Behe and Gene discuss the Evolution of the Flagellum
by BilboThis is the second imaginary conversation between Professor Michael Behe and Mike Gene. Again, I've done this without their permission, and I may be completely mistaken about how a conversation between the two of them would actually go.
Behe: Oh no. I'm back at Telicthoughts. Bilbo!!!
Bilbo: Hi Professor Behe. Sorry I had to drag you back here.
Behe: Why? Why are you doing this? Having imaginary conversations with people you don't even know. And you still haven't given up that whacko 9/11 conspiracy stuff. You really, really need help.
Bilbo: Probably. But if only you and Mike would have a real conversation about this stuff, I wouldn' have to imagine it.
Behe: Look, let me be clear about this: I respect Mike Gene very much. I think he's doing some very good work. However, I think he's very mistaken about the notion that rm + ns can account for all the evolution that has occurred since the first appearance of life on Earth. And I took the time to write two books explaining why. Nowhere has Mike attempted to show that I am wrong.
Mike: Yes, and I won't try to show it. You might be right. The problem is your approach. I think you've fallen for the bait of trying to prove that something is impossible. And that isn't what science is about.
Behe: But I'm not trying to prove the impossible. All I've tried to do is show that Darwinian evolution, when put to the test, produces very little positive evidence. That was the point of my starting with the case of Malaria. It's admitted by all that it is our best empirical case of of what Darwinian evolution can do, which isn't very much. It's only after this that I go on to explore the theoretical limits of Darwinian evolution in my "Two-Binding Sites Rule" chapter. So I'm not trying to prove the impossible or even the improbable. I'm trying to explain why the best cases of Darwinian evolution produce so little.
Mike: Nevertheless, you've freely admitted that Darwin was right about common descent, natural selection, and random mutation — at least up to the Species category. That's a very large admission. Even if Malaria is the best evidence we have of Darwinian evolution, it's still for a very small time frame, and we still don't understand all of the ways that novelty can occur in biology. By focusing all of your attention on the improbability of evolution accomplishing very much, you've missed the broader picture of why we think there is design. I would rather spend time working on the positive evidence for design.
Behe: I have no problem with your approach, Mike. In fact, as I stated at the beginning, I think you've done some very good, fruitful research. Though I don't respond to your blog, I enjoy reading it very much. However, unless we have some rational ground for not believing that unguided Nature can accomplish anything, I think the basis of your hypothesis rests on faulty grounds. You say that it seems reasonable to make a distinction between the origin of life and its evolution, based on the notion that we have a theory of how life evolved, but we have no theory of how life originated. All I'm doing is showing that we really have no theory of how life evolved, either. RM + NS falls apart, when observed closely. And this is explicitly or tacitly admitted by people such as Margulis and the Evo-Devo crowd.
But the same objection that you level at me can be leveled at you: Just because we have no current theory of how life originated doesn't mean that there isn't one. You're just assuming that there isn't one. But we've found that Nature can produce all sorts of things: stars, planets, elements, and according to you, the evolution of life. Why think it wouldn't be able to originate life?
Mike: But I don't try to prove that Nature couldn't produce life. I just note that there seems to be a rather large gap between what Nature can do and the origin of life. It could be that this gap isn't real, and that someday someone will figure out how Nature accomplished it. But then, after noticing the gap, I also note positive signs of design, and note that many of our design inferences are also based on these two points: Discontinuity and Analogy. And I think that justifies my "hobby", as I call it. I'm not calling it science. Just something I like to do in my spare time. I'm not demanding that the scientific community take me seriously. I'm not demanding that anybody take me seriously. I'm pursuing my front-loaded evolution hypothesis, and sharing what I find with those who are interested.
Behe: It's difficult for me to think that you aren't being a little disingenuous here, Mike. You publicly proclaim that you aren't doing science, yet you continue to try to find ways to test your ideas. If you aren't trying to do science, why so much emphasis on testing your "hobby?" Further, you even refer to your approach as "Inductive Gradualism," a clear reference to the scientific approach.
Bilbo: I hate to interrupt this fascinating conversation you two are having, but I brought you both here to discuss the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Could we get back to the original topic, please?
Behe: Uh…I'm a little confused, Bilbo. You're the one controlling this conversation. Why are you complaining about where it's going?
Bilbo: Well, you see, I'm not really controlling it. I'm imagining what a conversation between you two would be like. So I depend upon what I understand of both your positions, and try to extrapolate from there. And you guys derailing the topic seems to be a predictable outcome.
Behe: Well, what else would you have us say? I think the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is far too improbable to happen without deliberate fine-tuning of the events that lead up to it, even though most of the flagellar components have precursor homologues.
Mike: And I'm pursuing my front-loaded hypothesis, and when the evidence of homology points toward evolution, I'm willing to concede the point.
Bilbo: I guess we'll just have to leave it there until you guys have a real conversation of your own.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Bilbo,
Mind if I advertise these dialogs on AtBC?
Comment by olegt — April 14, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Be my guest, Olegt. And someday I'll figure out what AtBC is.
Comment by Bilbo — April 14, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Hi Bilbo,
This is not bad. It's pretty good in fact.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Thanks, TP.
Comment by Bilbo — April 15, 2009 @ 9:02 am
April 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Both Behe and the Gene are leaders in their own field of study – I wonder why it is that such a debate has never actually taken place?
Speaking of this, could somebody point me to any debate between any two intelligent design proponents on the subject of intelligent design? A text summary would be good, but audio or video would be better. I'd particularly like to see an example of an ID proponent making their case against a young-earth creationist.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 15, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
How often do we see public debate between proponents of differing views within any field? This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.
Comment by Bilbo — April 16, 2009 @ 10:42 am
April 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
hblavatsky,
It's a tactical choice known as the Big Tent. Creationists of different stripes have postponed their battles (such as OEC vs. YEC) until they overthrow theory of evolution. Some skirmishes nonetheless occur. See here for a recent example.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 10:49 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Similar to the big tent of "Evolution?"
Comment by Bilbo — April 16, 2009 @ 11:35 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Bilbo, what's this big tent of evolution?
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 11:49 am
April 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You asked…
Do you know about the public debate between Penrose and Hawking?
(the debate was published as a book)
I have ran across plenty of debates in the field of biology concerning the possibility of horizontal gene transfers and I'm sure there are other examples. For those interested in providing detailed explanations, it is inevitable that the details will get argued over.
It has been my experience from reading papers scientists tend to try to differentiate their work from others to argue the importance of their research/experiments. To me, a lot of these debates appear to be mostly semantics but they earnestly argue anyway.
The ID Movement with its Big Tent appears to be more interested in popular recruitment than worrying about the "pathetic level of detail" most scientists deal with.
However, you could help change that by doing more threads like this one on TT. Maybe next time we could have an imaginary Stapp join in to talk about how Quantum Mechanics is probably an inherent mechanism that makes living organisms "life".
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 16, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The ID Movement with its Big Tent appears to be more interested in popular recruitment than worrying about the "pathetic level of detail" most scientists deal with.
ID's inability to grapple with details or make specific testable claims will forever be it's undoing.
The big-tent is not a scientific concept anyway – it's an idea from American politics. It's how you build a base by focusing on what unites rather than what divides a party. In the case of ID + Creationism it's such an odd big-tent because it includes such diverse and obviously contradictory views as those held by Mike Gene and Kent Hovind.
Why is there no serious debate between IDers and Creationists? Could it be that the two groups regard their differences to be trivial? I've often heard it said that ID proponents dislike being called "creationists", the amazing thing is that they all seem to get along so well.
The most extreme version of this phenomena I've ever seen is amongst complimentary therapists. None of them are ever willing to engage the other on their claims, presumably for fear of exposing their own positions as vacuous. I long to see an impassioned debate between Crystal-Healers and Homeopaths. What fun that would be!
And on this subject… which do you suppose is backed up by the most evidence: ID or Homeopathy?
Helena
Comment by hblavatsky — April 16, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 2:05 am
It's called manners. I've found they enable me to get along with all sorts of people I disagree with!
Comment by DL — April 17, 2009 @ 2:05 am
April 17th, 2009 at 5:48 am
It's called manners. I've found they enable me to get along with all sorts of people I disagree with!
One would hope that at a conference, the ID proponents, Creationists etc could overcome their natural reticence to criticize and simply get on with it for the good of the science.
Science is full of stories of passionate disagreements amongst people who amazingly remain friends. Perhaps these manners are what have prevented ID folks from effectively communicating their beliefs.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 17, 2009 @ 5:48 am
April 17th, 2009 at 8:17 am
You may as well wonder why I have also not debated Miller or Dawkins. I have never debated anyone, hblavatsky.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2009 @ 8:17 am
April 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The only thing that seems to united all "evolutionists" is that they agree that it was non-teleological. Otherwise, they disagree, either explicitly or implicitly. Thus Lynn Margulis criticizes neo-Darwinism as a religion, unable to account for speciation, and that her theory of symbiogenesis is the only one that can. Thus the Evo-Devo crowd say that until we understood the mechanisms that control embryological development, we couldn't account for variation and novelty, despite neo-Darwinism claiming to be able to account for it for decades. Of course, these are all included in the big tent of "Evolution," because none of the proponents rely on teleology, wink, wink, nod, nod.
Comment by Bilbo — April 17, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I swear I asked a question on this entry. What happened? The question had to do with Behe's stance on common descent. Is it still buried in a filter?
Comment by William Wallace — April 17, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Bilbo:
The only thing that seems to united all "evolutionists" is that they agree that it was non-teleological.
The only thing? There really is a great deal of actual (not Big-tent) consensus behind evolutionary concepts. That is how large groups of scientists are able to colaborate on very big experimental evo-devo projects which produce real science.
Give me an example of a creationist involved in any real collaboration with anybody!
Thus Lynn Margulis criticizes neo-Darwinism as a religion, unable to account for speciation, and that her theory of symbiogenesis is the only one that can.
And can you cite a source in which Lynn Margulis actually says this? I'd be especially interested to read Margulis using the phrase "neo-Darwinism".
Incidentally, this claim about Margulis appears to originate from this opinion article and not Margulis herself. Most of the references to this paper seem to be on discovery.org and ARN which all quote-mine the exact same lines. Other sources appear to be quoting discovery and ARN.
Incidentally this Charles Mann (from whom the quotation comes) seems to write a lot of papers, almost none of them about biology. He seems more like a journalist or a sociologist than a biologist.
He does not seem to be a credible expert on Prof Margulis' opinion. I'd like to suggest that Mr. Bilbo is guilty of 2nd hand quote mining in order to insinuate that mainstream biologists lack consensus over the core concepts of evolution.
I can understand why ID promoters have do this – you need to be able to argue that the other side is just as divided, just as political as you are.
Let's be honest – the differences between Dawkns and Margulis are infinitesimally small compared to the differences between Behe and Kent Hovind. Why are the non-evolutionists so reluctant to debate amongst themselves when they differ on so many important topics?
Comment by hblavatsky — April 17, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I was wrong… I finally found the quote:
That's an actual quote from Margulis as recorded by Scientific American who can be trusted as accurate reporters.
The next question, is to what extent is this a controvercial opinion? Does this represent an actual schism in biology?
ref
It seems that there is a great deal of consensus behind the idea of symbiogenesis. Margulis did not originate the idea of symbiogeneis but she seems to have been the most effective at convincing other scientists of it's fundamental validity. The unanswered question is to what extent is this process responsible for other evolutionary events besides the one described in the quote.
This is the sort of debate that's typical of a healthy functioning field of research. The odd thing about ID / Creationism is that no such debate seems to take place. Why is that?
Comment by hblavatsky — April 17, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 3:20 am
When did Behe say "Nevertheless, you've freely admitted that Darwin was right about common descent, natural selection, and random mutation — at least up to the Species category. That's a very large admission."?
Comment by William Wallace — April 18, 2009 @ 3:20 am
April 18th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Big tent means exactly what? I always took it to be the other side of the coin that a lot on the left label "diversity". It supposedly is meant to have a negative connotation or spin. Sort of like "quote mining", which is ill-defined, largely used in the evolution – critics debate, and supposedly is a negative comment. Without saying anything.
As far as why so few debates between Iders and creationists, there are a lot of reasons. First, depending on how one defines creationism, one is science based, the other religious based. There are also few prominent IDers, so one wouldn't expect to see as many debates as one would between numerous well-funded Darwinists. And there certainly are debates by the less well known on many blogs and forums.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 18, 2009 @ 8:56 am
April 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Roger Rabbit, "quote mining" is not at all ill-defined. For example, the definition on Wikipedia is quite clear and succinct. Included in the definition you immediately find why it is often employed by evolution-critics: because it contorts the meaning of the original quote, thus suggesting controversy where there is none.
From Wikipedia: Quote mining is use of the fallacy of quoting out of context, repeatedly employing misquotation in an attempt to skew or contort the meaning and purpose of the original author regarding a controversial topic.
Comment by hrun — April 18, 2009 @ 9:48 am
April 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am
hblavatsky:
LOL. First, you ask a stupid question and now you seek to smear me. Your confusion is a function of your reliance on simple-minded stereotypes. I am not, and have never been, part of a political movement.
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2009 @ 11:49 am
April 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
hrun Says:
Actually, it isn't, and the definition offered on Wikipedia has changed quite a bit over time. On a cursory glance, they seem now to equate it with the more generic "quoting out of context". But there is quite a bit of resistance to merging the two topics together. And the majority of "quote mining" claims do not come close to meeting the test for "quoting out of context".
And when we add " the purpose of the original author regarding a controversial topic" we've completely muddied the water. I don't really care about the original author's purpose, because if one can use his own words to skewer his position, or that of adherents to the broader topic, that is logically permissable. Only if it is truly "taken out of context", i.e. the meaning is changed without a broader context, is it logically not permissable.
There is a reason that folks use "quote mining" and not "out of context". The latter is more objectively defined than the former.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
First, Helena, thank you for admitting that you were wrong, and that I am not guilty of quote-mining. Second, there is a great deal of consensus for endosymbiosis — the idea that prokaryotes in symbiotic relationships eventually led or helped to lead to eukaryotes. There is not as much consensus for symbiogenesis — the idea that further symbiotic relationships has led to further evolution among metazoa. From what I can tell, and I might be mistaken, Margulis's symbiogenesis has been largely ignored by mainstream science — at least, English speaking science. There just doesn't seem to be that much debate about it going on. Margulis is respected, included in the big tent of Evolution, but ignored. If she's right, then decades of neo-Darwinism have been wrong. That would be worth a debate or two. But I haven't heard of any. Why is that?
Comment by Bilbo — April 18, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hrun says: "Roger Rabbit, "quote mining" is [...] ill-defined. For example, the definition on Wikipedia [...] contorts the meaning of [...] Quote mining."
RogerRabbit answers: "Actually [...] "quote mining" [...] is [...] objectively defined."
I really like that you don't care about the "original author's purpose". It's so much more fun to completely contort and twist the meaning of an original author to skewer their position.
Comment by hrun — April 18, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
hrun says:
And I really like that you volunteered to illustrate the very issues I raised. That you confuse "original author's purpose", a subjective and non-transparent property internal to an individual, with the "meaning of words" objectively written or spoken.
That captures more beautifully than any explanation I could proffer what is wrong with the term "quote mining" vs the more objective "taken out of context".
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 18, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Umm…that was imaginary Mike Gene you were quoting, not Behe. But I think you're asking when did Behe admit that Darwin was right about common descent, natural selection and random mutation — at least up to the Species category. And the answer is in his book, The Edge of Evolution.
So Will, are we still bound to read each other's books, or can we let each other off the hook?
And did you see my reply over at the Unburnt Thermite thread? If you post something at your blog, and I think it's good, I'll post it here for you.
Comment by Bilbo — April 18, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I missed that (I was focused on his two binding site rule).
He claimed random mutation could lead to new species? What page?
I thought Behe's position was that random mutation could only break things. So he must define a species as a creature with a whole bunch of broken things.
Comment by William Wallace — April 18, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 1:36 am
On page 72 of EoE, in a chapter entitled “What Darwinism Can Do”, Behe writes: “The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent– even the common descent of humans and chimps– although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. It does not even begin to explain where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences. Something that is nonrandom must account for the common descent of life.”
In other words, Behe accepts common descent but doesn’t believe that Darwinism (random mutation + natural selection + genetic drift) is sufficient to explain it. What is? I’m not sure that Behe at this point has a theory or an explanation. I don’t think he is necessarily advocating some kind of interventionism, nor do I think he would rule out a front loading paradigm. He might be closer to Mike Gene’s POV than Bilbo imagines.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 19, 2009 @ 1:36 am
April 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
If you look at his diagram across from the title page, and on page 218 (I think, since I don't have the book with me), starting at the bottom, you'll notice the things that Behe thinks "contingency" (randomness) can account for. It goes up to Species. Starting at the top, you'll notice the things that he thinks fine-tuning (design) is needed to explain. It goes down to Class. In between (Order, Family, Genera) is where he would locate the tentative edge of (random) evolution.
Later in the book, Behe offers a hypothetical scenario where, picking from a huge number of possible universes, the uberphysicist chooses the one where all the necessary events leading up to intelligent life will occur, and "activates" it. So yes, Behe seems to think that a front-loaded universe is one of the options to account for design. Where he and Mike seem to differ is how deep that front-loading might occur. Mike is working on the hypothesis that only the events needed to originate life were needed. Behe thinks the process had to go much farther. So really, their differences may only be one of degree. In my imaginary conversation I have Behe admiring Mike's work. This is based on the a passage in EoE (I forget where), in which Behe describes how we can see the materials for multi-cellularity coming together. This, plus the fact that Behe is willing to accept front-loading for the Universe, suggest that Behe would be quite willing to accept the front-loading of the original cells to make intelligent life a more probable outcome. I think his view, though, would be that front-loading would make the materials available, similar to making all the materials available to building a house, but that fine-tuned events would be needed to construct the organisms, just like fine-tuned events would be needed to construct a house.
Comment by Bilbo — April 19, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Bilbo wrote:
My reading of Behe is that he is really taking an agnostic and skeptical view. In other words, he doesn’t know how the bacterial flagellum evolved, but he is skeptical that the traditional neo-Darwinist explanation is at all adequate. Furthermore, he writes that the demand for an explanation is often made by critics of ID, “who excuse themselves from identifying, the detailed steps that random mutation and natural selection putatively would take to complex biological structures. Reviewing Darwin’s Black Box in 1996 for Nature, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote, ‘There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel… We may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways.’ If anyone thought it was hard to unravel ten years ago, it’s far worse now. Those who stick with Darwinism even if they can’t rigorously envisage supposed random pathways to complex systems are in no position to demand that design theorists escort the designer to the next science conference.” (The Edge of Evolution, p 234)
So how does Mike Gene explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum? Once front loading has occurred in the “creation” of the first cells, if I understand MG here correctly, then evolution from there on proceeds according to the traditional Darwinian paradigm. In other words, he must have a step-by-step explanation as to how the flagellum evolved by unguided and unintelligent natural processes. If he doesn’t then how does he know that the Darwinian paradigm is the right answer in the first place?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 19, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 9:19 am
From what I can tell, and I might be mistaken, Margulis's symbiogenesis has been largely ignored by mainstream science — at least, English speaking science. There just doesn't seem to be that much debate about it going on.
I provided a cited quotation to back up the notion that Margulis' theories are well-regarded. A search on Google scholar will show that they are frequently cited however some debate still exists as to the extend which the idea which she popularized applies to higher organisms.
In your previous note you were making the claim that there's as wide and divergent opinion amongst evolutionary biolgists as there is amongst the non-evolutionary big-tent, but that's just not the case.
LOL. First, you ask a stupid question and now you seek to smear me. Your confusion is a function of your reliance on simple-minded stereotypes. I am not, and have never been, part of a political movement.
Mike, I think you failed to read my comments:
1. I never said that you are part of a political movement, however I said that a "big tent" is an idea from politics. I'm not aware that the ID movement self-applies the term "big tent" to themselves.
2. I gave you and Mr. Hovind (a.k.a. Dr. Dino) as an example of the two most different anti-evolutionists I could think of. My point is that the spectrum of belief amongst evolution deniers is far more diverse than that of evolutionary biologists.
The strange thing is that while anti-evolutionists such as professor Behe and Mike Gene have far more in common with mainstream biology than mainstream creationism both of these famous teleologists seem to lavish their abundant criticism on the evolutionists with rarely a critical word about the creationists.
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — April 20, 2009 @ 9:19 am
April 20th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Helena:
How can you describe either Mike as anti-evolutionists when both accept natural selection, descent with modification and common descent? From your POV does belief in evolution require an a priori commitment to dysteleology?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 20, 2009 @ 10:41 am
April 20th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Hovind is definitely an anti-evolutionist. He calls evolution a "fraud". Gene's position is the absolute other end of the ID spectrum. Gene's theories seem to have little in common with mainstream ID other than the telic perspective.
My intent was not to show that Gene and Hovind are examples of the same kind of thing but that Gene's biology beliefs seem far closer to Richard Dawkins' than Kent Hovind's.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 20, 2009 @ 10:50 am
April 20th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I think (perhaps mistakenly) Mike is persuaded that neo-Darwinism is basically correct, even if it is unable to provide step-by-step explanations for how things such as the flagellum evolved.
Perhaps you don't realize how extreme a view Margulis holds. She thinks neo-Darwinism is completely mistaken. In this she is much closer to Behe's view than to Mike Gene's or most members of the big tent of Evolution. Whereas neo-Darwinists are willing to accept endosymbiosis or symbiogenesis, she will have none of theirs.
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Bilbo:
Over at the his blog Mike quotes himself form his book. He writes:
I think this gets to the heart of the issue, and the real difference between him and Behe. Behe expects a more rigorous explanation, MG does not. But which stance is more empirical? I would argue that obviously it is Behe.
Personally, as real life designer, whose job it is to not only understand how things work, but how to design and manufacture such things, I am curious how the bacterial flagellum originated in the first place. Behe thinks that such questions are worthwhile; Mike Gene, apparently, dismisses such questions with an airy wave of the hand. Is such curiosity now not allowed in biology and biochemistry?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 20, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Helena wrote:
So, why did you refer to him, and Behe, as an anti-evolutionists?
You also failed to answer my second question: "From your POV does belief in evolution require an a priori commitment to dysteleology?"
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 20, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
She thinks neo-Darwinism is completely mistaken
Does she?
When a Creationist like Hovind says that "neo-darwinism is mistaken" it's quite clear what he means… that in his opinion the whole corpus of evolutionary biology is based on misconceived science.
What exactly is Margulis criticizing when she derides "neo-darwinism"? My understanding is that she's objecting to the notion that there's a strict tree of life, rather than (as she believes) a tangled bush of life in which horizontal gene transfer plays a much greater role than previously accepted.
You keep saying this, but it seems that while here theories were once controvercial, she is very much in the mainstream of evolutionary biology. Here symbiogenesis theory of the origin of eukaryotic is widely accepted and is even presented in some European biology textbooks.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/sc...
Can you cite any data to show that her opinion is considered "extreme" by mainstream biologists?
Can you cite a source which backs up this claim?
I think you are mis-representing her opinion: It's plain to see that Margulis and Behe are objecting to different aspects of evolutionary theory for completely different reasons.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 20, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Oh ye of little faith:
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
That interview was from here.
You would probably tell me I was mis-representing her opinions if I also told you she was part of the 9/11 truth movement and believed it was an inside job.
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Helena asked:
Well not exactly, Neo-Darwinism sees random mutation as the main mechanism behind evolution. Margulis argued that it was symbiosis. According to an on-line article describing the Gaia Hypothesis:
There was a lot of resistance to her theories in the beginning.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 20, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 4:16 am
From John_A:
I think we have definitely established that in the early 1970s her theory of symbiogenesis was considered radical, almost heretical.
Remember, she is reflecting on her conflcits of the 70s – and at that time I was thought by many biologists that random mutation was the only cause of variation – since then more than 30 other processes have been identified which generate heritable variation ( http://evolutionlist.blogspot.... ).
Bilbo was trying to convince us that Margulis is currently currently regarded as "extereme" in order to demonstrate that there's an evolutionary "big tent" (i.e. people ignoring their scientific differences for political reasons).
Wheras all the data you have presented seems to show that she was once a revolutionary whose ideas were very controversial. At the time she faced a great deal of skepticism from her fellows, however through diligent research she brought the entire field of biology over to her way of thinking.
When Margulis critiques what she calls "neodarwinism" she is refering to the orthodoxy of the early 1970s which she orverturned. When Kent Hovind and Denyse Oleary refer to "neodarwinism" they are attempting to critique the substantially different science of today.
I think it's completely baseless to suggest (as Bilbo does) that Margulis' position is closer to Behe than the mainstream of science. Behe is definitely a controversial extremist whereas Margulis now represents the mainstream. Only time will tell if Behe is considered a revolutionary or a crank, however I suspect the latter!
Comment by hblavatsky — April 21, 2009 @ 4:16 am
April 21st, 2009 at 4:21 am
If you say it, I shall believe it (just this once) – Margulis is only an authority on certain aspects of biology so I think her views on tower-toppling are not relevant? Do you agree?
Comment by hblavatsky — April 21, 2009 @ 4:21 am
April 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Uh, Helena, if you had actually read the interview, you would realize that the neo-Darwinism that Margulis is criticizing is very much a thing of the present, not the past:
She's not criticizing neo-Darwinists of the 70s. She's criticizing neo-Darwinists of the here and now.
This is exactly what Behe is attacking in The Edge of Evolution. The idea that major change can come from random mutation. Behe is attacked as a crank. Margulis is lauded for endosymbiosis, and ignored when she attacks neo-Darwinism in the same way that Behe does. Why? Because she offers a non-teleological solution to the problem. The only difference.
Comment by Bilbo — April 21, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Helena wrote:
Here is a Lynn Margulis quote from the Mazur interview provided by Bilbo:
As Bilbo also pointed out, she is not talking about the 1970’s here when she talks about “the neo-Darwinist knee-jerk reaction.” This is a recently published 2009 interview. From the context she is clearly referring to contemporary neo-Darwinians.
The Gaia hypothesis is now considered mainstream science? Margulis sees the earth as one big organism, that is no longer a controversial idea?
Should we deny Michael Behe the same opportunity?
Your argument so far has been an ad hominem one about labels. The topic of this thread is Mike Gene vs. Mike Behe the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. How are Hovinds and O’Leary’s views about Neo-Darwinism relevant to that discussion?
Again, how does sticking pejorative labels on people you disagree with: “antievolutionist,” “crank” etc. suppose to persuade anyone, accept maybe people who already agree with you? Why is it necessary?
Lynn Margulis in the quote I cited above asked several questions:
“Where does novelty that’s heritable come from? What is the source of evolutionary innovation? Especially positive inherited innovation, where does it come from?”
How is Behe a crank for asking, how the bacterial flagellum evolved? How is that any different than any Margulis’ questions? How is it any less scientific?
Why don’t you tell us, using the latest advances in evolutionary theory, how the bacterial flagellum evolved.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 21, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
For starters, she's criticizing ideas and not people. Her villain appears to be a very out-dated orthodoxy which no longer seems to be mainstream in biology.
She seems to be attacking the notion that inheritable variation comes exclusively from random point mutations and natural selection. The position she is attacking would have been common amongst biologists 30 years ago, but not so much now. Professor Macneil's article which I cited previously shows more than 30 other "engines of variation", only one of which is the process which Prof Margulis has studied so extensively.
She's attacking the idea that "RM + NS" can fully account for the kinds of variation observed in life because there are plenty of other engines of variation than just "RM".
How can you demonstrate that she means the same thing when she uses the word "neo Darwinism". Are they really attacking in the same way, for the same reasons?
Margulis (and the overwhelming majority of geneticists today) believe that a wider range of naturalistic processes must be invoked in order to explain variation. Margulis in particular offers a testable hypothesis which has had some success to date. This is probably why her radical ideas are treated with respect.
Behe (and almost nobody else) believes that no list of naturalistic processes can ever fully explain variation: he suspects that some supernatural process was involved. By comparison he has not yet offered a testable design hypothesis, this is probably why he is regarded as a crank.
You are trying to show that Margulis is an "extremist" – a better way to do this would be to cite some recent papers by relevant experts in mainstream biology which criticize her position. You could also look for papers which propose rival or contradictory theories. You could even look for her recent papers and show that they strongly contradict other recent and highly regarded papers.
And let's not forget the other alleged "big tent" – can you truly show that vigorous debate between IDers and Creationists actually exists? I challenged you to show me some before… did you find any?
Comment by hblavatsky — April 21, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
hblavatsky:
I would not expect much debate for obvious reasons. Creation is an inherently telic belief and the differences I would have about the identity of the designer are not resolvable in a lab. I have seen disagreements about the sufficiency of evidence for origins or evolution or pathways from this to that. Age issues are also evident. But none of this affects the area of common ground- belief that life is the product of design.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
The Gaia hypothesis is now considered mainstream science? Margulis sees the earth as one big organism, that is no longer a controversial idea?
Gaia is definitely a very controversial theory about ecology and not evolution, so not strictly relevant. I also conceded that Margulis' theories about 911 are extreme, but not relevant.
Of course not: If Behe can produce research of sufficient quality then it will be taken note of. I do not think there is a conspiracy against him.
The difference between Margulis and Behe is that she proposes a testable hypothesis which attempts to answer her own rhetorical question. Margulis may be wrong, but at least she provides us something to get our experimental teeth into.
Behe by comparison does not offer us anything testable beyond the notion that a straw-man model of evolution is insufficient to account for the structures he identifies as IC.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 21, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Helena, you're still not getting it. I'm not sure how many of the "30 ways" would fall under the category of random mutation, but all that do fall under that category would be rejected by Margulis as insufficient causes of evolution. She's saying that neo-Darwinism — the belief that biological novelty came about by random mutation and natural selection — is dead wrong. Neo-Darwinists including her ideas of endosymbiosis and symbiogenesis wouldn't mollify her along with theirs. She would just say, "Now get rid of that other crap you've been teaching for the last seven decades. Random mutation doesn't accomplish any of the major change you say it does."
In this she is no different from Behe. The problem with posing a teleological answer is that by its very nature — unless we have independent evidence of the designers — teleological evidence is subjective. We will have to rely on categories such as Analogy, Rationality, and Foresight. I think those are objective categories (we all have a good idea of what they mean), but are not objectively measurable. We can't put them in a test tube or measure them with a micrometer or scale. I suspect this is what mainly drives rejection of a teleological answer.
This doesn't mean that teleology is not testable. Mike Gene has been doing some very good work showing how we can find Rationality and Foresight. Check out his blog.
But meanwhile, I don't know of any big debates between Margulis and neo-Darwinists.
Comment by Bilbo — April 21, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Can you cite anything supporting the following statement?
Margulis has published a great deal on the subject of genetics and causes of heritable variation. I'd expect that she'd be at least as familiar with this topic as Prof MacNeil, so if this were the case you'd be able to back up your claims, right?
Can you cite some evidence to show whether her use of RM meets your expansive definition or simply refers to random point-mutations, which was how the phrase was originally used in the 1970s?
I've only read summaries of her work, but these do not seem to to involve wholesale rejections of the last 30 years of genetics, more a difference of emphasis which probably reflects her own personal desire to promote her own research. She gets funded for work in symbiogenesis so it's only natural that she promotes her own lab's business.
Margulis is a published author, why not cite her actual words rather than invent passages like:
I've cited plenty of evidence to show that
* Biologists Frequently cite her work positively
* Her criticisms of "Neo-Darwinism" are very specific and refer to certain out-dated attitudes which are no longer prevalent in Margulis' field.
* She did not originate the idea of symbiogenesis, but she was one of the most effective at popularizing the idea. She is probably the person who has done the most to bring the idea into the mainstream.
That's because she had the debates with the "neo-Darwinists" back in the 70's. These days there are not enough "neo-Darwinists" to have a debate with, at least none that I'm aware of who are professional geneticists, most of whom are aware that Darwin's theories have been replaced by more modern theories of evolution.
If you could find me an actual example of a "neo-Darwinist" working in genetics or evolutionary-sciences today then that person would be far more extreme in their views than Behe.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 21, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Update: I think Michael Egnor might be one of those neo-darwinists that Margulis is always going on about: http://telicthoughts.com/egnor...
Comment by hblavatsky — April 21, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Helena:
Does she provide a testable model for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum? She is after all, a world expert on the evolution of micro-organisms. Isn’t she?
As William Dembski points out, testability as well as falsifiability is a two edged sword. It cuts just as deeply against the pretensions of Darwinian theory as it does ID. In other words, Dembski argues Darwinian evolution has yet to provide a testable model for the evolution of either the bacterial flagellum or any IC structure. He writes:
It sounds like a double standard to me. One standard for the politically correct Lynn Margulis quite another for Michael Behe.
No, Behe is perfectly willing to accept naturalistic explanations for non-IC structures. He has said repeatedly that he accepts natural selection, descent with modification and common descent etc. And furthermore, he would be more than willing to accept such an explanation for IC structure if one was forthcoming. In Darwin’s Black Box he writes:
"Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding that mental telepathy is not possible or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant". (p. 203)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 21, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
April 21st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Helena, all I can do is give you another quote or two from Margulis's interview:
Now if you insist that when she talks about "random mutation" she only means "point mutation," I have to insist that you show me where she makes such a distinction. If you read her book (as I have) I think you'll see she doesn't.
Comment by Bilbo — April 21, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 am
I do not think we can be 100% sure what she means from the quotes provides so far. When she says "slow gradual accumulation of mutation or sexual mergers" it's quite feasible that she understands this phrase to mean spesifically only those 2 processes, or in the expansive sense which you proposed earlier.
As I am sure you are aware, Margulis is not considered an authority on the evolution of bacterial flagellum. Do you really think her views on flagellum are relevant?
Lets recap shall we? The original purpose of this thread was not a discussion of Margulis vs Behe. It was to establish whether there is an evolutionary big-tent.
My position is that there is no such thing, and Margulis provides a perfect example: Here theories were regarded as controvercial in the 1970s and were subject to bitter acrimonious debate. Back then nobody decided to go-easy on her because she was a fellow evolutionist.
Today her symbiogenesis theories are regarded as mainstream, but her theories on 911 and Ecology remain controversial. She still faces a great deal of criticism, including accusations that she is "squandering her reputation".
If there were a "big tent", I think people would be more reluctant to criticize her. It seems that quite the opposite is the case – even a highly regarded scientist who has done great work is open to criticism. Reputation provides no immunity in the competitive world of science.
I think the mainstream's beef with Behe is that he's proposing that certain structures could not have evolve, at a time when the experts on those fields (flagellum, immunology, etc) have already found a great deal about exactly how those structures did evolve. I think a discussion of how Behe is "misunderstood" by the overwhelming majority of biologists is not relevant right now.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 22, 2009 @ 5:07 am
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
.
Having read her book, I'm 100% certain. She means all forms of random mutation, not just point mutation.
Actually this is a good case model. She thinks the flagellum came about by symbiogenesis of a spirochete with another bacteria. She repudiates efforts to show that in evolved by random mutation from simpler systems within bacteria.
Well, no, the original purpose was to compare and contrast Behe and Gene's views on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, but strayed into a discussion of their views on science.
I'll take your word on what happened in the 70s.
I think some of her ideas are accepted, such as the origin of mitochondria and algae. I don't think (perhaps mistakenly) that there has been much empirical support for her views on symbiogenesis among animals and plants, so symbiogenesis is still isn't mainstream. But meanwhile, her repudiation of random mutation as a major source of novelty is ignored by most, even though her argument is a simpler version of Behe's.
Margulis is an independent thinker, if nothing else. This means that she is willing to think outside the box, even in areas outside biology, and follow the evidence where it leads, even if it is controversial.
I think confirmation of her theories on the origin of mitochondria was a big boost for her reputation, and scientists are reluctant to criticize her, lest they proven wrong again. But she's accepted in the big tent of evolution because she doesn't offer a teleological answer for the origin of novelty in biotic reality.
Behe's criticism of neo-Darwinian explanations for the evolution of things like the flagellum is essentially no different than Margulis's. What's different are what they offer as alternative solutions. If Behe had offered a non-teleological solution, he would have been accepted in the big tent of evolution, just like Margulis.
Comment by Bilbo — April 23, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
If he'd offered a teleological solution, he would have been accepted, as well. But instead all he says is that evolution can't explain it without offering any alternative explanation.
Comment by don provan — April 23, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
April 24th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Well, he has offered intelligent design as an alternative explanation. I think the main objection is that there isn't any independent evidence for a designer. I think that's a reasonable objection. But then the question becomes, can we find evidence of design from the supposedly designed objects themselves? And I think Mike Gene's approach is the right way to go about trying to answer the question. But then it probably won't be the kind of evidence that we can put in a test tube, or measure on a scale. It will be trying to find evidence of Rationality and Foresight, which is too subjective for the liking of most scientists. But if Mike can marshal enough of it (like a small mountain's worth or so), maybe he'll convince some of them.
Comment by Bilbo — April 24, 2009 @ 11:57 am