
doubling the gap again to 40 steps increases the size of our chess board a trillion fold to
just over 1 trillion trillion squares. Now, each of the members of our population of one
trillion are surrounded, on average, by one trillion empty squares that they have to
On average then, each one of the members in our population will have to
experience over 1 trillion mutations (with none of them repeating) in order to reach all of
the potential spaces on our chess board. The time required for this process truly
reaches astronomical proportions in short order. With each doubling of the neutral gap,
the average time required increases by a factor of two. The only way to reduce the
required time is to increase the population's size by a factor of two. This does help for a
while, but very quickly the required size of the population needed to keep up becomes
impractical for any environment to support and further evolution simply stalls out.
amino acids in length - and very specified in internal structure. The problem seems
clear. In fact, because of this problem all living things may have very "limited
Pseudomonas as well as Halls double mutant E. coli colonies can be grown on Hall’s
selective media or any selective media in any sequence until the cows come home and
none of them will ever evolve the lactase enzyme. If this relatively simple function does
not evolve in certain creatures with "limited evolutionary potential" what about functions
that require multiple proteins or systems working together simultaneously? How would
such a multi-protein function evolve gradually? For example, bacterial motility can
come in many different forms to include flagella, cilia, undulating membranes etc.
However, all known motility systems require many protein "parts" working together
simultaneously in a specified arrangement with each other (much like the specified
much larger scale of complexity). If it is often difficult for various life forms to evolve
single protein enzymes with relatively few specified amino acids, imagine the difficulty
required to evolve a multi-protein function where entire proteins are specified in their
arrangement with each other. In fact, the odds are so bad that even on paper the
not to mention the fact that such a multi-protein system of function has never been
system. It has a minimum number of parts working together at the same time, in a
surrounding magnet, electrical current and bushings to switch the electrical current back
and forth at the proper moment in time. All these parts must of course be set up in the
proper relation to each other. However, if one part is taken away, none of the other
parts will "work" together - period. There is no "cascade" of function since all the parts
work together at the same time. So, in order to get any function whatsoever from the
electric motor, all the needed parts must come together in a highly ordered/specified
way - suddenly. An electric motor, minus one of its parts, has no function. It might as
up of hundreds or even thousands of amino acid "parts" in specified order), all working
together at the same time, in a specified orientation, to produce their rotary motion. If
one adds up all the required amino acids as "parts", literally hundreds of thousands of
Of course, we are talking here about the famous bacterial flagellum illustrated
above. Flagella are long whip-like cords attached to certain bacteria by a little motor of
sorts.1 The motor actually spins and causes the flagella to spin. The spinning flagella
propels the bacterium through the liquid that it is swimming in. The problem here is that
the motor that spins the flagella is not only "irreducibly complex", but has a very high
level of specified complexity (a large number of required parts all working together at
the same time). It is made up of a fair number of fully formed specified proteins (50 or
is removed. The flagellar motor will not work, not even a little bit.
Each of these parts is, in itself, complex - just as each link in the cascade system is
complex. However, what separates this type of irreducibly complex system from a
cascading system is that each of the parts is required to be in a specific orientation with
all the other parts. This adds another specified constraint to the system, which raises
the level of functional complexity significantly. In other words, a lot more information is
required to code for a flagellum than for a cascade of enzymes of equal size and
number. This creates an even larger neutral gap between functions at this level of
such multi-protein function has ever been seen to evolve in real time. It just seems to
be too far beyond what the mindless processes of evolution are capable of - even with
Some do try and explain flagellar evolution by proposing that many of the parts in a
flagella are used as parts in other cellular systems of function. For example, the actual
thought that some flagella might function as both a motility structure as well as a
secretory structure. Likewise, many of the other parts in a flagellar motility system do
other similar jobs in other systems within the cell. Therefore, it seems obvious to many
that all these various parts already existed and therefore might easily come together to
form the motility system diagrammed above. The problem is that the parts do not
naturally self-assemble into a flagellar system, or any other system of function. They
boat, or a house, or any number of other things. However, planning is needed because
the parts themselves, if left to themselves, do not self-assemble to form any one of
these things (even if given plenty of energy and opportunity to interact with each other).
Likewise, starting with a bacterium without a motility system but with all the needed
parts to make one, there is no series of point mutations that will get it from what it has to
the goal of motility without the crossing of neutral gaps in function (despite the selection
words, there is no way to mutate the genetic code were each and every mutation will be
very shaky ground. At best it is limited to the level of single protein enzymes and
relatively simple cascading systems of single protein enzymes. Even these examples
fall very short as cascading systems are far less complex than multi-protein systems
where all the protein parts work together at the same time in a specified arrangement.
In many cases, even these lower level cascading functions pose significant hurdles that
severely limit the mindless processes of naturalistic evolution. Obviously then, it is only
intuitive that anything of even slightly greater complexity might just stall out the
processes of evolution completely. And, in real life, this is exactly what we observe.
has ever been shown to evolve any multi-protein system of function where the proteins
all work together at the same time in a specific orientation with each other.
So, even though some irreducible functions can evolve and have evolved, there is
a ladder of irreducible complexity that quickly moves beyond what evolution has done
and can do. In my opinion then, Behe's concept of irreducible complexity remains pretty
much untouched as a challenge to the modern theory of evolution and as a strong voice
. Harlen Bretz
Debates:
Ladder of Complexity
Evolving Bacteria
Irreducible Complexity
Crop Circles
Function Flexibility
Neandertal DNA
Human/Chimp phylogenies
Geology
Fish Fossils
Matters of Faith