Great Review of Mike Gene's take on IC.
by BilboA structural engineer has been reviewing Mike Gene's book, The Design Matrix; a Consilience of Clues, and has recently discussed Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity, and how Mike Gene views it in his book, here.
Behe Starts a Furor
“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease function.”
Michael Behe, Chapter 2, Darwin’s Black Box
In 1996, Dr. Michael Behe provided in his book, Darwin’s Black Box (DBB), this simple definition for a simple, yet potentially powerful concept – irreducible complexity (IC). In the subsequent years, an academic war of words broke out which beckoned the question: why the furor? Surely the above definition alone couldn’t have started the maelstrom of criticisms that began soon after it was published?
Let me propose that much of the hullaballoo (did I really just write hullaballoo???) is due to Behe’s application of IC, which amounts to IC = evolution impossible. To clarify Behe’s argument, while it is impossible for a direct evolutionary pathway to produce an IC system, it is possible for indirect evolutionary pathways to do so. However, when he scanned the scientific literature, Behe noted that there was no paper describing the indirect routes in significant detail.
The Traditional Template Invoked
The concept IC as defined by Michael Behe is simple, brilliant and stands as a potential marker of design. To provide backup, Behe eloquently presented several cases of IC systems (cilia, flagellum, blood clotting, etc.). He also anticipated most of the criticisms directed towards his thesis and answered them fairly adequately. However, Behe became entangled within the Tradition Template of the debate the moment he presented a negative argument (IC = evolution impossible), and even though Behe attempts to make a positive argument for design in Chapters 8 through 11, the negative argument dominates DBB. In my opinion, this tactic has halted the concept of IC in its tracks before teleologists could take it for a proper test drive. By arguing an impossibility, Behe unwittingly assumed the “traditional role” of the dissenter.
Accordingly, Behe’s critics were more than willing to assume their “traditional role” to demonstrate that it is possible for DE to produce IC systems. Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University, is generally credited with proposing the best argument against Behe’s application of IC: cooption* – the parts of an IC system were coopted from parts of other precursor systems. With cooption, Miller showed it was possible for evolutionary mechanisms to develop IC systems (Note I said possible, not plausible nor probable). Since Behe is arguing it is impossible for evolution to produce an IC system, all Miller had to do was show it was merely possible. Thus it would appear that the Traditional Template has given a seemingly crushing blow to IC**.
Hopping Down the Bunny Trail
Enter Mike Gene. In his book, The Design Matrix (DM), Gene takes IC for a test drive within the Explanatory Continuum.
First, Gene pointed out that cooption was “really the only evolutionary explanation that has the potential to explain the origin of an [IC] system.” Second, he recognised a flaw in the cooption argument:
“The most basic problem with the conventional use of [cooption] is its complete reliance on chance.”
Mike Gene, Chapter 8, The Design Matrix
Third, Gene made the cooption explanation plausible by incorporating his working front-loaded evolution*** (FLE) hypothesis.
Mike Gene then applied the brakes and headed back to the starting line. He granted that cooption is possible, thus avoids getting entangled in the Traditional. Gene then investigated what independent evidence is needed to progress it to plausible.
If cooption was to be a viable explanation, it must be gradual. Then Mike Gene pointed out that to construct an IC system through gradual cooption, “the previous existence of simpler precursors and multiplied functions” should be abundant. If these precursors are missing, then the IC system can be said to consist of “system-dependent parts”.
“A system-dependent part would be something that does not exist or function apart from the context of the machine.”
Mike Gene, Chapter 8, The Design Matrix
With this, Mike Gene laid the framework for one of four criteria in his Design Matrix (more on this in the next post). This, coupled with FLE, has advanced IC from Behe’s simple yet powerful concept to a possible marker of design. Thanks to Mike Gene, IC has new life.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Thanks Bilbo! I feel like I just made it to the "big leagues" now!
Just to complete my post, here are the starred references:
*Even if I am wrong and Miller did not originally come up with cooption, he is at least credited with being the “front-man” for the argument against IC = evolution impossible.
**There are many other critiques of Behe and IC; one of the more extensive (and honest) ones comes from Thornhill and Ussery, “A Classification of Possible Routs in Darwinian Evolution.” from Journal of Theoretical Biology in 2000. A summary of their findings can be found in Chapter 8 of The Design Matrix
*** “Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation. This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carefully chosen initial states in combination with the way evolution works.” Mike Gene, Chapter 7, The Design Matrix
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 7, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I never read DBB or EoE and walked away with the view that Behe believes that IC = evolution impossible.
But, you're not defining what you mean by "evolution". Behe is pretty specific that he is attacking any undirected mechanism; which is leaving open the possibility of a guided or planned mechanism.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
No. Behe admitted that you could play mental gymnastics and show that it is "possible" that an IC system evolved… but that's why he then referenced the literature for a "plausible" and detailed explanation for it.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Doug:
Right Doug. The IC = Impossible idea is a strawman.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Hi Bradford,
Behe's position should be obvious without him even having to draw it out.
He states that he agrees with common descent. He states that the blood clotting system (at least parts of it – 4) meet the requirements for IC (whether we think Behe wrong on this point isn't the point).
So, misrepresenting Behe's views shouldn't be as simple as saying "Behe: IC = evolution impossible"; because he's explicit with his views in regards to common ancestry.
His views of evolution would be more akin to Mike Gene's. Just not as fully developed.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
The post oddly correctly states Behe's argument and then continually misrepresents it to make his point.
The case against cooption, faced in 1996 in DBB, is an empirical one, not a logical impossibility.
Miller, according to this quote, is only saying what was already attributed to Behe above.
Otherwise, good review here. And the underlying point is well-made; Mike Gene and Mike Behe are making different cases.
I agree. I always thought that if cooption could somehow be made to work it would be an even greater marker of design – like like Toyota's just-in-time manufacturing. In this case, even the process itself evinces design (foresight).
Excellent.
Comment by Pez — August 7, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
That's a good summary of Mike's position. There's still a problem with this approach though:
Its true that evolution expects to find gradual cooption through various precursors. However following this definition something is "system dependent" only based on a lack of knowledge of any precursor. There are two reasons not to find a precursor: 1) there never was a precursor, 2) the precursor no longer exists. There is no way to differentiate these two cases, so calling something "system dependent" fundamentally relies on a knowledge gap. The lack of information is not information. All you are left with is a tally of cases where a precursor is known and cases where no precursor is known. Trying to reach any conclusion from such a tally or even from the ratio between known and unknown precursors is also dependent upon another knowledge gap because the total number of systems is unknown (i.e. we have incomplete knowledge of the cell). For example, lets say I have 100 examples of "IC" systems. Of those 10 have known precursor systems that make evolution by cooption a likely explanation and the other 90 have no known precursors and are thus System Dependent IC systems. From this data set a vast majority of IC systems cannot be explained by evolution, so Mike would conclude that Design is probable. However there could be, say, 10,000 other IC systems for which we simply have no information. So the margin of error in concluding that our 90 SDIC examples imply design is astronomical.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Hi Pez,
It wasn't Bilbo's writing.
He's just copying the info from the link.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Todd,
I think you're missing the point.
To borrow (and horribly butcher) from Mike's book:
If system X is believed to be irreducibly complex, and X is composed of parts A-B-C-D-E-F…. and gradual cooption is correct: A-B… then A-B-C…then A-B-C-D all the way to A-B-C-D-E-F (X).
Then were is A-F, A-F-J, A-C-X, A-A-A, A-B-J, A-B-C-Q… and on and on… and on.
This isn't simply a case of finding A-B, and A-B-C, And A-B-C-D… so on.
But what about all of the variants? All of the other systems that were also coopted in this gradual march to system X?
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Doug,
Perhaps the word "precursors" is not inclusive enough. However even if you expand my argument by replacing "precursors" with "precursors and variants" (or whatever term you think would adequately include the combinations you mentioned) then I still think the argument holds.
A separate argument can also be made that we actually do find a lot of these A-F and A-F-X and A-B-J variants. Some of the refutations of the flagellum argument, for example, show other systems that reuse many of the same parts in unique ways. But I will leave those arguments to someone far more knowledgeable than myself.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Todd,
But you seem to be acting as if the non-existence (or better, in ability to discover) these variants is irrelevant.
If you have two competing ways to view the current situation: MET and Mike's FLE, which one better accounts for what we are perceiving?
Then this sentence of yours:
Becomes either incorrect or misdirected. Because it certainly wouldn't be a knowledge gap from the FLE perspective. It's what should be expected. But no, you appear unable to work out of the MET mold to even consider that a different view, approach, meta-theory (or whatever) might be able to better account for the evidence. You seem content to say, from an MET perspective, evidence that isn't currently found that would support "your already accepted" position is simply a current/temporary (but either way irrelevant) gap in our knowledge…. that in no way should be used as any type of indicator for an opposing view: FLE.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Assume X = A-B-C-D and that X has a unique function and that removing any component renders the system unable to complete that particular function.
Nevertheless, A-B may have a function. C-D may have a function. And it's just a matter of concatenation to combine them into A-B-C-D = X to form a new function. Or A-B-C may have a function, and acquiring D may give it a different function. None of this requires that an arbitrary combination of these components are functional.
Lungs appear to be irreducibly complex requiring many interacting components or the animal dies. How could such an animal breathe while the lungs were evolving?
With gills. Lungs evolved from air bladders. And while the lungs were evolving they were incrementally advantageous to the organism. Later, when the gills were no longer necessary, the scaffolding disappeared leaving the irreducible structure.
Comment by Zachriel — August 7, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
You seem to be assuming these variants haven't already been discovered. The ID movement carefully selects those few examples for which the least evidence exists and then claims all IC systems have no evidence of variants. That's an unjustified leap based on insufficient evidence like I talked about above.
So you are saying that FLE predicts a lack of evidence therefore a lack of evidence supports FLE?
You mean "better account for the lack of evidence"?
Exactly, the lack of evidence cannot support any theory. Only evidence can support a theory. The lack of evidence only supports the claim "I don't know." This has nothing to do with MET perspective, it has to do with basic reasoning. Any theory that relies on the lack of evidence is the very definition of a gap theory. Unless FLE can make a positive distinctive and testable prediction which can be verified by some evidence then it is vacuous.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Todd to Doug:
There are more than a few examples. Quite a few would be a more apt description and it is on the molecular level that the evidence is most revealing. IDists do not selectively view these systems. The systems themselves suggest the lack of an adaquately detailed explanation. Doug made a good point in singling out the options and asking which one better fits the evidence. The conundrums suggested by IC examples allow for distinguishing front loading from MET in that the former would be the more plausible option. That is particularly so if what was front loaded was the starting conditions of a process.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Wait, when has the talk about "no evidence of variants" come up aside from here? Precursors, sure. But the issue that Mike raised in DM wrt variants via cooption? Then you throw in your paranoid/typical response "The ID movement carefully…… ". Where is the evidence of all of the variants to show that Mike's notion of system-dependent parts is incorrect, Todd? Pretty simple to come up with.
Todd, do you understand what FLE stipulates? Why would you think that FLE "predicts a lack of evidence"? This is what I mean: you're unable to think outside of your little MET world (ya big freethinker, you). You interpret the fact that I said evidence pointing in one way would support FLE over MET, as FLE predicts a "lack of evidence"…. because anything that doesn't support your beliefs it simply a matter of a current lack of evidence.
But to spell it out for you, Todd. MET, through the mechanism of cooption, should assume and predict numerous variants since cooption would have to be a gradual/chance-driven mechanism (before the beneficial precursors could be culled and advanced onward).
FLE shouldn't assume nor predict numerous variants; because if numerous variants were found this would be evidence for MET – a gradual/chance-driven process.
Todd reads it as, "so…. FLE predicts a lack of evidence to support FLE".
No Todd, what we do witness is evidence for the other view. You know, that other view that seems to induce in you the paranoid reaction of polemic shouting "THE ID MOVEMENT IS COMING!! THE ID MOVEMENT IS COMING!!"
No Todd. You mean that. Because you can't accept that there are other ways to view the evidence.
Repeat it 5 more times…. rumor has it that it might be alittle less unconvincing.
Not for you. For you, only evidence that can support your theory will be viewed as evidence.
You're just saying the same thing over and over….
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
hmmmm, no two words get a discussion going better than "Irreducible Complexity" (unless it's "Intelligent Design")
Alrighty then. Let me try to address some of the points brought up here:
1. Doug and Bradford started out by saying (in effect) that Behe never made the "IC = evolution impossible" argument. While Behe may not have used that exact formulation, he did fall victim to the Traditional Template. Granted, the Explanatory Continuum came around 11 years later. And I'll also grant that Behe implied indirect evolutionary pathways were possible but not plausible, but he lacked the words and the framework to avoid falling into the traditional role of dissenter, thus opening a door for his detractors to stall the development of the IC concept.
2. Todd Berkebile:
Mike made the point in The Design Matrix that a lack of precursors would be, in essence, a red flag since it would be highly unlikely that a coopted IC system would have little or no precursors. The reasoning behind this is that a coopted system would not necessarily wipe out its precursors; rather it would find its evolutionary niche, just like the precursors found their own niche. (This is probably a gross simplification of Mike's point, so I apologise in advance).
The red flag can also mean that a scientist will make an active effort to find these precursors. In the meantime, FLE will do as an adequate explanation. Since Darwin's Black Box, how many papers have we seen trying to refute the flagellum, cilia, blood clotting cascade, etc as being IC systems?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 7, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Todd, "There's mice living in this bedroom and I know it!!"
Other Guy, "But Todd, you set up numerous mouse traps with cheese never catching a mouse, never so much as a nibble on the cheese, you have never found a mouse dropping, never so much as once heard any mouse noises coming from the room… I think it's safe to say that the evidence is pointing in favor of there being no mouse in this room."
Todd, "Wait… let me get this straight. So no evidence supports your theory that a mouse isn't living in this room? Sorry Other Guy, but the lack of evidence cannot support a theory."
Other Guy, "yup…. see you later."
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Ah, the molecular level, you mean that level which we are just now starting to study and only recently have developed the tools to investigate and thus know the least about? The reason you are only left with examples at the molecular level is because all the other examples previously put forth from Paley's Eye to Behe's Flagellum have been thoroughly disproved. All you are left with is those examples where we have the least understanding. I rest my case.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
OH THANK GOD!
Finally!
This one thing, Lord, makes up for the fact that Brett Favre left my beloved Packers. Never again will I need to hear Todd's inane case! I know some people doubt your existence… but, this mere act of divine intervention saved me a bout of more head throbbing while attempting to wrap my mind around one Todd's inability to even think that he might be incorrect, let alone his inability to fairly consider the evidence.
Praise be….
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Doug,
Don't you mean "his inability to fairly consider the lack of evidence"? Sorry to see that you are already reduced to distraction and ridicule and have nothing else to add to your case. But fear not, I'm sure you will repeat the same weak argument on future threads thus prompting me to reply with the same "inane" argument for which you apparently have no response.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
JJS P.Eng. Says:
You better grant a lot more than that. He didn't "imply" it, he outright stated it:
The issue isn't "impossibilty", the issue is whether the Darwinian paradigm explains an IC system. It doesn't. There may indeed be an unknown materialist explanation. But RM&NS doesn't really satisfy.
Could you translate that latter part into English? Behe was/is a dissenter. You're saying there are magic words dissenters can speak to magically persuade opponents? I'm from Kansas on that one.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 7, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
RogerRabbit:
What I meant was that Behe was arguing withing the framework of the Traditional Template rather than the Explanatory Continuum. He may have had a sense of what the differences were between possibility and plausibility, but lacked knowledge of the Explanatory Continuum framework to avoid become entrapped in the Traditional Template. Chapter 2 of The Design Matrix describes the two systems better than I could ever.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 7, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
In other words, much like Doug you are suggesting that FLE is an acceptable default assumption until some evidence is produced that a specific example has precursors and thus might be better explained by evolution. Or, once again, given a lack of evidence assume FLE until some evidence proves MET. You are correct that we have seen many papers refuting various IC systems. Are you saying all of these many papers have failed to show the sort of precursors and variants that MET would predict? Or have these papers very successfully found exactly the sort of precursors and variants than MET predicted?
How about approaching this from a slightly different angle, can anyone provide a single study where someone attempted to refute a claim that some IC system was unlike to evolve and that study failed to find a reasonable evolutionary pathway? It seems to me that many claims of IC are put up and one by one they get knocked down as the research progresses.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Zachriel Says:
No, this just indicates that you don't grasp the concept of IC.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 7, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Then please explain it to him rather than simply being dismissive. Are you saying a lung is not IC?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Nope, mouse example holds.
Distraction? You couldn't even grasp the point to begin with.
Good one, Jackie Mason.
Todd, can you really not see how the mouse example applies here?
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Rather than argue about what Dr. Behe said simply look.
Here is what Dr. Behe said in 1996….
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.
Demonstration that a system is irreducibly complex is not a proof that there is absolutely no gradual route to its production. Although an irreducibly complex system can't be produced directly, one can't definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. However, as the complexity of an interacting system increases, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." link
I hope this helps.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 7, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Not only explains it but irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory in 1918.
Muller applies this concept to genetics in a 1939 paper.
Comment by Zachriel — August 7, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Ah. TT and EC are buzzwords from DM. Although I remain skeptical of buzzwords as the answer, having not read DM, I'll just stick with my critique of your take on what Behe said, and leave it at that.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 7, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Actually, we have two sources of evidence. First, we predict the *entailed* empirical implications of a mouse; nibbles, droppings, noises. Then we *test* for these implications. In this case, the initial hypothesis is significantly weakened. On the second, universal negatives are often difficult to demonstrate. However, in this case, our universe is the size of a room, so an exhaustive search is quite possible.
Now, let's compare this to the claim at issue.
The claim is entailed not in Front Loading, but the Theory of Evolution. It's not novel to say there had to have been precursors (Darwin, 1859), though not necessarily simpler. If there were never any precursors, then evolutionary theory is wrong.
Why should precursors be "abundant" rather than rare? And why should we expect to find evidence of molecular precursors if they are extinct? Do dinosaurs have to exist on Skull Island to rescue the theory?
How do we know they are missing? Is an exhaustive search of space and time possible? What if the precursors are extinct?
Comment by Zachriel — August 7, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Some of the text from the article comes from Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box, and some it doesn't appear to, at least not in that form. I checked the Wayback Machine, and it only has archives back to 2002 when there were several changes.
I would be curious about the provenance of the quote.
Comment by Zachriel — August 7, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Ha, so you thought you were actually making a point. Ok, I'll bite. Lets examine your metaphor:
First, I would never make such a claim without having positive evidence. If I stated that as a hypothesis I would then test that hypothesis. You are the one claiming FL (the invisible mouse) exists, all I claim is that such a statement is unwarranted (I assume you know the difference between unwarranted and false).
As Zachriel pointed out, in your example numerous positive hypothesis have been tested and found false. No test for FLE has ever even been proposed.
Here you are just plain wrong, as Zachriel showed. Tests were performed and the conclusion is that there is no mouse. Notice how knowledge of the search space was required in order to reach a statistically relevant conclusion, I pointed out in my original post that jumping to a conclusion without that information is relying on another knowledge gap. You demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding about what constitutes scientific evidence and what doesn't.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 7, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
You're still missing the point, along with the point of the analogy.
And Zach isn't helping you much either… regardless of all of the "As Zach pointed out" and "as Zach showed" you can muster.
From Mike's book:
We are not finding evidence for all of the variants at every node. We are not finding evidence that would strengthen the MET scenario.
You look at this and assume that it's an argument with respects to a lack of knowledge…. that we just haven't discovered enough yet to support the view that you have no intention to ever even consider questioning.
But the opposite is more reasonable – through the work and research done we are discovering what would be expected if biotic reality mapped more closely to an FLE perspective.
2 competing views. Both would lead us to different expectations. One view is not being supported by research.
Zach said:
Okay, Todd… so you think it was clear that when you were saying "precursors" that it should have just been assumed you also meant variants? Because in reading Zach's quote (who you were more than ready to "bobble head" nod in agreement) it doesn't appear that variants are even being addressed. If you just consider the precursors for X (ABCD) and only consider A, then A-B, then A-B-C, and then A-B-C-D… sure, you'd probably have a hard time solely locating those. But thankfully that doesn't address the variants that would occur at each node:
A-B… and A-E… and then all of the variants that can result.
Maybe, maybe not…. but what extreme lack of anything that I'm displaying is certainly pale in comparison to your extreme lack of understanding the topic and almost every point that has been made on this thread.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
If that's the best you have then you are in trouble with the jury. The reason is straightforward. The causes and effects which generate the phenotypic results you have in mind take place on a molecular level. That's where the real action is and that's where theoretical plausibility must be assessed.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I went to the USA/Canada baseball game in Durham a couple of days ago. At the 7th inning the score was something like 15-4 and the game was stopped by a Mercy Rule. There needs to be some kind of mercy rule around here. When Zach shows you guys to be this misinformed about biology, the referee stops the thread and everybody hits the showers. (And hands your side some basic bio textbooks.)
Comment by steve — August 7, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Todd Berkebile:
No, what I am saying (and quite possibly what Bradford is implying) is that science is fluid and the best explanation today may become tomorrow's discarded hypothesis in light of new evidence.
Having not read EVERY paper refuting IC, I am assuming that the critics have found at least some precursors. This is a good start, but it is not the end of the road. It just make cooption plausible. The next step to probable is collecting "a vast amount of data that all converge and best make sense in light of the explanation." (Chapter 2, Design Matrix) Whether the evidence consists of more circumstantial evidence or actual direct evidence (put these percursors together, stir and watch the cooption go!) depends on further experimentation. The onus is on Miller et al to do this, not ID.
Granted, ID does need to roll up their sleeves and get to work themselves on experiments. That's a position I've made clear at all times.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 7, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Evolution Engineered? Pretty soon there will be an Intelligent Design blog for every month the Intelligent Design research journal has been defunct. (32)
Comment by steve — August 7, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
They need a model with some detail which makes specific predictions different from evolution before they can start designing experiments. All the blogging in the world hasn't gotten them that, and all the blogging they'll do in the years to come won't either. Read your Kuhn. No model and no productive research == no paradigm change.
Comment by steve — August 7, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Doug,
True, we are not finding evidence for all of the variants at every node. But we are finding evidence for many of the variants at many nodes. These establish a pattern that supports MET, the remaining knowledge gaps form a pattern that supports FLE. I'm still waiting for just one example of any study that failed to find an evolutionary pathway for any known IC system.
I'm still waiting for any FLE advocate to make a distinctive prediction based on those "different expectations" you mention. At least we both agree that one view is not being supported by the research.
You realize that this simple A to D scenario you mention doesn't even describe the evolution of an IC system? Do you know how cooption works and how evolution creates an IC system?
So tell me, what IC system do you claim has no variants? Where is the research that looked for these variants and failed to find them? Oh wait, that research doesn't exist, only knowledge gaps support FLE.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 8, 2008 @ 12:07 am
August 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Steve:
Perhaps you'd be interested in this post? Keep in mind, this is only a starting point.
Other than that, I agree with you. Less yap, more testing.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — August 8, 2008 @ 12:15 am
August 8th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi Steve,
As you may remember. I agree with you concerning the need for a model.
Here is the super condensed summary of my ID model…
It embraces just about everything in the prevailing evolutionary model accept for the presumption of randomness.
Complexity does not equal randomness. Pure white noise isn't random. Neither is impure white noise. The only possible source of randomness is Quantum Mechanics and there is plenty of experimental evidence showing quantum effects are, in fact, not random but rather are interconnected in space and time.
The way to find the "Ghosts in the Machine" of nature and life is to look for foresight and unexplainable organization. This approach compels towards doing scientific research looking for supporting evidence (i.e. is pro-science).
This model predicts that key processes of life will be directly dependent on quantum effects. Photosynthesis in plant life. Quantum processing in DNA. Quantum processing in consciousness.
This is the kind of ID SCIENCE that, while certainly "out there", is something that can honestly and ethically be explored.
Note, I am no friend of the movement supported by the Discovery Institute whose stated goals is certainly political and not scientific. We can rejoice together at the thought the ID Movement may be fragmenting because some ID proponents are interested in doing more than trying to disguise "God did it" in a cheap tuxedo.
For example, Mike Gene’s book certainly wasn’t warmly accepted by the movement's leaders.
I see more independent blogs as a good sign. We should encourage the questions. We should encourage independent thinking.
Our children’s world may be better for it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2008 @ 12:30 am
August 8th, 2008 at 4:07 am
It seems this thread is having the, perhaps unintended, result of answering my question.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 8, 2008 @ 4:07 am
August 8th, 2008 at 8:16 am
You mentioned my name, but didn't bother to respond to my points.
Concerning macroscopic biological structures. There are variants. They walk the Earth today. There were variants. We have their fossils. All this life, extant and extinct, form a nested hierarchy of forms. We have not discovered every variant. Nor would we ever expect to.
Concerning microscopic biological structures. There are variants. They 'walk' the Earth today. All this life, extant and extinct, form families of forms. We have not discovered every variant. Nor would we ever expect to.
And there are many precursors. You may remember that scientists are always looking for homologous structures as evidence of a common descent. However, many precursors of microscopic biological structures are extinct, and unlike dinosaurs, enzymes leave few fossils other than the extant ancestors themselves.
As to your 'mouse story'. The story makes entailed predictions based on the Mouse Hypothesis. But when you apply this to Front Loading, you do not make such entailed predictions. The only prediction comes from the Theory of Evolution, and is general and vague, not specific and clear.
Most random combinations would not be viable. So what is your point?
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 8:16 am
August 8th, 2008 at 8:31 am
If you remove any of the three tiny bones in the human inner ear, or the eardrum, it fails to work. They have to be precisely arranged, and not just their order, but their precise fit. Yet, scientists say that these bones evolved from the jaw of a reptile. How can jaw bones evolve into an ear? That's just silly.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 8:31 am
August 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
The problem I see with ID and IC is the first cause. If I were to put on my "science hat", I note that science tries to find the first cause of everything.
If there are IC components that are in life then that leads to either:
1: There are some forms of life that did not need IC components and went from "Dust to Man".
2: There is a Designer who had always been here and created those IC components.
Personally, I believe it is 2. So IC has a problem, either acknowledge that life is possible without IC or acknowledge the Designer.
Same thing goes for ID.
1: If all life needs a Designer, then who designed the Designer? If that means that at one time did not need a Designer, then life is not a result of ID but can be explained via natural processes.
2: If there was in fact a "First Designer", then that Designer must be identified. To not is not science but a political compromise that is to unite for now and then divide later when the question is sure to be raised again.
Of course, I think that is another case for God.
I await the day when we do find God's Work directly in the evidence.
Comment by lcd — August 8, 2008 @ 9:30 am
August 8th, 2008 at 11:26 am
You didn't get the Dawkins's memo. It just is. No need to explore a causal trail for atheists or pretend theists.
Let me know when you have IDeed the non-designer source.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2008 @ 11:26 am
August 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Zach:
Why do you keep misrepresenting the concept of an IC system – as portrayed in the context of microbiology on the molecular, sub-cellular level – as things like ears or lungs? Is it that you truly don't grasp the concept, or just that you want to obfuscate the issue?
Individual organisms missing some non-vital organic construct – like, for instance, ears – can be born alive and survive to reproductive age if they're lucky. If the sensory interface is unnecessary to the organism and its offspring in their environment, the lack may proliferate in the population just fine. i.e., blind cave fish. But you won't find a population of any kind of fish anywhere that doesn't have vital organs or organ systems.
I have noticed that you love to misrepresent the positions of contributors here at TT. Life had an origin, science does not know what it is, but assumes all the necessary ingredients must have accidentally assembled in space dust and mudholes, and then poofed into fully-loaded, fully functional, reproductively able organisms by some lucky happenstance (like getting struck by lightning).
Yet given the actual complexity of cellular life, it is not unreasonable to suspect that it may have been designed here or elsewhere. Even some notable, fully orthodox atheist biologists now postulate that life did NOT originate on earth, but was 'seeded' here in all its complex, front-loaded, 'evolvable' glory.
Incoming evidence from new tools and technologies allowing scientists to look closer than ever before has established that a suspicious amount of the later evolved components (or potentialities) of multicellular life were apparently present in life's original, most ancient earthly forms. Thus some ID proponents suspect that life was front-loaded for 'evolvability' from the beginning – wherever/however it began.
Other incoming evidence demonstrates that most of the developments of life's diversification over deep time are not the result of SNPs or brand new gene-inventions or other genome 'accidents', but are coordinated expressions of pre-existing genes in response to organism-environment feedback loops that have resulted in well-designed, fully interdependent ecologies – epigenetics. Thus some ID proponents (such as myself) consider evolution and the diversification of life to be the natural result of 'evolvability' innate to life itself, expressing a creative impetus to adapt and thrive. No matter where or how it began.
Not one of these ID approaches denies that life evolves, they simply reject the silly notion of magic poofs. In fact, it's only the Genesis literalists and the die-hard 'darwinian' orthodoxen who insist on magic poofs. Two sides of the same metaphysical coin, neither of which constitute an acceptable scientific explanation for life itself or its evolution here on planet earth.
It is clear that Zach is simply here to play the perennial game of dueling metaphysics – the old "my magic poofs are better than your magic poofs" inanity. I think he'd have more fun if he went to a forum dedicated to magic poofs. Then we wouldn't have to waste so many pixels constantly correcting his misrepresentations and countering his diversions.
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2008 @ 11:58 am
August 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Bradford:
Well, as I am neither I guess there's a good reason why I never got that memo. But I'm confused. It is my understanding that Dawkins is an opponent of ID and IC, why would any proponent of either discipline listen to what he has to say?
I'm confused here. What are you saying?
Comment by lcd — August 8, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
So you're claiming that irreducible complexity only applies in the microscopic realm?
Yes, and an organism can be born with a defective flagellum and survive to reproduce.
That's funny. You accuse others of misrepresentation, then say that scientists are proposing some Poof Hypothesis—even after I have repeatedly corrected that misstatement on other threads.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Zachriel:
The poof nonsense was meant to be a derogatory term when first coined by critics. Sometimes the favor is returned in kind.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ditto
And I hearby pass on the mantle of being Mike Gene's interpreter to JJS P. Eng.
Comment by Bilbo — August 8, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Zach:
An organism that is missing any part of the functional system will not have a functional flagellum. Isn't that what Behe said, and what you underline by calling such a dysfunctional flagellum "defective?"
Deformities that make dysfunctional an IC system are not "evolutionary missing links." They're more evidence that the system is IC – all the pieces-parts must be present and functional for a functional flagellum to exist. According to Behe as TP cited above:
Whoa there, tiger. It's not a misstatement and you haven't corrected anything. You say that you believe there's no difference between not alive and alive, thus not alive 'stuff' can be considered alive. I do NOT believe that. Simply reiterating your beliefs over and over again doesn't make them reasonable, true, or even very impressive. Period.
I NEVER see life poofing into existence from not alive 'stuff'. Neither does science. Science, in fact, informs me that it doesn't happen. You claim that it happens anyway – or did, once upon a time, in a land far, far away, you just don't know what, how, when or why. That's what you believe, and by golly, nobody's gonna shake you of it! Fine, believe it. But your assertion doesn't "correct" anything. Science hasn't believed in spontaneous generation for nearly a century and a half.
In order to "correct" me, you'd have to prove to me that your beliefs represent something true about nature. You're going to have to show me that there is no difference between not alive and alive by showing me some not alive matter that poofs (or 'evolves') into something science and I would consider alive. Preferably all by its not alive lonesome, but you can play Zeus and zap it with lightning if you want. Though that's definitely a poof, you have to admit.
That would go a lot farther toward establishing your beliefs as the One True Faith than all your caterwauling and foot-stomping.
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Joy:
In the same paragraph Joy manages to (1) accuse Zachriel of misrepresenting TT contributors and (2) to misrepresent lots of science. No Joy, science does not assume life "poofed" into existence. That's what ID assumes.
This reminds me of your comical recurrent claim that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis. Sterilized broth not developing life in two weeks disproves it. It's too funny.
Comment by Raevmo — August 8, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Zach,
Why you and Todd appear to be confused as to why I mentioned the mouse scenario I cannot help.
But, if you followed the discussion up until the story it should have been a bit more clear.
The only point was to see which better accounts for the non-existence of variants and precursors when the claim is that the parts are system-dependent. You have two views that would predict different sets of evidence.
If the process that lead up to the system that we believe might be IC with system dependent parts…. and we were to discover numerous variants. Then the idea of a blind, meddling watchmaker is exonerated.
To quote again from DM:
Todd was saying something along the lines of, "oh, so no evidence supportes FLE?"
But that wasn't the point at all. The lack of evidence was an issue for MET, not for FLE. Because FLE predicted that there wouldn't be the variants. It predicted a picture that would look like something akin to engineering was going on.
The mouse story wasn't about total theoretical worth of FLE (as you and Todd interpretted it). It was in regards simply to the issue of the variants or the lack of variants.
Comment by Doug — August 8, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Raevmo said:
If by "poofed" you mean "engineered" then yeah. ID does assume that life was engineered into existence.
Comment by Doug — August 8, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Doug:
If by "yeah" you mean "no" then we agree. So you're saying something that was not alive engineered life into existence? ID gets funnier every day.
Comment by Raevmo — August 8, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Raevmo:
Unless you believe, as Zach does, that there is no difference between not alive and alive, then there's a line to cross between not alive and alive. Many True Believers say it was probably lightning, but others have retreated into the "there's no difference, you can't differentiate a living organism from organized mud" position. Lightning is a poof. If there's no difference between alive and not alive, then we need no simple precursors. We just need some ground meat and compost. All the fully constructed pieces parts are there. Should be spewing life forms galore.
So… you can get life forms to poof into existence if you let it sit for three weeks? Please provide the documentation and journal citation, I'd love to read it.
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I had thought to take her comments at face value.
And a human missing one of the three closely matched bones of the middle ear will have be a functional ear.
When I brought up the human ear, you said I was "misrepresenting the concept of an IC system". I asked if you were claiming that irreducible complexity only applies in the microscopic realm. You didn't respond to that question, but replied that "all the pieces-parts must be present and functional".
And a human missing one of the three closely matched bones of the middle ear will not have a functional ear.
No, Joy. Your statement wasn't a claim about nature, but what science assumes, that life "all the necessary ingredients must have accidentally assembled in space dust and mudholes, and then poofed into fully-loaded, fully functional, reproductively able organisms by some lucky happenstance (like getting struck by lightning).". This was and remains an incorrect representation of current scientific understanding.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Well, the extant world is full of variants. The extinct world is full of variants. So there you are.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
LOL!!! And what, exactly does spontaneous generation have to do with Mike Gene's take on IC, or the review of it linked in the OP?
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
First, you continue to claim there are no variants and precursors and yet not one single example is offered of an IC system for which no variants or precursors were found when looked for. Second, you have limited your argument to "system dependent" IC systems, which you seem to define as those for which no known precursors and variants exist. So by definition you have chosen only examples for which you feel there is no evolutionary evidence. You then claim the lack of evidence for evolution supports FLE. This is known as Cherry Picking.
I have mentioned several times that the lack of evidence proves no theory. In response you offer a parable in which tons of evidence is provided. You expected this parable to demonstrate that some things can be proven by failing to find evidence. We point out two things, 1) you must first look for the evidence, and 2) you need to know the size of the search space before failure to find something gives you any confidence that it doesn't exist. Rather than respond to these two problems you simply claim we don't understand. I understand, do you?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 8, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Todd B.:
Science doesn't deal in "proof" either way, there is support and falsification. If theory #1 predicts something that can't be found, and theory #2 predicts it won't be found because it doesn't exist, the lack of evidence for theory #1 tends to support theory #2. This is quite simple. All the tap dancing won't change things.
1) Proponents of theory #2 don't need to look for evidence in favor of theory #1 if theory #2 predicts there is none. Proponents of theory #1 will scour heaven and earth in search of the evidence their theory requires, everyone else can just note that they haven't found it. Every time they don't find it, theory #2 is further supported.
If nobody were seeking evidence for precursors THEN proponents of theory #2 would be obligated to waste time and gub'ment money seeking it. Fortunately (because proponents of theory #2 don't enjoy gub'ment money), that is not the situation.
2) Those searching for evidence in favor of theory #1 get to define the search space, since it's their theory. When they find evidence to support their theory within the reasonable search space (and not just-so Anazi tales or wishful imaginings), that evidence will falsify theory #2's prediction.
If you and Zach do 'understand' the issues, then you're being deliberately dishonest by making claims not supported by the scientific method. Now, why would you do that? Are you really that frightened of the idea that there's something out there that better explains the evidence we DO have? This is all standard Scence-In-Action, the way things work. NDS won't be the first 'orthodox' theory bested by a better one if that should happen. Nor will it be the last.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
You just made a most excellent exposition of why universal negatives are scientifically vacuous. You don't even have to bother to look for evidence!
Comment by Zachriel — August 9, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Oh, come on, Zach! Your Darwinian Die-Hards are hard at work every day seeking evidence to support their theory that everything's an collection of seriously selected accidents accumulated piece by piece over millennia. The outsiders – those who support theory #2 – have no need to spend their own money trying to find evidence to support that theory.
There is no "universal negative" here, there is a theory that predicts evidence for gradualistic piecemeal development of IC systems via selected accidents doesn't exist because that's not how IC systems come to be. Far more useful work could go into trying to establish how IC systems DO come into being, since NDS can't explain it.
I don't know what work is being done on that level – I'm not a lab rat or bench tech, and the theory isn't well developed at this point (and there are several possibilities floating around in sub-theories). Evidence so far seems to support the idea that the genes involved were front-loaded, which means it's expression suiting changes (epigenetics) that build IC systems when such systems become pertinent to the developing life forms. This is likely to involve changes in the non-coding, expression-related DNA, some duplications and genomic rearrangements as well so that multiple uses of pre-existing genes can be engineered, and some ways of reverse-engineering and encoding the products produced by the suites (and the nanomachines for ready assembly) in histone so that chromatin configurations can easily pull from genes widely separated in the genome. Re-tooling the cell's machinery to make the design products.
None of this – or just the results we see from the processes – looks accidental or incremental. Why, in order to get to an IC system over time, the pieces-parts that don't all appear at once with ready assembly codes cannot be subject to lethal selection pressures. Or the system simply wouldn't exist at any point, would it?
There's plenty of good work awaiting scientists who care to investigate the possibilities of theory #2, just as soon as the orthodoxen step out of the way (or die off at long last) to allow it. Funding and tenure and everything. Not a one of 'em needs to spend their careers trying to save the old theory that doesn't explain what is known. The orthodoxen have been hard at work for a long time trying to do that very thing, their repeated failure is most likely a result of their governing theory being wrong. The current effort to remove Darwin (and the weakest parts of the developed NDS theoretic) from the scientific quest tends to support this view.
You don't have to like it. Support your own theory if you can.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
The contrary position to Theory #1 is not a scientific theory. It's just Theory #1 is false or simply unsupported (depending on the exact claim).
Let us know how it goes. Earlier, you said it wasn't necessary.
Not only explains it, but irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory in 1918.
Comment by Zachriel — August 9, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Sure, however in this case theory #1 predicts something that is in fact found over and over again. Theory #2 ignores all the cases where it is found and instead cherry picks a few examples where a lack of knowledge leaves no direct counter-proof. Then they slander and dishonestly represent all the supporting research for theory #1 in order to justify their cherry picking. Once their heads are suitably buried in the sand they repeat over and over how the lack of evidence supports their pet theory until they manage to at least convince themselves.
Still not one example of an IC system has been offered for which there are no precursors or variants built from some of the same pieces-parts. Not even one example where you can point to a researcher who studies that area and yet none of these precursors and variants have been found. He doesn't even need to have published anything, I will accept this mythical researcher's lack of publication as evidence that he has looked for these precursors and variants and not found them. You claim ignorance is knowledge and then wonder why critics mock your theory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 9, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Zach:
Todd B.:
LOL yet again. Wow. You guys really are scared of this "non-theory." That tells me quite a bit.
Todd:
You guys like this argument, but it's vacant. I specifically said that just-so Anazi tales and wishful imaginings don't count. The general theoretic I'm working from here would nix variants right out of the starting gate, given the epigenetic mechanisms postulated as the foreman/construction crew in actuating these designs.
A full-bodied theory doesn't exist right now. Several darned good sub-theories are well developed, and more will be coming down the pike. Zach's right that it's not a "scientific theory" at this point, and that's why we here at TT have not supported teaching it in high school. There's nothing to teach, the battle is scientific. I'm in no hurry. Science itself provides lots of developments and support to what is in the making. When it comes full blown, science will change its tune, and many very useful applications will be possible. FAPP – science's actual job description.
You can still believe what you choose to believe. Nobody cares.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I see you're quite a mind reader. I seem to remember that you hole other people's posts for the same reason.
Yes, everything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint is vacant, and yet you back up your view with nothing but strong faith that you are correct. At least you are willing to admit it from time to time.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 9, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
keiths, is that you again?
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Which means very little in light of the fact that known designs are noted for reusing templates. More pertinent is the matter of how a system comes into existence. Gene expression involves multiple complexes of interacting parts. Simply citing imagined precursors is an inadaquate explanation of how the function evolved.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I said previously:
"If theory #1 predicts something that can't be found, and theory #2 predicts it won't be found because it doesn't exist, the lack of evidence for theory #1 tends to support theory #2. This is quite simple. All the tap dancing won't change things."
We've seen some tap dancing. It means nothing.
To flesh this out, consider current CERN experiments once again seeking good ol' Wiggly Higgly, their "God Particle." They're predicting that if they once again don't find him, they'll at least know where he's not (and tweak their theory that predicted him at much lower energy levels accordingly).
I personally am of the opinion that Higgs doesn't exist – they'll never find him, he's not there to find. Now, I know how they work. They'll claim for a few years that they "might" have found him. They'll pour over readouts until they're cross-eyed, then they'll predict Higgs is so close to approaching the equally missing graviton that they'll never have the power to find him. But he'll remain in their model, because their model relies upon the existence of a "God Particle." Sad, really.
Then someday, someone will come along with the new theory physicists have known they needed for nearly 50 years now. Just like they knew would happen, because "everybody knew" the SM was wrong. They were just clocking accelerator time because it was available, and they could…
That 'Savior' theory will have no Wiggly Higgly. It wouldn't predict such a thing, so doesn't. It's not there. Suddenly the SM's failure to find him despite the decades and the trillions spent will become a big, fat "duh."
But of course they had to take it to the limit of their power to test. That's what science is, and what science does. Besides, there were three generations' worth of investment somebody had to make good on. History will record that the Grand Search for God's Particle failed because no matter how hard they tried, no matter how many strangelets, mini-holes and micro-novas they created, there never was a Higgs. The lack of evidence for him was support for the Next Great Theory all along. That's just how science works.
Maybe biology isn't really science. But surely we'd all like to think of it as legitimate, as so very much depends on our understanding of who and what we are. We all care, more than we like to pretend in a time when evolutionary biology stands in the way of useful applications instead of facilitating wondrous medical breakthroughs.
Science is not a static, carved-in-stone orthodoxy. It was not invented to be one, so whenever you see one you'll know you're seeing corruption.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Todd Berkebile Says:
Actually, the cherry picking charge works both ways. You promote the instances that favor your bias, and your opponents pick the instances that don't. Ditto for "slander and dishonestly represent". So that doesn't really advance the discussion. Not that you are obligated to, just pointing that out.
I'll agree with that. All the systems are built with atoms. And we can go further down into protons, electrons and neutrons. Or higher up into amino acids and DNA. The point at issue is how far away are the "precursors or variants". And can a Darwinian process logically explain the crossing of that distance. I don't think it can, as far as we can tell at this time. Maybe we will eventually reduce the distance by finding more intermediates. Don't know what the future will tell us.
At the Altenberg gathering, they were exploring other alternative explanations. PZ and ERV assure us that this is the way science is done. But I guess I'm confused. If the Darwinian explanation suffices, and predicts that which we see, why the need for exploring self-organization and other speculative explanations? And who gets to decide what alternatives we can explore, and which will have demarcation tests applied to them that aren't applied to other alternatives?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 8:50 am
August 10th, 2008 at 9:23 am
From the header:
The talk about precursors and variants reminded me to comment on this part of the header. I'm pretty unimpressed by Miller's arguments. He still thinks that any functional (different function than the IC function) subcomponent of a supposedly IC system renders that suppostion false. He claims that Behe asserts that no other function can be constructed from the components. But Behe never says that. He claims IC predicts that. Again incorrect.
Here is a youtube video by Miller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Now he agrees that needing 20 or so proteins to get to an IC system is a problem, but the goes on to say that if 10 of the 50 proteins needed produce a function on their own, then IC is refuted, even though it is still 40 proteins away.
Now the key is Miller mischaracterizing the definition of IC. After 12 years, it is difficult to keep thinking that a smart guy like Miller can't understand it or misread Behe's explanation. I wonder if Todd and the other ID critics who like to toss that term around think it appropriate to label his characterization as "dishonest"?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 9:23 am
August 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
The Higgs boson is predicted to have an energy of 80 – 150 GeV. Because of the nature of the experiment, it often requires more than that energy to make a reliable detection. But it's not an open-ended search, as you imply.
That's what's supposed to happen in science. A theory is either discarded or modified as required. As Quantum Theory is a highly developed and successful theory, it will be modified accordingly.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 9:34 am
August 10th, 2008 at 9:56 am
The Solar System was the result of a nebula undergoing gravitational collapse, but just saying it involved gravity doesn't answer every question. Just as knowing that life evolved from common ancestors doesn't explain everything about biology. Indeed, there are many open questions in biology. It's just that Intelligent Design has never offered anything of scientific utility.
You can explore any alternatives you want. You can write and think and propose ideas. Others can point out whether they think those ideas have merit or not. But you can't expect scientists to invest their time and effort researching what they consider to be scientifically vacuous and often-refuted notions.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 9:56 am
August 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Behe equivocates on the definiton of Irreducible Complexity.
Let's consider cases. A and B have complex functions.
We combine A and B into AB with a *new* function. Is this system Irreducibly Complex?
We combine A with an unnecessary but useful helper B to make AB. Each component of AB then specializes further to make A1B1, where A1 no longer has the original function by itself, but now requires B1. Is this system Irreducibly Complex?
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 10:48 am
August 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Zachriel:
What do you mean by A? What do you mean by B? Any function? Any cell? Any kind of life? The strength of Behe’s book DBB is that he gave specific real world examples of what he is talking about. He doesn't use abstract symbols to make his point, he uses real world molecular machines that really exist and really function in real world cells. What you need to do as a critic is to explain to us step by step how such machines evolved from a blind unguided process in the first place unguided.
For example, the bacterial flagellum is one of the molecular machines that Behe and other ID’ists have spent a lot of time exploring. They can’t see a way that such a machine evolved by an unguided gradual process. As a critic all you have to do is explain how it evolved. Simply claiming that it could happen in some in some vague metaphysical sense is not an answer.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 10, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The lower limit is now experimentally determined to be at 114 GeV with 95% confidence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Behe quite clearly deals in abstracts, as encapsulated in the paragraph I posted above. Behe claims argument "by definition", while RogerRabbitt said that Miller was mischaracterizing the "definition of IC".
I want to test the definitions Behe sets forth to be sure we are applying them correctly and without equivocation. So if anyone would care to answer my questions… (And for the sake of argument, we can assume that the complex systems A and B cannot be reduced, individually, or when combined.)
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The reason I so love it when creationists bring up IC is because all the examples put forth have been so thoroughly disproved. It demonstrates the ability of creations to ignore the evidence. Behe's example of the flagellum, being the poster child for ID, is perhaps the example that has been most convincingly disproved and yet people still cite it. I wonder if its failure is the reason IC supporters are now too afraid to put forth any other examples. But you don't need to take my word for it, just ask google and you'll find 223,000 pages. A good starting point would be the model proposed by N.J. Matzke which also has links to a few research studies confirming parts of the model. If all that reading is too much here's a video summary of that model. There's a whole section on Panda's Thumb covering flagellum evolution with links to many studies. So far homologous proteins have been found for 40 of the 42 proteins that form the flagellum, so variants and precursors abound.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 10, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Zach:
My, you really are quite the 'Renaissance Man', aren't you? I mean, besides being a hard working hands-on micro-bio guy and full time internet DD, you're also an expert on HEP, SUSY models and the search for Wiggly Higgly! Wow…
Alas, we've been beyond 80-150 GeV for years. No Higgs. As the LHC experiments begin, a good many have given up on a <500 GeV Higgs, some have given up on a <1 TeV Higgs altogether. Others are now predicting he's 'stealthily' hiding somewhere above 11 TeV. Not well-fleshed SUSY models with massless Higgs are circulating, one offers a TeV model with Higgs as a fourth generation "slepton", and there's even a few new non-Higgs ideas floating around. Meanwhile, God's magical mass beastie is still MIA.
Of course, it could just be that they've got the decay predictions wrong, thus are looking in the wrong direction. That's a problem with the theories too. It's not like they don't already know there's a problem, it's just that they've got so darned much money to build such wonderfully fine super-toys that they can keep this going for another whole generation if they want. What's not to love? As I mentioned, the machinery in physics is really, really impressive. Superconducting fields accelerating 'stuff' through miles-long toruses to 0.9999c (Tevatron, LHC will get 0.999999c), target zones creating little suns all day and night long for months or years at a time, cool suspension systems for storing anti-matter… the sheer, raw power is a constant rush!
For some, size DOES count! Hmmm… maybe we've already reached the physical IC limit. From there things just disappear into dimensionalities we cannot explore. Dimensions have no size. §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
It takes energy *and* a huge amount of data because rare particles are, well, rare.
Possibly. The data will be determinative.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Zach:
Teh Google is a marvelous thing, isn't it? But, as behooves discussions in biology – which is the first field of expertise you proudly claimed for yourself – definitions count. Are you using "rare" here as you previously used "lonely" in regards to the Tetrahymena puzzle?
I used this example to help explain how the absence of evidence for a theory can count as support for a theory that explains that lack of evidence in a new and different way. IOW, the slippery non-existence of Wiggly Higgly versus a theory where no Higgs is expected because there is no such beastie, real or virtual.
So… since you now claim to be an HEP expert as well as an expert in all relevant fields of biology, do you understand the gist of how a lack of evidence for one theory can be considered support for another?
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Zachriel says:
In DBB he is quite clear. Certainly a rational objective observer wouldn't mischaracterize it as Miller does. Now, Miller is free to do so, but one must realize he will never convince a knowlegable person on the merits of his arguments. But maybe that isn't his purpose.
But like I said, it tends to be ID critics who toss around the word "dishonest".
As for whether some concept tells us "everything", that really isn't the point. It's more a question of whether it has answered some major perplexing questions. If it has, we don't really need self-organization et al. And if it doesn't, then certainly folks are justified in remaining skeptical of its explanatory powers.
As for your "cases", not enough info is provided to draw any kind of conclusion. I would think the onus is on you to provide the details, make a case that either one or both is IC, tell us how you are combining them, and then argue for whatever conclusion you think is merited. But just like with your lung example above, there appears to be no thought or analysis about the details, just proclamations.
Maybe your thinking is profound and detailed, but that isn't obvious from your posts.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I didn't quote Teh Google, but quoted and linked to Fermilab.
I'm using 'rare' in the manner as Fermilab did when they said, "This will give the two experiments access to extremely rare subatomic processes, including access to a significant region of the expected Higgs mass range."
"Notice how knowledge of the search space is required in order to reach a statistically relevant conclusion."
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Todd says:
And yet I've failed to see any "disproof". Matzke lays out some ideas, but hardly "disproves" the IC for the bacterial flagellum.
It makes for a good first step. Indeed, Matzke says in his own paper:
Doesn't sound like he is claiming disproof in the paper.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
If Behe is equivocating, then that would explain why no one can provide an unequivocal answer. If you need more information to determine if these cases meet the definition, please don't hesitate to ask.
A and B have complex functions. We combine A and B into AB which has a *new* function. Is this system Irreducibly Complex? (And for the sake of argument, we can assume that the complex systems A and B cannot be reduced, individually, or when combined.)
If by Irreducible Complexity, you mean that to remove one part and it ceases to have *any* function, then AB is not Irreducibly Complex as we can remove A or B and each part has its original function.
If by Irreducible Complexity, you mean to remove one part and it ceases to have its *current* function, then AB is Irreducibly Complex. But we also know that it can evolve by a single, incremental change.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
RogerRabbit:
I too see a lack of detailed analyses as a problem. Simply citing homologous proteins is not enough. This is an interpretation issue which is the theme of another recent blog entry.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Irrelevant. As soon as Behe cites an actual biological example all one need do is describe a plausibly detailed model showing the evolution of the biological system in question. The definitional objection is a red herring.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Taking your "if" for the sake of argument, then apparently you are saying the concept of IC would then be incoherent. But if so, then your examples of IC, such as lung and middle ear, and Todd's disproofs would make no sense from the getgo.
You want to have it both ways. If a murder defendent could prove he was not at the scene, or shot in self defense, or shot by accident, he could beat the rap. If he takes the stand and argues all 3, well, let's just say the jury might question the honesty of his testimony. Not likely to do him much good. Even if he is innocent.
So I am willing, as I said above, to believe you don't understand IC. That undercuts your case, not Behe's.
That's nice, but you've already claimed the fault is on Behe's end. So that wouldn't make for a productive use of my time. Todd says I'm dismissive, and I certainly am. Unless you grasp the concept of IC, and can see why your lung example fails, then this won't work. No matter whether Behe is the Newton of biology, or a bluthering idiot. The logic of why we should have a discussion fails. That's the point that eludes your grasp.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
But we don't know that. Saying that a mosquito turned into an elephant doesn't imply "a single, incremental change" in any Darwinian sense. Without details on your case, I can't say this "can evolve by a single, incremental change".
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Zachriel: If Behe is equivocating, then that would explain why no one can
Good point. How are "refutations" to be taken seriously in the face of such claims. But it is the examples that are clear enough and they encompass much more than the flagellum.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
To be clear, no one is claiming the flagellum isn't IC. What is disproved is the idea that the flagellum has no clear way of having evolved through continuous slight modification. Instead we see exactly the sort of evidence that MET predicts.
Actually providing the model is just the first step. You then gather data and perform experiments to support or refute the model. Science has already both formed many models and tested those models and the results are not favorable for Behe. Yet his supporters ignore that data and persist in their crusade to discredit science.
You mean those examples that no one seems willing to share? I've been asking for examples of these IC systems that challenge evolutionary explanation and so far not one has been supplied. Instead you make excuses for dismissing the refutations so that you can justify your cherry picking and continue ignoring the evidence.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 10, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Again I disagree. Matzke doesn't claim that. He realizes that much more detail is required to demonstrate a claim about "having evolved through continuous slight modification". He is laying out a broad approach. A first step. The devil you think he has already demonstrated will have to wait for the details. Your phrase "continuous slight modification" dictates that.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I've seen the cooption models. It is difficult to make the case that "precursor" systems evolved to form a target system rather than devolving to a lesser form of complexity from a more more complex system.
This is not a problem in the least. I can post blog entries on systems that have not yet been discussed. But be careful what you ask for. The systems I have in mind will not yield much "refutation material" from search engines. You'll have to think on your feet.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Behe claims argument "by definition", while RogerRabbitt said that Miller was mischaracterizing the "definition of IC". I see you can't or won't defend the definition.
I took one of the possible interpretations, then was told by Joy "Why do you keep misrepresenting the concept of an IC system", and by you that I "don't grasp the concept of IC". Yet, you won't clarify that definition, even after repeated requests.
I meant *refuse* to clarify the definition, even after accusing others of misrepresenting that definition.
In the case presented, the incremental change was clearly defined using terminology Doug introduced above. I see you can't or won't defend Behe's definition.
Behe introduced a definition of "Irreducible Complexity", and considers it important to his argument. Only by a clear definition can we know whether something meets the definition. (I also am more than willing to allow that there may be some ambiguity or uncertainty in any definition.)
I just want a clear definition. By Irreducible Complexity, does Behe mean that to remove a part it it ceases to have *any* function, or does he mean that to remove a part, it ceases to have its *current* function? I suspect the latter, but I think it should be stated explicitly.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Bradford:
Please enlighten the lowly search engine thinkers, Oh He-Who-Thinks-On-His-Feet. Pray tell, what systems have you in Your Mind?
Comment by Raevmo — August 10, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Todd, you should take your own advice and do a little homework.
Behe addressed the homology issue when he first developed the concept of IC, in fact he does so on page 66 of Darwin’s Black Box. Here is a summary he wrote in 2004:
Once again, the critics need to understand what they criticizing. As for the other issues you have raise, Roger Rabbit has done a very admirable job in his response. There is little more that I could add.
By the way I read “Yersinia’s” article soon after he published it in 2003. I was impressed. And if I remember correctly so was Bill Dembski. However, Yesinia (aka Nick) makes the same mistake with homologies that you do, which only proves that neither you or he is willing to fairly consider Behe’s concept. Can you make an argument without using straw men, red herrings or canards?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 10, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
If we can take an existing functional complex A and make a simple addition B to create a *new* function AB, and show that removing any component causes the system to no longer have that *new* function, this system would be Irreducibly Complex.
Behe is here making a general claim. The word "since" indicates it is a necessary consequent of being an Irreducibly Complex System. Yet, there are a number of plausible evolutionary pathways.
By the way, why are the human ear and lungs not considered Irreducibly Complex.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
What systems are considered IC?
Comment by lcd — August 10, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Oh for pity sake. This is what sadly passes for the defenders of science. You POSTED the definition of IC in this very thread, and it clearly says "the basic function".
What, after 12 years nobody thought to ask Behe? And Heddle accusses me of being a sock puppet because he can't figure out why I'm a critic of the Darwinian establishment otherwise.
They can't read English at a 10th grade level, and yet they wonder why I don't take their pronouncements at face value.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 10, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Zachriel:
The latter is in keeping with other statements he made such as his acknowledgement that conceptual pathways exist but entail prior functions that are at least to some degree speculative. The function at hand is the starting point around which coherent explanations can be framed.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Zach,
How is the human Ear not IC? If you can take a bone out and it still works, why the 3 bones then?
Comment by lcd — August 10, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Good. Let's look at it closely, then.
But my question concerned the last two words, "cease functioning". I'll take that to mean it refers to the *current* function, rather than *any* function. But then he says this:
This is why there is so much ambiguity. A precursor doesn't have to be nonfunctional. It may just have a different or modified function. It may even have the same function, but have even more parts!
So, if we can take an existing functional complex A and make a simple addition B to create a *new* function AB, and show that removing any component causes the system to no longer have that *new* function, this system would be Irreducibly Complex. Is that correct?
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Joy had indicated the human ear was not Irreducibly Complex. No IDer objected to her comment, but RogerRabbitt indicated I didn't understand the concept without offering an explanation.
I don't think you mean take a bone out—it wouldn't work—, but redesign the system to use fewer bones. The bones help to amplify the signal, though we should be able to work around this problem.
The answer in evolutionary biology is that part of the mammalian middle ear evolved from the jaw bones of a reptilian ancestor. While this might seem odd, the claim is supported by substantial evidence in embryonics (Reichert 1837, Gaupp 1912), evidence which predicted the existence of transitional forms.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Zachriel:
As a logical argument you could not refute the possibility. But its applicability to actual biological entities is limited. Behe's questions about the evolution of multi-component systems are legitimate and will not disappear in the absence of real physical pathways rather than conceptually logical possibilities. If the position of critics is that answers have already been produced then it should be fun analyzing them in future blogs about specific systems.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Zach:
The subatomic processes they're talking about here aren't just "extremely rare," Zach. They're nonexistent. Haven't existed in nature since the universe was less than 10^-9 seconds old, according to their model. They've never seen it anywhere outside the equations describing their model.
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
ARGH! Can't edit, here's the correction:
…and all mammals were deaf until the transition was done and perfectly working, right? And reptiles are and have always been deaf – along with birds, correct? (Oops. Seems some reptiles hear through their lungs). And primates couldn't find ripe fruit or sex partners before they developed the ability to see red. Insert just-so Anazi tale here.
Irreducible complexity is indeed a recognized scientific phenomenon. The definition of "Emergent Property" approaches it from the bottom up – a property (in this case, function) that arises from a specified complexity in the substrate pieces-parts, but cannot be reduced to any particular properties of that substrate. From the top-down IC view, removal of any piece-part of the complex substrate inactivates the emergent property.
IC takes the top-down view. The fulcrum resting between the differing views is causation (and supervenience), a philosophical/metaphysical issue. There is a very good overview at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that would flesh it out for you.
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hi everyone,
It seem to me that if a (mouse) trap is functioning within a biological system not — as a "trap" — but as "a blunt instrument" then NS will be selecting for the optimum "blunt instrument" and RM will just be scrambling in no specific direction (randomly). The result is that the function of this "(Mouse) trap" has no causal anticedent and its appearance by RM&NS or any other such material agents must be taken on faith. It seems to me that NS optimizes for existing function not future function and that these are two divergent directions.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 10, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I look forward to these unspecified examples you have promised to produce of IC systems that defy evolutionary explanation. And just so you know, I would be shocked if you fail to find a few such examples surrounded by suitable knowledge gaps to meet your needs. It is not my position that all the answers are known. I just want anti-evolution IC advocates to put up or shut up. Time and progress will gather the evidence to disprove these examples. Please, set them up so we can go about knocking them down. Only once people have tried to disprove your examples and failed will you truly have anything to talk about. Until then you're just blowing smoke.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 10, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Wait, I thought you said they had already been disproven? Which is it?
Now it may be the future holds what you say it does. But I don't know that. And I feel no obligation to accept your predictions as fact.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 11, 2008 @ 5:14 am
August 11th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Many reptiles that can hear do so via an ear; a membrane called the tympanum, a single bone the stapes, eustachian tube, and the semicircular canals. Mammals inherited this basic structure—with significant modification. They also have several bones in their lower jaw. (Those reptiles with hearing, but lacking a tympanic membrane, vibrations may originate from some other source, such as the jaw bone.)
Mammals have three ear bones and only a single bone, the mandible, in the lower jaw. Investigations (Reichert 1837, Gaupp 1912) have demonstrated the embryonic relationship between two of reptilian jaw bones and two of the bones in the mammalian middle ear. The Theory of Evolution predicts the existence of transitional organisms and ear structures (therocephalian, cynodonts, eutriconodont). A number of important intermediate fossils have been found, confirming the link. So we have a prediction made from the study of embryos predicting what will be found in geological strata—the content of rocks.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 7:47 am
August 11th, 2008 at 7:57 am
So you agree that Behe's inference is fallacious.
Behe makes a specific claim based on what Behe's asserts as a logical inference. Please note the words "cannot" and "since". Also note the unresolved equivocation on what it means for a precursor to be "nonfunctional". (And false in any case, as a precursor may have *more* parts and still have the same function.)
I have provided several ways an Irreducible Structure could plausibly be "produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system".
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 7:57 am
August 11th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Zach,
So correct me if I am not reading what you posted correctly but it seems as if evolution goes backwards to fill a role that is needed. How does that mesh with evolution making things "fitter" as in better to survive and reproduce?
Now, I've seen and done a few things when building something that was designed that didn't work well for what it was designed for but did work for something that it wasn't actually designed for instead.
Comment by lcd — August 11, 2008 @ 9:10 am
August 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
ID via IC proponents:
LCD asked a very fair question:
Although I would make it a little more specific: what systems are considered IC and also evidence for ID?
All talk of ID via IC is vaporware unless a candidate IC system as a design signal is proposed. An empty set is not considered evidence.
Comment by David Heddle — August 11, 2008 @ 9:52 am
August 11th, 2008 at 9:56 am
That's not quite my intended meaning. However, evolution doesn't necessarily have a direction towards complexity. For instance, some parasites evolve to dispense with functions they can off-load to their host. They often become so simplified that they can no longer live on their own.
Think of it more as a process of optimization. We start with a complicated machine, with all sorts of wheels and gizmos. We slowly simplify the contraption, each step making it more efficient, until finally it is Irreducibly Complex.
Or a natural bridge. We start with a mound, and slowly remove the scaffolding of rock beneath it until we have only an arch. Remove any piece of the arch, and the structure collapses. The arch is Irreducible, but formed from a Reducible, hodge-podge structure with far more parts.
These are analogies to biological processes, but show why Behe's argument about Irreducible Complexity fails. (Nor does it provide evidence that evolution, in fact, occurred.) And, as I mentioned, there are other plausible evolutionary pathways to Irreducible Complexity. One of the simplest is cooption, where one structure is slightly modified for a *new* function, and then optimized for that new function.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 9:56 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Zach, my question was snark (hence the closer – "Insert just-so Anazi tale here." That would have been obvious to anyone not invested in pretending to be something they're not.
I can use teh Google as well as you can. That you'd offer the old "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" canard at this point is simply tiresome. No one has suggested that mammalian ear bones didn't evolve from excess reptilian jaw bones. It just doesn't have anything to do with Behe's (or Mike Gene's) concept of Irreducible Complexity. You threw this as a smoke screen to distract the subject off-topic, and have wasted a lot of discussion space attempting to KEEP things off-topic. While claiming authority in fields of science you know nothing about. You're not fooling anybody.
As JJS P.Eng. said in his linked post above, Mike has rendered the cooption explanation (Miller's argument against Behe's attempt to prove a negative) plausible within a design framework – in particular for Mike, his FLE hypothesis. It also has plausibility in terms of coordinated genetic and epigenetic mechanisms for construction of such a system in a non-incremental manner. Thus avoiding the negative effects of selection on useless pieces-parts, or the mystery of how useless pieces-parts managed to get hardwired into genes and gene expression suites that were evolutionarily conserved until the entire system became operational.
Cooption does NOT establish either the "random" or the "incremental" assumptions necessary to the grand NDS Anazi tale. I do not assume that duplications and variants created, conserved and enlisted into new coordinated expression suites (forms and functions) are accidental either.
What both Behe and Mike were talking about are coordinated biomolecular systems, not developmental changes in gene expression for general morphology. But these could simply be different levels of the same operative mechanisms. They do not appear to be "random," and cannot be accounted for in a selectionist model via incremental gradualism.
Comment by Joy — August 11, 2008 @ 10:02 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
It has nothing to do with ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, which states that the embryo goes through its more primitive forms. Rather, the embryos share a common ancestor, and as such, we can make *predictions* about those common ancestors.
Implying a connection to Irreducible Complexity.
You had asked about the transition.
You had suggested otherwise. Please be specific. Is the human ear Irreducibly Complex? The human middle ear? You had said I was "misrepresenting the concept of an IC system", but refuse to offer any clarification.
I have never argued from personal authority, and typically try to provide cites to the primary literature.
What Behe is talking about is Irreducible Complexity, and his argument, if sound, would apply equally to the macroscopic realm.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 10:26 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Joy:
Joy puts her finger on a recurring pattern. Propose a theoretical pathway solution and assume its incompatibility within a design framework. Expect the pattern to resurface when less familiar candidate systems are discussed.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2008 @ 10:38 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Quote mine much? If you apply some reading comprehension you would discover the answer, but for those who are I bit slow I will clarify. Bradford promises new examples. I said, "I would be shocked if you fail to find a few such examples surrounded by suitable knowledge gaps to meet your needs." All examples that have been put forth so far have not held up, Bradford is promising some new examples that do hold up. I am taking him at his word that these new unexplained examples truly exist even though they have not yet been presented. I will try to speak more plainly in the future so that you can keep up, Roger.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 10:44 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am
There is no need to assume anything is incompatible with design. All we must do is show that Design is a vacant explanation that adds nothing beyond MET. You can never prove design did not occur, no one is trying to do that. What we can show is that design was not necessary. The more your design theory latches on to evolutionary mechanisms like cooption the more vacant it becomes. You end up with "evolution + design = evolution" again.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 10:50 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
William Brookfield:
Cooption proposals can entail functional disconnects in a descent trail. In theory cooption takes place through modifications (molecular add ons and deletions) whose functional trail is all to often unclear.
Indeed. A theory that accurately accounts for diverging directions, with specificity about intermediate steps, would be an improvement on current models.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2008 @ 10:55 am
August 11th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Extant cooption proposals are noted for vagueness. Vacant need not be confused with vague.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2008 @ 10:58 am
August 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
* Am I the only one who finds Todd's new, bratty 12-year-old persona irritating?
Bradford:
Worse, the assumptions are asserted against a straw man stubbornly clung to despite having been told repeatedly that it doesn't apply.
FLE, EAM and other design hypotheses that postulate intelligent design as purposeful self-organization operating within the process of evolution by means of the mechanisms of evolution do not claim "evolution is impossible" or never occurred. They just claim that the unfolding (definition of the word) is not a process of random accidents culled by merciless selection of everything that doesn't improve reproductive fitness in the immediate lifetime of the organism.
IOW, the claim is that RM-NS does not explain what we see in life – thus these are NOT the exclusive or even primary mechanisms of evolution.
Zach:
Yeah. You googled some assertions from a theoretic you don't understand to counter my position in regards to those very assertions. Which I used as an example of how a total lack of evidence in favor of a theory can be considered evidence in favor of a different theory that doesn't predict such evidence.
It was from the beginning quite simple, there was no need to go Googling for authority I've already dismissed in my example. When I said that there is no evidence that a Higgs particle exists, all you needed to know is that there is no evidence that a Higgs particle exists. THAT is the actual state of affairs. Simply shifting the goalposts after every failed attempt does not inspire great confidence in the accuracy of the theory.
Citing the 'primary literature' about where one team thinks they might find Wiggly Higgly next time they look is utterly pointless and completely non-contextual to this example. I don't care where the Tevatron team thinks he's hiding this time, nor do I care where the Brookhaven or LHC teams think he's hiding (and they all have different ideas about that). It doesn't matter. The FACT is that he's still MIA, and every time they fail to find him it lends support to the suspicion that he doesn't exist at all.
Comment by Joy — August 11, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Fins to legs to arms to wings to fins.
I'm not sure why you would think that. Consider a bird that inhabits an island that dives for fish, using its wings to guide itself in the water. Highly adapted structures known as wings can become modified into highly adapted structures that work as fins.
If you prefer a molecular example, try Central role of gene cooption in neural crest evolution, or without prior gene duplication in Gene cooption without duplication during the evolution of a male-pregnancy gene in pipefish.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I provided you cites to some of the latest research in the field, including theoretical predictions and experimental data.
"Notice how knowledge of the search space is required in order to reach a statistically relevant conclusion."
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Hi Zach,
Thanks for your response, but I had thought this was a thread about IC (topologically isolated functions)
"legs to arms to wings to fins."
Yes of course, but how does one get from legs to a rotary motor?
How does one get from arms to a rotary motor?
How does one get from fins to a rotary motor?
How does one get from wings to a rotary motor?
It seems to me that ID'ers are claiming that topologically isolated functions exist in nature and Darwinists must claim (if they are to remain true to their faith) that there is no such thing as genuine IC, — IE there must be a gradualistic (darwinistic) route to "IC" — we just don't know it yet.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 11, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
One doesn't. Nor does a mosquito evolve into an elephant. I was responding to Bradford's claim about the vagueness of evolutionary cooption. As to "Irreducible Complexity", it seems other IDers have abandoned that topic despite my repeated questions on the topic.
And that Irreducibly Complex structures are such isolated functions.
Said like a true Scotsman.
An Irreducibly Complex structure is one which cannot be reduced and have the same function. There are a number of plausible evolutionary pathways (gradual, slight, successive modifications of a precursor system) to such structures. Unless, of course, you redefine Irreducible Complexity to mean something which can't evolve, which you have apparently done.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hey Bradford, what about those IC systems you promised?
Comment by Raevmo — August 11, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
As a statement of philosophy I have no objection with that whatsoever. As a statement of science it just isn't supported. That doesn't mean its not true, of course, just that there's no warrant for the belief. Still, you are free to believe that humans are simply the final result of Pinocchio molecules that really really wanted to be a real boy someday so they used their advanced knowledge of evolution to become life.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
That would be great! Please do blog about such systems. It would be good info for a layman like me. I'll be looking forward to those posts…
Comment by samsen — August 11, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Hi Zach,
"Nor does a mosquito evolve into an elephant."
Perhaps you mean't to say "directly evolve." It is claimed that elephants (Darwinianist-ically) evolved from precambrian bacteria — just as we did, right? Not everyone believes this of course, but that is what is claimed. The question of IC seems to ride upon the question of barriers to material evolution. The strength of these barriers must be assesed on a case by case basis. If elephants evolved from bacteria there must have been no insurmountable barriers (Strong IC) to this process.. right?
There are a number of plausible evolutionary pathways
Interestingly, arguing for the existence of such plausible pathways is called "science" while arguing against such plausible pathways is called "religion" — in this culture, at this time. I am convinced however, that certain structures in biology(such as the flaggela) are functionally isolated (Strong IC) and that there is no "plausible Darwinian pathway" to them.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 11, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
So the existence of detailed models showing a step-by-step evolutionary pathway where no single step involves the modification of more than one protein doesn't seem like a "plausible pathway" to you? The existence of some of the same protein machinery in other cell pores doesn't look like the sort of variants that evolution predicts? I'm curious, what exactly would you accept as a plausible evolutionary pathway?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
No, I meant evolve. They do share a common ancestor, though.
From a common ancestor. Modern bacteria are highly derived organisms.
Mathematics actually. Behe made a claim about Irreducible Complexity and evolution (gradual and selectable modifications of a precursor system). The claim would apply to all such systems, biological or abstract. His examples are just so much window-dressing in light of the equivocation.
No one seems to be able even to resolve the apparent ambiguity in Behe's definition. Apparently, Irreducible Complexity is distinct from "genuine IC".
Leave aside, then, Behe's fallacious argument. Why are you "convinced" that the flagellum is functionally isolated? Can you name any such macroscopic structures?
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Todd Berkebile Says: ….can anyone provide a single study where someone attempted to refute a claim that some IC system was unlike to evolve and that study failed to find a reasonable evolutionary pathway? It seems to me that many claims of IC are put up and one by one they get knocked down as the research progresses.
Are you actually celebrating the unfalsifiable nature of Darwinian "reasoning"? IC typically isn't a "claim," it's an empirical observation. The fact that IC can generally be observed can be contrasted with Darwinian reasoning which allows proponents to cite their own imaginations as the equivalent of empirical evidence while wrapping themselves in the myth of Progress. The possibility of failure isn't open when dealing with imaginary events which exist only in the minds of proponents of Darwinism and so on, yet you cite an artifact of the impossibility of failure approvingly. Of course Darwinian "reasoning" has never failed, did you expect it to? Or are we supposed to play pretend and imagine that a form of thought based on imagining things about how form can be blended and blurred together is defined enough to have an "edge" which can be verified and falsified?
Ironically it seems that while proponents of Darwinism are busy imagining things about the past based on the notion that past events explain all of biology Behe is still searching for the "Edge of Evolution" based on empirical evidence. (And what if past events and "mechanisms" don't explain biology because life is lived and has a form of sentience and awareness in the present capable of impacting events? Note that if Behe finds an edge to evolution then he can allow for things that those utterly blinded by Darwinism won't allow for.)
Comment by mynym — August 11, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
That is incorrect. The argument is that if something is "Irreducibly Complex", then it cannot have evolved (by gradual and selectable modifications of a precursor system). This argument fails even before looking for actual biological structures that are "Irreducibly Complex".
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Actually evolution would be easily falsified if just one of these examples failed to fall down. So far they have all fallen down. There are many predictions that evolution makes like the precursors and variants people have discussed above. So far those have always been found once looked for, but we're still awaiting Bradford's supposed new examples which he claims break this pattern. I believe future IC examples will also have viable evolutionary pathways for the same reason I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
I'm sorry, instead of "imagining" hypothesis which are then rigorously tested were we supposed to "imagine" a faerie sky god and just assume he did it while never testing anything? I guess all those journals publishing lab results are just part of a giant liberal conspiracy.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
As a statement of philosophy I have no objection with that whatsoever. As a statement of science it just isn't supported.
But given your pattern of thought it seems that the notion of design can never have any "scientific" support. Yet if the epistemic standards of scientia/knowledge are set by the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinian reasoning then it seems that you have no ground to stand on to give lectures about what is or is not supported when it comes to knowledge.
That doesn't mean its not true, of course, just that there's no warrant for the belief.
No "scientific" warrant or no warrant in general?
Those who are ignorant and stupid enough to try to believe in a philosophy of "naturalism" (Typically imagery in their minds based on a pseudo-Newtonian worldview.) often shift from the "rules" which limit knowledge back to treating their views as the total truth of all that is, was or ever could be. Note that if they're going to limit their views from the beginning then they ought to admit that they haven't found the total truth of things. A rough summary of their argument and its historical context: "Natural theologians look at Nature to see evidence of God's handiwork…. We're not natural theologians now, we're scientists who study Nature and seek natural explanations. Now we're professional scientists who deal with the natural world, we'll leave the supernatural to theologians and focus solely on seeking natural explanations. Now that we seek only natural explanations we have more of them and are always making more, this is overwhelming evidence that Nature is all that is." Etc.etc.
Even from a marginally transcendent view afforded by historical patterns a knowledge of the pursuit of "science"/knowledge can be known which shows that there's no warrant for modern arrogance. For example, if Darwinism had not shaped the cultural milieu when the professionalization of science took place it is doubtful that many modern scientists would basically be arguing: "Sure, a lot of evolutionary theory may be stupid and wrong but as a scientist I have to support it until we make more progress." I.e. if it hadn't become fused to their professional identity then they may have treated it like other scientific theories by focusing on the empirical evidence instead of shifting to talk about their professional identity and so on.
Still, you are free to believe that humans are simply the final result of Pinocchio molecules that really really wanted to be a real boy someday so they used their advanced knowledge of evolution to become life.
This is the typical pattern that begins with vague "rules" about what science is or is not based on what seems natural and so on, yet ends with talk of fairies or stigma words like magic and so on. Yet if they begin with rules about knowledge which defined the outcome before any scholarship actually took place then why is the arrogance with respect to knowledge in the end so typical? It seems very weak-minded to forget that a conclusion was specified by rule in advance based on a view of all that has been or ever could possibly be known and conclude that something has actually been found out or verified scientifically.
Comment by mynym — August 11, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
So based on what, your personal authority?, we are supposed to just wake up and say, "Oh gee, I guess the scientific method doesn't work after all!" Why, mynym says its just "hypothetical goo" so all that research must be fake or something. I'll just throw away all my meds right now since biology is so corrupt. If you have more that vague accusations lets hear it.
Scientific, I said I have no problem with it as a philosophy.
You spin some good dogma, you should be in politics. So in your mind science became corrupt when it became a profession, so now you feel justified in ignoring all scientific evidence. So are all professions thusly corrupt? Should we ignore anything any professional says, or is it just science that is somehow special? Do you follow your doctors advice, or is he corrupt too? How about the advice of your priest, he's a paid professional advocate for the church?
Here I thought the definition of science was quite clear.
So then you just want to tear down science but are offering nothing as a replacement?
Oh, I see, science is only winning because they don't play fair and not because of a proven track record of advancing knowledge and generating practical applications. Do you honestly believe science just made up some conclusions and then fabricated some data to "prove" it? Wow, I find that level of commitment to remaining ignorant truly staggering. Try reading a scientific history book some day.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Zachriel:
But machines are designed, aren’t they?
While Behe started with an analogy– the irreducible complexity of the mouse trap– the discussion lead to real biological structures within the cell (the flagellum, the blood clotting cascade etc.) His analogy was a simple illustration of what he meant by irreducible complexity; so strictly speaking he wasn’t making an argument from analogy. Indeed, once the reader begins to follow Behe’s argument and consider one of the IC systems he is describing, the mousetrap analogy becomes superfluous.
Your argument above is an argument from analogy. You provide neither data or evidence from the real world. So, are arguments from analogy in your opinion all that is required in scientific discourse?
Apparently so. Just above you said, “These are analogies to biological processes, but show why Behe's argument about Irreducible Complexity fails.” So are saying that because your analogy trumps Behe’s , you win?
Is that Behe said? This is what he wrote in Darwin's Black Box:
Behe never claims that a natural evolutionary pathway for IC structures is metaphysically impossible. For sure he does see such explanations as highly unlikely. But that is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.
His argument is not really "could vs. could not" but "how."
The mission of natural science IMO is primarily one of explaining how things in the world around us work and then maybe how they came to be. Just coming up with cool analogies doesn’t prove a thing.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 11, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Zach:
The search space ranges from 140 GeV to more than 11 TeV. Predictions from 140 GeV through ~1.5 TeV have already been tested. Yes, this shortens the search space, but that's always going to be limited by the power we are able to provide in the Largest Machines on Earth. We are not likely ever to get past 5 TeV, and that's being hopeful. We are never likely to be close enough to a collapsing star to directly measure what happens when the laws of physics turn to mush either. Or, we should all hope NOT!
But none of that matters. My example, made as analogy to the situation with how IC biological machines and 'emergent' higher level properties come to exist, is that despite all the money and all the power and all the brains in the world, Wiggly Higgly is still MIA. That's just a plain fact. That may change someday, but right now that's where things stand.
It's quite simple. If Irreducible complexity amounts to an explanation for emergent constructs and properties, it's just two approaches to the same issue. One asserts random accidents sifted by lethal selection over millions of years can produce complex functional designs enabling 'emergent' properties. This process should have innumerable semi/alternative functioning precursors in various stages of assembly – the prediction. It predicts that when a certain level of functional complexity is accidentally reached, the higher level property that cannot be reduced to any one or sum of its parts magically poofs into existence because it can. Er, does.
The other predicts that the precursors are not accidental and are not selected (are in fact conserved) despite serving no vital or reproductive function enhancing fitness. And the higher level property that appears when the construct reaches its functional design parameters appears because that's why the physical system enabling its existence exists. The purpose of the design.
Science already accepts and includes the idea that higher level 'emergent properties' can themselves be causal from that higher level. I can take that all the way down sub-cellular with an example of my own. If in fact the functional consciousness that 'emerges' from specified, irreducibly complex physical structures is causal once it has emerged, there's no reason to think it didn't cause the complex physical structures that enable its emergence. If the physical correlates of consciousness operate from the quantum mechanical realm, time direction is no object. Thus we see from this distance 'evolutionary leaps' that appear quite suddenly, often in widely divergent and separated populations at the same time.
The precursors of these high level structures exist in a first order complex form in all eukaryotic cells, and in the prokaryote realm here and there. They might be symbionts (Margulis thinks so), they might be original standard equipment and prokaryotes devolved. Who knows? But there you have it. A hypothesis for which every failure of 'orthodoxy' to believably explain the existence of irreducibly complex structures and higher level 'emergent' properties provides grudging support.
Comment by Joy — August 11, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Well, I know the math works both ways but we certainly perceive time as moving in one direction. Our perception of time gives us reason to think that the causes happen before the effects, not after or during. Still, time traveling quantum thought waves makes for good sci-fi. I wish my consciousness could reach back and cause changes in my complex physical structure; my back has been killing me today and I'd love to conscious me up a better design for the human spine. It's a fun theory, but I'm curious: Do you actually believe there is evidence to support this theory? Or is it a just-so tale of quantum mysticism to justify your a priori conclusion?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 11, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Zachriel says:
No, there's no ambiguity. It's crystal clear from the context. But feel free to keep parsing the language from DBB trying to infer some ambiguity. Until you read it rationally, you won't be able to present a coherent argument against it.
Again, that's why I migrated from the Darwinian side of the issue to be a Darwinian critic.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 12, 2008 @ 5:41 am
August 12th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Zachriel says:
But that isn't the argument. That's your strawman. As Behe said, one cannot rule out other possible pathways. what he asserts is that one cannot build up the flagellum function by gradual improvements to the precursor system, because the immediate precursors are non-functional as flagella. He says you cannot rule out indirect and circuitous routes.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 12, 2008 @ 5:47 am
August 12th, 2008 at 8:22 am
That's one definition. "Wheels and gizmos" was obviously just illustrative.
That's right. Behe is making an abstract argument and uses examples as illustration.
I am making an abstract argument to show why Behe's fundamental argument is wrong, and using examples as illustration.
Behe said, "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." As I have repeatedly pointed out, this syllogism fails for several reasons, e.g. a precursor may have a different function, and a 'slight modification' may be sufficient to create a new function.
And I'm not arguing for some odd chance, but for small, succesive and *selectable* modifications of a precursor system.
The word he uses is "cannot" (given appropriate caveats as to what we mean by slight, successive and *selectable* modifications).
I'm not arguing by analogy. Behe's basic premise is faulty. The rest of argument is therefore unsupported.
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2008 @ 8:22 am
August 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Joy, I provided a cite to Fermilab. I can't make you read it.
Fermilab 2007: The experimental sensitivity for directly observing the Higgs boson is steadily improving. The Tevatron experiments are within reach of directly excluding a Higgs boson with mass near 160 GeV/c2. Searches for a Higgs boson with lighter mass will require more data.
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2008 @ 8:29 am
August 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
You will repeat it below.
Okay. Let's look closely at what you said.
Cannot. That is a specific claim, and false. Let's look at the reason given.
There are several objections. The most obvious is that the precursor may be completely functional for some other purpose, and a "slight, successive modification" of this precusor may create an irreducible flagellum. Furthermore, for the general IC case, the precursor may have the function of the IC system, but have more parts. Slight, successive modifications can then optimize this system and result in an IC system.
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2008 @ 9:31 am
August 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Zachriel says:
No, I don't. My point is that Behe DOESN'T claim that slight successive modifications can't result in the BF in an absolute sense, only that it can't do so in a Darwinian fashion of gradual improvements to the flagellum function. Give me the DNA string of e coli, and a random DNA string, and I can mutate that random string, 1 change per generation, or per million generations, and end up with e coli. That's non-Darwinian, but not an absolute impossibilty .
In your first objection, you depend on what Dawkins would call a materialist miracle. A complex IC system is produced by a "slight successive modification" of another complex system performing a completely different function. That transition is not darwinian, merely incredible. It may indeed be what actually happened, but most rational objective observers would want evidence for a claim like that which involves something that seems to be an arbitrary, although possible, happenstance.
Behe wouldn't object to that being a mere possibilty. Only to that being a rational explanation without evidence that is what happened. Now you are free to parse Behe's words to think he is declaring that an impossibility. But that would be absurd. And it prevents YOU from countering the meat of his argument. But again, the choice is yours.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 12, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Behe: one cannot build up the flagellum function by gradual improvements to the precursor system …
So "precursor system" excludes by definition any precursor system that has a different function. Well, it can still evolve.
We might have increasing specialization in a reducible system resulting in an irreducible system. Consider a simple gene duplication, AA. Over time, each copy can migrate and specialize such that the function now requires both genes, A1A2, an irreducible system.
Or we might have a complicated but reducible system evolving, AB+CD=ABCD. Then knocking out C to make the irreducible system ABD (presumably along with migration and specialization of the components).
That's not at issue. We're talking about gradual, successive and selectable modifications.
The jaw bones of reptiles were coopted for the mammalian middle ear, and the air bladder of fish was coopted for lungs, with each step of the transition offering the organism a selectable advantage. Are human ears and lungs irreducibly complex? If not, why not?
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Roger,
Did you look at the flagellum evolution model I linked above? This model involves systems that have a beneficial purpose at every single step of the chain and that never require more than one protein modification to go from any one step to the next. Obviously the very first step is not itself a flagellum, but serves an unrelated purpose. I doubt Behe is truly saying that the precursor to the flagellum could not possibly be a flagellum because, well, that would be stupid; everyone agrees the precursor wasn't a flagellum at some point. If he is saying that he is clearly attacking a straw man. The model I linked to suggests the precursor to the flagellum was a specialized pore. Its job was to secrete chemicals into the extra cellular environment. The ability to wiggle had the benefit of improving the distribution of the chemical. The wiggling had the side effect that it could move the cell itself, which also effectively improved chemical dispersion. Improvements to dispersal happen to be improvements to movement. From that point forward you could call the system a proto-flagellum and imagine selective pressures forming a more and more efficient flagellum. At some point it no longer disperses anything but its still beneficial because it allows locomotion.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 12, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I have asked several times for clarification, but RogerRabbitt hasn't been too forthcoming. I think from his last comment, though, that that is exactly what he is saying. I don't know if this the same as William Brookfield's "genuine IC".
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
It just gets sillier. You claim I'm not forthcoming, then link to a post showing me answering a specific question you raise. I can't help it that you refuse to accept the answer. I guess you have too much invested in the "it's really ambiguous" line.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 12, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Zachriel says:
Two points. First, you are looking at the wrong end of the Behe quote:
If you are asserting another function is being built, then Behe's point is correct. The Darwinian explanation might work well explaining that other function. It doesn't explain the flagellum.
Second, Behe doesn't say it "can't evolve". Once you start using a generic world like "evolve", neither Behe nor I can dispute it, because we have to know what you mean by it first. A point Behe has made several times.
No, I don't think you are. That's the problem. That would require details, which you specifically avoid.
More silliness. We apparently can't agree on what charcteristic A is, but you want me to waste time answering whether X or Y exhibit A. That's an irrational question in light of your position on the ambiguity of Behe's concept. Even worse, you have spent no time or effort to argue why they should be considered IC. Behe's definition starts out: By irreducible complexity I mean a single system . . . Is a lung a single system? I don't think so, but if you wish to make the argument that it is, go fo it. The onus is on you to make an argument for your proposition. It's not on me to waste time on every piece of crap you toss up against the wall to see if it sticks.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 12, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Your response didn't resolve the ambiguity. Nevertheless, I think we have determined how you are interpreting Behe's statement.
I think it's pretty obvious you are avoiding the discussion, even after claiming Miller mischaracterized the definition of IC. Such an avoidance would tend to indicate to most readers that you can't defend your position.
But I'll ask it again. The human ear includes three tiny bones (ossicles) that are precisely matched with one another and with the eardrum to transmit sound to the inner ear. If we remove any of these components, the ear doesn't work. Is the human ear irreducibly complex? Is there a reason why you are refusing to answer this simple question?
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Zachriel:
What system? Any system? All systems? Just an airy wave the hand makes it all true? Your argument is a non argument because it isn’t about anything. Behe described some real world biochemical systems (like the BF) that exist in the real world and simply asks describe empirically step by step how this evolved? You haven’t done that. All you have argued is that it could have happened. Angels and unicorns could exist. However, it doesn’t follow that they really do exist. They could exist and that is all we can claim. That is hardly a scientific claim.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 12, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
It would be nearly impossible to provide a more step-by-step example then the model I supplied. Sure some parts are merely theoretical, but many parts of that model have been supported by research. Even the predicted variants exist, look up Bacterial Injection Machines some day (I hate to think what ridiculous claims ID supporters will make about that particular name). I love it when ID supporters and creations talk IC because no other example so clearly illustrates the lengths they will go to ignore the evidence. They bury their heads deep in the sand and then argue that they see no evidence. I can hardly fathom how they can cling to these examples in good conscience, some part of their brains must function well enough to realize what they are doing.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 12, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Why, mynym says its just "hypothetical goo" so all that research must be fake or something. I'll just throw away all my meds right now since biology is so corrupt. If you have more that vague accusations lets hear it.
I'd begin with Darwin's argument having to do with IC which can be roughly summarized as: "If I could be shown an organism which I could not imagine coming about in a step by step process then my theory would absolutely break down. It seems that I can always imagine a way so my theory has not failed." Your mentally incompetent argument about how researchers never fail to find a reasonable evolutionary pathway is similar: "….can anyone provide a single study where someone attempted to refute a claim that some IC system was unlike to evolve and that study failed to find a reasonable evolutionary pathway?" Of course Darwinian "reasoning" will never fail because it is fundamentally unreasonable to treat unverifiable imaginary events as the equivalent of empirical evidence. And it is only marginally more reasonable to look throughout nature and millions of organisms for similarities in form and image, combine that with imagining things about the past and conclude that evidence of progression is so overwhelming that it may as well be treated as the epistemic equivalent of knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth.
So in your mind science became corrupt when it became a profession….
No, science has always been corrupt because it is knowledge rooted in the human mind.
…so now you feel justified in ignoring all scientific evidence.
I feel justified in ignoring all the ignorant and stupid attempts to equate science with naturalism because they obviously derive from the history of science and are not derived from any mathematical/logical theory which can be verified or falsified based on empirical evidence. Given your mentally incompetent argument about how a "reasonable" evolutionary pathway can always be found it's little wonder that you presume to lecture about "all scientific evidence." It seems that you simply don't have the mental competence to realize that unfalsifiability and claims about "all" are typically a dubious sign and/or you lack historical knowledge which shows that theories which seems to "explain" every possible observation are typically pseudo-science.
So are all professions thusly corrupt? Should we ignore anything any professional says, or is it just science that is somehow special? Do you follow your doctors advice, or is he corrupt too?
It's often wise to take a skeptical view of anyone claiming knowledge and attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. We are, after all, all too human yet typically have little humility even when we are almost just humus.
Those who claim knowledge can easily slip into the sort of charlatanism which suits their Herd. Your example, for example:
Typically the best thing to do is to have competition and disagreement among experts. Given that people are often corrupt it is best to set it against itself.
Here I thought the definition of science was quite clear.
How does the notion that Darwinian evolution actually has an "edge" which can be found and defined by actual empirical evidence a violation of your definition of science?
So then you just want to tear down science but are offering nothing as a replacement?
Propagandists for the current collection of Darwinian hypotheses of evolution often argue that criticism of their idiotic hypotheses or poking holes and creating "gaps" is a "science stopper" but the real science stopper has always been not the ignorance of a "gap" but the illusion of knowledge. At any rate, your arguments assumes that tearing down Darwinian reasoning or supporting the other side of the argument is the equivalent of tearing down science but that's ridiculous and ignorant. The leading blogs of proponents of Darwinian reasoning are named after "panda's thumb" type theological arguments because Darwinism has always been in a dialectic with natural theology, it's hardly tearing down science to argue against theological arguments or a philosophy of naturalism.
Oh, I see, science is only winning because they don't play fair and not because of a proven track record of advancing knowledge and generating practical applications.
Darwinian hypothesizing is only prevalent because many people are naive and ignorant and follow your advice to simply accept the expertise of professionals and "experts" without thinking for themselves about the possibility of human corruption and its impact on history.
Do you honestly believe science just made up some conclusions and then fabricated some data to "prove" it? Wow, I find that level of commitment to remaining ignorant truly staggering. Try reading a scientific history book some day.
You haven't specified what I'm supposedly ignorant of. Given the way that you murmur the word science as if it is a magical being which will safeguard progress and civilization as we know it you seem to be ignorant of the very history that you are apparently trying to claim I am ignorant of. What history supports the arguments that you've made with respect to "experts" and so on? If you know much about the history of science you certainly hide it well. At any rate, the same knowledge can be used to make nuclear weapons or nuclear energy and so on and Progress is not assured by science. In fact, history seems to indicate that those who seek a "pure" and amoral science which has no room for the intelligence and agency of sentient beings (and a blindness to the forms of corruption typical to them) come out on the wrong side of Progress. That shouldn't be surprising given that people of that sort have no ground to judge progress or improvement based on their own amoral view of science and they also tend to be utterly blind when it comes to issues of corruption among "experts" and so on.
Darwinists often argue as if Progress is on their side, yet engineering, the use of intelligent design, admitting to intelligent agency as a reality and basing patent laws on its recognition, etc.etc., has much more to do with Progress than does the Darwinian tendency towards imagining things about the past, supposing things about similarities amongst millions of organisms, etc. In short, Progress has much more to do with the symbols and signs of design typical to civilization/language than mentally incompetent notions of a "universal acid" which dissolves all signs of design and therefore all language.
Comment by mynym — August 13, 2008 @ 1:45 am
August 13th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Improvements to dispersal happen to be improvements to movement. From that point forward you could call the system a proto-flagellum and imagine selective pressures forming a more and more efficient flagellum.
Or one could imagine a fitness peak that selective pressures couldn't get around which just happened to happen. This imaginary happenstance could be confirmed by looking for similarities and imagining that similarities are evidence of the event.
As long as we're imagining things about selective pressures and so on we could also imagine that the supposed specifications of the text that you have written here is actually an artifact of brain events which derive from natural selection operating on the excretory and reproductive organs of ancient ape-like creatures. As confirmation of the imaginary series of events which define and "select" the text that you write here based on past events one might imagine things about the similarities between your brain events and excrement.
If it is scientific to imagine that past events explain biology and the world around us then it seems that we must be forever blind to the possibility of anything truly being caused at present. Yet I wonder, does empirical evidence really justify imagining things based on such blindness?
Comment by mynym — August 13, 2008 @ 2:30 am
August 13th, 2008 at 7:37 am
It's not an argument for biological evolution. I'm pointing out that Behe's argument is flawed.
No, he claims that they could not evolve (meaning through small, successive and *selectable* modifications of a precursor system). He bases this claim on a flawed argument about irreducible complexity.
I have not even argued that! I have only argued the Behe's argument is flawed.
That's correct. Behe's argument depends on fallacious reasoning. His biological window-dressing doesn't salvage it.
Comment by Zachriel — August 13, 2008 @ 7:37 am
August 13th, 2008 at 7:43 am
That is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is a fount of testable scientific hypotheses. We start with predictions from Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — August 13, 2008 @ 7:43 am
August 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
For clarity, include the airways and muscles that control the flow of air in and out of the lungs. Is this a system? Why or why not?
Comment by Zachriel — August 13, 2008 @ 8:54 am
August 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Todd Berkebile Says:
Yes, I read it when it first came out. And the actual paper never seems to reflect the over zealous claims made for it. It is, as I said early, a good first step.
What you call it and what you imagine are not so much of interest to me. That first claim is. Not a Darwinian explanation, but a curious quirk in the fitness landscape. Now certainly it it existed, and Darwinian evolution stumbled upon it, it could take advantage of it. But I've seen no evidence that it is true. Speculating on some lucky coincedence is not very persuasive.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 13, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Zachriel says:
Of course it didn't. The amibiguity is of your creation, and only you can resolve it when you want to. Bemoaning my lack of "forthcoming" even if true, would be irrelevant.
First of all, it isn't a simple question. It actually requires some thought and analysis, which you don't seem willing to expend. And that's on top of your insistence upon ambiguity in the concept of IC, which renders the dialogue futile.
Sure, "the discussion" you envision, more a game of cyber whack-a-mole from where I sit. I prefer the discussion about the rationality of that approach.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 13, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
RogerRabbitt, you made this claim:
But you can't answer simple questions about the definition of IC, avoid discussing it in detail, and can't tell us whether well-known biological structures belong in the set or not.
Comment by Zachriel — August 13, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Todd wrote:
So you are able to prove that Type Three Secretory Systems (TTSS) are precursors of the bacterial flagellum? Bill Dembski and Mike Gene pointed out the problems with that hypothesis in 2003, some 10 months before the publication of Nicks paper. Here is an excerpt from Dembski’s article:
Did you get the point. The evidence points to the TTSS evolving after the flagellum, not before. How then could it be a precursor?
Zachriel:
You aren’t Behe. In DBB he wrote:
"Might there be [or could 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." p.203
Once again, its not a question of could vs. could not but how. How did the bacterial flagellum evolve? There is nothing fallacious about that question. It is a good, honest, scientific question.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 13, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
So your argument basically boils down to "no I'm not, you are." I was expecting you to slip in a good "I'm like rubber you're like glue" by the end there.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 13, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
August 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Biologists were predicting that evolution would produce IC structures 34 years before Mike Behe was born. His argument is just wrong. But IC is better than his Edge of Evolution argument, which, if you use realistic numbers, actually shows IC structures evolving every second of every day. It's easy to understand why this stuff can't get past peer review.
Comment by steve — August 13, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Not quite. Share a common ancestor. (Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees: they share a common ancestor.)
His argument is that it couldn't evolve (slight, successive modifications of a precursor system). His argument is fallacious.
It is a good, honest, scientific question. His objection is not.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2008 @ 7:31 am
August 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Zachriel says:
I just have to laugh. Nothing could more aptly demonstrate my point that we can't have a fertile dialogue about the issues in dispute.
Zachriel: By Irreducible Complexity, does Behe mean that to remove a part it it ceases to have *any* function, or does he mean that to remove a part, it ceases to have its *current* function?
RR: it clearly says "the basic function".
Asked and answered, but you refuse to accept it. That's your perogative, but not my shortcoming.
Zachriel: Lungs appear to be irreducibly complex requiring many interacting components or the animal dies.
Zachriel: If you remove any of the three tiny bones in the human inner ear, or the eardrum, it fails to work. They have to be precisely arranged, and not just their order, but their precise fit.
Zahriel: Or we might have a complicated but reducible system evolving, AB+CD=ABCD. Then knocking out C to make the irreducible system ABD (presumably along with migration and specialization of the components).
This is what passes for "detail" for Zachriel. Compare the level of detail he offers, compared to what Behe offers in DBB.
RR: Is a lung a single system? I don't think so,
I offered an opinion, which was pretty much all you did. It's odd to me that the guy who says:
would then not realize the same logic would apply to me. I don't want to invest a lot of time in your proposals that appear on their suface to have no merit. Now sometimes appearances are decieving. I invited you to make the case that the lung or ear was IC. That hasn't been forthcoming. I'm just taking my cue from your efforts about how fertile those suggestions really are.
But, as I've pointed out before, you can't really make a solid and detailed case without abandoning the "the IC definition is ambiguous" line.
That's what makes this all so funny.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 14, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Good luck John. I do hope you realize that you are tilting at windmills trying to get Zachriel to accept Behe's meaning. He seems to be much happier parsing the English language out of context.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 14, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I will just point out for those who are confused, that merely knocking out parts of a functioning system, and having it fail, does not imply IC. Many cumulatively complex systems can exhibit this characteristic. One first has to analyze what the basic function is, and what minimal set of parts is necessary to produce that minimal basic function. If the basic function is pretty simply accomplished by a subset of the parts and can be improved gradually by "slight successive modifications", you can build "better" and more complex systems that can depend on some critical subset of the parts being there.
You also have to be careful about what is a "part", especially when you are dealing with a Darwinian example. So what really is a "part" for the inner ear? And must we have three bones in an inner ear for there to be hearing? Clearly not, as other animals have other systems.
That's the kind of nuance that Behe covers that tends to get lost when folks like Zachriel wants to concentrate on parsing the English language out of context. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 14, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Behe: By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Yes, but the ambiguity is "effectively cease functioning". My question concerned whether this referred to the "basic function" or any function. It was a very simple question, and any person desiring communication could have easily made their meaning clear. This ambiguity in your interpretation has been resolved, though you handwaved every effort at clarification. The unfortunate effect is to put a distance between the various strands of the conversation.
I asked two simple questions in order to better understand your application of irreducible complexity. Is the human ear irreducibly complex? Are the lungs along with the air passages and controlling muscles a system?
How long are you going to take this tack?
You're actually comparing a scientist spending research time and funds, to your answering a question about IC on a blog thread about IC?
Behe: An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.
Even with your restricted definition, this remains false. A precursor may have a different function, or a precursor may have the same function, but more parts, or even the same number of parts in a slightly different configuration.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Even if one accepts Behe's definition of IC, this does not present a theoretical impediment to stepwise evolution. It is simply illogical to look at the current version of a molecular machine, with its many well matched interacting parts and assert that because loss of any component will result in loss of function this must mean it could not have evolved through a stepwise pathway. Because Behe's argument is one based on logic alone, one need only show where his logic is flawed to destroy his argument. Think of it this way: co-opt a new component that initially provides only a modest improvement to function (not an essential part), then remodel the new and existing components to refine and improve function. Now, it should come as no surprise if the recently added part becomes essential in the process of remodelling the complex such that an IC machine results. How can one argue that this is not possible? This is, in fact, how co-option occurs. There are many excellent examples of increased complexity of a molecular machine or biochemical pathway observed among different species.
The existence of an IC system is not a sound argument against stepwise evolution. IC is viewed by scientists as a strawman argument, thoroughly devoid of value. Scientists don't take the concept seriously, because its logical fallacy is clear to anyone who gives it a moment of honest thought.
Comment by David E Levin — August 14, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Behe: By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
That seems directly contrary to the definition.
More ambiguity. Can you name any macroscopic irreducibly complex biological structures?
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Zachriel says:
I prefer "explanation". I guess as long as you insist that IC is ambiguous, and yet complain about my not debating it with you.
No, I took it to be a comment about human nature generally. It it wasn't, let me supply one:
But you can't expect people to invest their time and effort researching what they consider to be scientifically vacuous and often-refuted notions.
Yes it may have a different function, but "by definition" refers back to "the basic function" in the definition, so a different function doesn't falsify it. But that still misses the point. You want to remove these quotes from context and parse them in a way to make them false. That's not what a reasonable reader will get from reading Behe's book, so they won't accept your criticism. Instead, you might say Behe didn't envision an entirely different being the immediate Darwinian ancestor. And although one could dispute that as well, I would have to agree that Behe didn't seriously consider that specfically. That falls into the category of being highly speculative, with no evidence for specfic examples such as the flagellum, and again is not a Darwinian explanation as most would understand it.
But at least that criticism would be consistent with what Behe actually said.
Yes, but we still have to account for the function being built initially. One can imagine all kinds of quirks in the fitness landscape that allows that to happen. But if we depend crucially on quirks, then quirks is the explanation, not Darwinian RM&NS.
And as I've told you already, those aren't simple questions to answer. I already pointed out in regard to the lung, that it will apparently fail the initial phrase of the definition. I've seen nothing in your posts that you've seriously considered such details. So going back to my general comment about human nature, I'm probably not gonna spend a lot of time on your hypothesis unless you invest some effort into it and capture my interest first. I hope that helps you to better understand that the application of IC I consider a non-trivial matter.
Not really. Behe's definition involves removal of "any one of the parts", and that involves defining "the basic function" and the "irreducible core". Have you defined those for either the lung or the ear (or middle ear or bones of the middle ear or whatever you actually mean)? If so, I missed it.
No, actually nuance. Which you might get if you considered more that just the couple of quotes you insist on spamming and parsing.
No I can't. The more complex a structure, clearly the more difficult a sincere analysis will be. Then again, I haven't seen you taking on that effort either. More just complaining that I don't.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 14, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Both say the same thing, and both use the word "part" and "system".
Darwin discussed cooption in Origin of Species, 1859. I would assume "a Darwinian explanation as most would understand it" might include Darwin's own explanations.
I thought not.
Behe's second sentence remains false. As you admit, he didn't consider many cases. You indicate these are not "a Darwinian explanation as most would understand it", but that's not a valid argument.
IC can evolve several ways, as was predicted by Muller in 1918.
By the removal of parts.
By the modification of parts.
By the addition of parts (to create a new function).
And all of these mechanisms are observed in nature.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
David Levin:
You have it backwards David. Behe freely acknowledges that there are conceptual pathways to IC systems. Real pathways can be described with specificity. If real ones exist for a particular system then one should be able to depict a step by step approach.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Roger Rabbit wrote:
I don’t really think Zachriel enjoys parsing English or any other language. I think this is all about disruption, obfuscation and obstructionism. Unfortunately, for some reason, it is something a lot of the “resident” TT critics feel that they need to resort to. Why? What is wrong with having an open minded discussion?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 14, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
August 14th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER:
Nothing. That's why I barred this type of obfuscation on the DNA Replication thread. If there is an existing evolutionary pathway and it can be described with a reasonable degree of specificity it will be produced. The fact that these threads tend to degenerate into parsing of words indicates that evidence does not encompass discernable pathways.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 3:31 am
As Ghandi remarked when asked about British civilisation, I think it would be a very good idea.
Do you think you are capable of being open-minded? It involves considering that someone is genuinely attempting to understand an opposing view. I find it difficult to be open-minded about ID, mainly because I have seen no serious attempt de explain the meaning of "intelligent" and "design" in the context of "Intelligent Design", although the question has been asked many times here and elsewhere.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 15, 2008 @ 3:31 am
August 15th, 2008 at 3:38 am
You are obviously convinced about the merits of "Intelligent Design". Are you open-minded enough to accept that other people genuinely believe that the whole concept is scientifically vacuous, and that in the absence of any evidence for "Intelligent Design", the fact that it is scientifically vacuous ought to be pointed out?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 15, 2008 @ 3:38 am
August 15th, 2008 at 6:55 am
I think I am open-minded enough to accept that folks can have a genuine belief that Darwinism is true and ID is false. But as Alan McNeil admits, for productive dialogue, you have to reciprocate. So a genuine belief in the 1st half of that sentence shouldn't mutate into a fact in the second half, that you are now bound to point out on every possible occasion. If one is being open-minded and interested in genuine dialogue.
And I'm not sure how you can call something a fact about ID when you apparently don't understand the terms.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 15, 2008 @ 6:55 am
August 15th, 2008 at 7:42 am
RogerRabbitt, this is your very first and complete reply to my qualified statement and a question.
Hardly indicative of a desire to move the discussion forward.
Behe defines "Irreducible Complex Systems" and then makes a direct deduction about them. This deduction is fallacious. And unless you grapple with that, any supposed character flaws in Zachriel are irrelevant.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 7:42 am
August 15th, 2008 at 8:08 am
That appears contrary to Behe's statement above.
Not necessarily. That depends on human knowledge and technical ability.
Sorry, Bradford. It doesn't work that way. It depends on human knowledge and technical ability.
Both say the same thing, and both use the word "part", "system" and "function". It seems as if you have redefined Irreducible Complexity. That's okay, but we probably need to make the distinction explicit. It would then be helpful if there was a consistent test for this RogerRabbittian IC.
This is a thread about Irreducible Complexity. I provided Behe's definition and deduction in the previous post. His complete statement makes this clear. According to Behe, it is only a matter of finding structures that fit the definition found in the first sentence to reach the conclusion in the second sentence.
I would be happy to have that discussion.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 8:08 am
August 15th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Bradford,
If Behe freely admits that there are conceptual pathways to the evolution of IC systems (i.e. that IC does not pose a theoretical impediment to stepwise evolution), then what is the point of the IC argument? If it does not pose an impediment to evolution (it doesn't), it's not worth discussing as science (it isn't). Zachriel has it exactly right.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 8:52 am
August 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Amazing, your sentence is itself a misunderstanding. Evolutionary biology (what I assume you are referring to as Darwinism) is a developing branch of science with evidence-backed theories that are provisional and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. ID is a philosophical viewpoint. The two concepts are not related so the truth or falsity of one is unaffected by the other.
Ok
See above. They are not opposites.
Could you give me a working definition of "intelligent" and "design" that is not comparative to human experience?
As respect is better earned rather than demanded, open-mindedness is better demonstrated than claimed.
My understanding that ID is not science is based on the apparent lack of any evidence to the contrary. It should be easy to correct any misapprehension by pointing to any such evidence.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 15, 2008 @ 9:27 am
August 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Zach:
Horsehockey. You and your excitable lapdog (Todd) have already had all the discussion you can possibly tolerate on this subject…
Behe (Mike, JJS, Doug, Bradford, RR, JohnA, etc.):
There are or may be IC systems.
Zach/Todd (et al.):
No there aren't.
Said the first time, reiterated by you and your tag team partner in more than a hundred posts to this thread. Whenever a simple answer as to how one views a subject and what one believes about it becomes spam (and yes, more than a hundred posts all saying basically the same thing *is* spam), the purpose is revealed for all to see. It's not discussion, it's not even affirmation of personal beliefs.
It's disruption, obfuscation and obstruction.
So no, I do not believe for one moment that you "would be happy to have that discussion" now that the thread approaches 200 comments thanks to obstructionist spam.
Comment by Joy — August 15, 2008 @ 9:56 am
August 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Hundreds of posts and you still don't know my position. Irreducible Complexity not only can exist, but is predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 10:50 am
August 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Joy,
Of course there are irreducibly complex biological systems. However, their existence is not an argument against their evolutionary origins. IC is a valueless concept because we have no more difficulty in proposing evolutionary pathways for biological machines that are IC than for those that are not.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 11:09 am
August 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Alan Fox:
Oh the irony of this comment occuring in a thread in which pathways to biological systems are claimed but unelucidated. If mainstreamers are able to assume outcomes with a degree of specificity seen here lately it is no wonder that they perceive vacuity. I'm open minded enough to think that prior to lining up causes with outcomes in support of theory, the causes need a much greater degree of specificity than is evident.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 11:20 am
August 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
David Levin:
Conceptual pathways need validation through testing. The means by which x evolves is crucial to differentiating one theory from another.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 11:24 am
August 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Exactly. So when human knowledge and technical ability fall short of enabling a theoretical validation, questions need be kept open and not closed by premature assumptions in favor of selected theory.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 11:28 am
August 15th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Bradford:
Selected theory eh?
Let us know when you have evidence for the Disembodied Telic Entity and we'll take The Argument Regarding Design more seriously.
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 11:44 am
August 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
That's why there is a lack of real dialog. An absence of evidence for physical claims is chalked up to a gap while an inability identify a designer, by empirical means, is an inference for no design. Given that perspective, standard theories are assured regardless of the level of supporting data.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bradford,
Why do we need a name for that? What can't it just be: "alternate evolutionary pathways have been suggested but further work is needed."
At least in physics we say: at the moment there are several candidates for the constituents of dark matter. We don't call that Irreducible Complexity.
Comment by David Heddle — August 15, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
David Heddle:
That's fine with me as long as those alternates include the possibility that evolution was front loaded.
IC is not a pathway but a condition by which proposed pathways can be assessed.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Zach:
Sure I do. IC systems either evolved in a step-wise fashion via cooption or devolved from a more complex precursor system that lost its pieces-parts until it couldn't lose any more.
In short: Behe's wrong, Mike Gene is wrong, and JJS is wrong. There's no such thing as IC systems that didn't evolve via or devolve according to the NDS paradigm of RM-NS.
David E Levin:
I know. Anazi tales are so much fun to tell around the campfire, aren't they? Why, if you play "let's pretend" hard enough, they might even be considered a real scientific theory someday!
[sheesh] Keep obfuscating, guys. I can't keep up with this thread anyway. Surely you can take it far enough with spam to beat the record in the Hole.
Comment by Joy — August 15, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Zachriel,
In case you haven't heard, EVERYTHING that we have already discovered is predicted by the Theory of Evolution, which of course means it isn't a prediction at all. Muller's post-diction is not about flagellum or blood clotting cascades, or even Drosophila wings – he is talking about whole organisms, so he is simply restating the Darwinian thesis. Why would you expect any different from a hard core eugenecist like Muller?
The fact that Muller explains IC away with a just-so-story is precisely the kind of explanatory vacuum that led Behe to explore IC systems in the first place.
Comment by chunkdz — August 15, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Bradford,
Nobody claims otherwise. Until there is experimental or observational validation of any hypothesis, the answer must remain "We don't know". This is quite distinct from the ID claim that because we cannot (yet) explain how something evolved, it must have been designed.
Is there some evidence for frontloading of information of which I am unaware? It is important to let the existing evidence provide the foundation for any hypothesis, not the other way around. Otherwise, you simply generate ideas based upon wishful thinking. This is not science.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Chunkdz,
What sort of explanatory power does the negative argument of IC provide? Zero. Just-so-stories can be tested. This is what science is very good at. ID doesn't even offer a just-so-story. It offers no way forward to new knowledge at all. And in what way is Behe exploring IC systems? Has he made some discovery that we should all know about? I don't see him publishing any work in the scientific journals. He's not exploring anything.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
David Levin:
Strawman. Not my argument.
Existing evidence indicates no evolution in the absence of existing replicating capacity and selection criteria. Chemistry does not suggest that relf-replicating systems arise in the absence of purposeful guidance.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Bradford,
The problem with front loading information to be used later (aside from the fact that there is zero evidence to support the idea) is that genomic information tends to decay pretty quickly in the absence of purifying selection. Just look at all those mutated olfactory receptors in cetaceans. Mammals have roughly 1000 genes that encode proteins that provide our sense of smell. Whales and dolphins, which use their noses for blowholes and no longer have any use for the ability to smell things in the air, have allowed the mutational decay of all of these genes. They are still present in the genome, but none remain functional. So, any hypothesis that involves frontloaded genetic information designed to be used only billions of years after their insertion into the primordial species must provide a mechanism by which that information is protected from the natural forces of decay that act in the absence of functional selection.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Bradford:
Does it suggest the opposite?
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Bradford,
Your first statement is correct, but does not speak to the question of frontloading of information. The second statement is an assertion without evidential support. Please provide a reference that asserts the impossibility of self-replicating systems arising through chemical processes. I am unaware of any in the scientific literature. Of course, such an assertion would be foolish.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Actually it tends to decay in the absence of sophisticated cellular DNA repair mechanisms. That makes it more problematic that a genome could replicate with any degree of fidelity without such mechanisms already in place.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The most likely reason why there is a dearth of information about the origin of fundamental molecular structures is that these events occurred billions of years ago on an Earth that no longer exists. However, we can make a variety of predictions about extant structures that support a natural origin.
I'd be happy to discuss that topic as well, but we need to dispense with this business about the existence of an irreducibly complex structure implying that it could not have evolved by natural mechanisms.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The Theory of Evolution was proposed in 1858 to the Linnaean Society in a joint paper by Darwin and Wallace. In the intervening hundred and fifty years, a huge amount of scientific data has been collected which, according to you, was predicted by the Theory. That would make it an extraordinarily successful scientific theory.
(You're not quite right. The Theory of Evolution has been modified in light of the evidence many times. However, the basic principles laid out by Darwin have remained largely intact.)
No. If it predicts EVERYTHING, then it is vacuous. The Theory of Evolution is highly constrained in what it does predict.
Muller applies the concept to the rapidly developing field of genetics in a 1939 paper.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Bradford,
Two points here. First, this is not a response to the problem of genomic decay in the absence of functional selection, which precludes frontloading of genomic information. Second, before primative cells evolved DNA repair mechanisms, mutation rates would have been much higher than they are today. This would have allowed for much greater genetic variation with potentially accelerated evolution in the early days of single-celled life.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Lack of evidence for particular pathways to IC systems is not evidence for ID.
It may be because they perceive a lack of scientific evidence for ID concepts such as front loading.
You're sure about that?
I'm open minded, I hope, enough to consider any positive evidence you can point me to for ID.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 15, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hi David E Levin,
I wasn't aware that Behe was claiming to offer an explanation.
At any rate, have you read the OP? It's about Mike Gene's take on IC, not Behe's.
Comment by chunkdz — August 15, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
chunkdz,
In fact, Behe doesn't offer any explanations beyond goddidit.
No, I haven't read "Mike Gene's" book. I may get around to it, but I haven't read anything here that would suggest he is putting forth any valid ideas. How would you say his take on IC differs from that of Behe's?
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Zachriel,
You claimed that the Theory of Evolution predicts IC.
You also claimed that this prediction was asserted in the Muller paper.
Therefore you should easily be able to tell me how Muller's prediction might be falsified.
Comment by chunkdz — August 15, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
David Levin:
Sure it is. Functional selection presumes function which is not apparent prior to the existence of replicating cells. There is another problem which is suggested by your second point.
You're overlooking the need for balance. Mutations must occur within a range to be effective. The problem with too many mutations lies with fixation. When basic, essential functions, we would describe as highly conserved, are compromised by genomic decay you have a recipe for genomic meltdown.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
David E Levin,
I don't recall that being in Behe's book either. Have you read it?
So you apparently haven't read Behe, and you haven't read Gene, yet here you are complaining about both of them. Interesting.
It's laid out quite clearly in the subject post of this thread. Apparently you haven't read that either. Fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — August 15, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
You can't unring that bell. It only takes a single instance, and IC (as normally construed) is common in biology. Behe's suggestion that IC is not consistent with evolutionary theory is clearly false, however, you might argue that there may be other theories that are also consistent with IC.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
That is incorrect, though no one has been willing to engage the issue. We might have a simple function A which duplicates to AA. Then they may become specialized to work as a team A1A2. At this point, it may require both enzymes to complete the task. Later, we might see the system coopt a small helper A1A2B. After time, the components might again adjust and further specialize to become A1A3B. None of this requires anything other than standard evolutionary mechanisms, and is a common pathway to the evolutionary of enzymatic cascades.
The precursors may be extinct, and there is no reason to assert that they necessarily "should be abundant" in the modern world. But it turns out that there is evidence of such intermediate structures and that they form families of related structures.
Comment by Zachriel — August 15, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Zachriel,
I asked how Muller's prediction is falsifiable.
You responded by saying that IC structures are common. This is a non-answer.
You then impugned Behe. This also is a non answer.
For clarity's sake, please restate what you believe to be Muller's distinguishing and specific prediction, then tell us how this prediction might be falsified. Science, after all, relies upon specific and distinguishing predictions that are testable.
Comment by chunkdz — August 15, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Bradford,
Oh…that must explain HIV. Check your facts. What happens with a very high error rate, such as that found in HIV and other retroviruses, is an accelerated rate of evolution. Selection will always remove the deleterious mutations.
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
chunkdz,
No. I said I hadn't read Gene. I have read both of Behe's books and reviewed his latest for NCSE:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc...
Comment by David E Levin — August 15, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Bradford:
That's false. Replicators do not have to be cells in order for (functional) variation in replication rates to exist and hence (functional) selection to occur.
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
David E Levin:
Actually, this is one of those rare occasions where Bradford is right. Above a certain mutation rate (error threshold) meltdown will occur.
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
David,
And I said apparently you haven't read Behe because you claim that his explanation is "goddidit" or "God-as-mutagen". I have read Behe too, and I don't find those characterizations to be present in either book.
Personally, I found Mike's book to be much more enjoyable, and a rather inventive approach to ID. You might consider reviewing it as well.
Comment by chunkdz — August 15, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
David Levin:
A good example of an unrealistic analogy. Replication is possible only becuse advanced life forms already exist; begging the question as to how the cellular function would have evolved. Most critical analysis of ID starts with what must be demonstrated. The existence of viruses does nothing to explain life. In all probability they devolved from cellular life forms.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Functional selection presumes function which is not apparent prior to the existence of replicating cells.
What is the selection criteria for a self-replicating RNA genome? What results get naturally selected?
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Alan says:
No, and I'm not sure why that is relevant. Language, like science, is an invention of humans. But as long as were asking for defintions, what qualifies as science? Seems to me some very smart people have been struggling with that one for a while.
Yes, that was my point. I'm willing to consider both sides of the issue. You consider that suggestion as akin to an insult. I guess this is another comment that I gave somebody the benefit of the doubt that they were talking about general principles, but they were really just ignoring the principle and using the words as a strategy.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 15, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
This is an example of blind criticism guided by talking points. Don't bother reading the book just spout cliches.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Bradford:
I'm surprised you can't come up with this yourself. Self-replicators with different molecular compositions (sequences) will differ in tertiary structure and therefore in the speed and/or fidelity of self-replication. Thus variation in sequence implies selection. By definition, such differences in sequence are heritable, hence evolution by natural selection. Surely you can see this. Cellular structure is not required for evolution by natural selection.
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Zachriel says:
Yes, they both have those words in common, but no, they don't say the same thing. Details aren't your strong point, are they?
I'll be happy to check out your citation for Behe saying that. Don't remember that from DBB. Indeed, he goes out of his way to make a nuanced case. But maybe a citation will correct my faulty memory.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 15, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
By the way: seen this already?
Looks like the flagellum is not so IC after all…
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Raevmo,
From the summary:
Isn't that saying they speculate the TTSS evolved from the flagellum, rather than the TTSS being the precursor, as Matzke suggests? But I missed the part that deals with the IC issue. Maybe you can quote it for us.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 15, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
What is the selection criteria for a self-replicating RNA genome? What results get naturally selected?
Raevmo:
So more quickly replicating RNA would be naturally selected over the slower versions. How does this lead to the generation of interacting biological systems which replicate as a unit?
There is more to it. Selection of some varieties over others occurs because the selected varieties enhance reproductive fitness by comparison. Self-replicating RNA has a one dimensional fitness parameter. As long as it replicates it matters not whether sequences confer the catalytic functions common to living cells. If cellular catalytic functions are as relevant to their fitness as non-functional sequences then the road to a cell terminates in a dead end.
Without directly stating it self-replicating enthusiasts believe that cellular fitness properties naturally evolve from extra-cellular RNA replication. This is unsupported by both logic and experimental results.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
RR:
I'm not sure, but you might be right. It's also conceivable that flagella evolved from excretion systems and backwards again. I think the the study does show that flagella are not IC, in the sense that loss of some components does not lead to a non-functional system.
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
More from the summary:
They seem to have lost the motility function, which is part of how IC is defined.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 15, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Bradford:
So you admit now that natural selection can apply to non-cellular self-replicators. Good, you learned something. There is still a lot to learn about the road to cells from there, but there are no logical barriers as you'd like to believe. But feel free to believe that jeebus our lord paved that road if that makes you happy.
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
RR:
Hahaha. What, they lost their flagellum and they can't move anymore? I'm shocked.
You must admit though that the flagellar system can easily evolve to another functional system. Or did the Designer do it?
Comment by Raevmo — August 15, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Raevmo:
That belief of mine is nothing new. Selection favors quickness of replication.
The conceptual barriers lie with selection criteria. If speed is all there is then we truly have a dead end.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
If anyone had demonstrated how the flagellum evolved you wouldn’t be playing this game of rhetorical hot potato with creationists.
OTOH, IDers have nothing more to offer than their own version of it “just happened.” Where is the “conceptual pathway” for the design of the flagellum?
Behe's criticism (argument) is unoriginal. It has been repeated often by evolutionary biologists: Too often we rely on “just-so stories,” “plausible arguments,” and “conceptual pathways,” when, truth be told, we have few demonstrations supporting detailed explanations for the evolution of anything!
But, IDers, what have you got–God pulling a rabbit out of his hat?
Comment by Rock — August 15, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
August 15th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Btw, Bradford, an intense selective regime for any function should reveal the irreducible core of the function. E.g., if the selection criteria is for speed of reproduction then there are many experimental demonstrations of systematic reduction of the system to those elements that support only that (select) function and cannot be further minimized or reduced. I will provide you with some results, if you are interested.
Comment by Rock — August 15, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Rock:
Very glib, but also very true. Some basic honesty on part of some of our resident critics would certainly help to move the argument forward. All they have to do is stipulate that we don’t know what we don’t know.
I part company with other ID’ists over whether or not ID is “science.” In it’s present from I do not think that it is. So, I would argue that it is premature to talk about “conceptual pathways.” However, I do think that ID can provide a “conceptual framework” that can evoke some new and interesting questions as well as a different, out-of-the-box” way of looking at the data. For example, ID’ist are willing to consider that there are other possibilities besides the ‘gradualism’ that has been championed by evolutionists since Darwin. The explanation, perhaps new natural laws governing the organization of matter, might be still a “natural” but it’s contrary to the current Darwinist dogma. We’ll never know unless we look. ID’ists, among others, have not been afraid to consider these alternate explanations.
Maybe for you. But, for a layman like myself, Behe introduced a whole new world to me. Ironically, as real life designer, it’s a world that has a lot of familiarity (once one learns some of the new terminology.)
I think that is a caricature. Many ID’ists like Mike Gene actually prefer to think in terms of evolution rather than special creation. Pulling the rabbit out of the hat evokes, in my mind, the idea of special creationism.
Speaking of rabbits. I don’t know if you ever noticed this but Mike Gene really liked rabbits. I mean it bordered on obsession.
Joy wrote:
Horsehockey? I thought it was “horsepucky.” I have an idea. I’ll pretend that I’m Zachriel and you can be you and we can have an argument about the meaning and parsings of words. You say horsehockey, I say horsepucky. I am right. I know I am. Horsehockey is such a vacuous term. So there!
Anyway thanks for comment. You said everthing I wanted to say and more.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 16, 2008 @ 1:18 am
August 16th, 2008 at 5:12 am
The only selection that is taking place is reaction. Reactive systems never created a damn thing, in fact, reactive systems are only known to be created via pro activity or what TTers would call foresight. A digital thermometer can be said to react to the environment, a computer can be said to react based on the instructions you give it via programming via pro activity, an airplane can be said to react by changing velocity, a calculator can react based on the buttons you press on it. Does this actually create said system or another equally complex and specified system?
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 5:12 am
August 16th, 2008 at 5:47 am
RogerRabbit says:
Well, it might clarify what "Intelligent Design" means, especially if there were less than one definition per proponent.
Point 1: If you mean ToE and ID, they are separate issues.
Point 2: Neither you nor anyone else seem keen to give any specifics about ID, and seem dismissive about ToE on little acquaintance. Open-mindedness is not what springs to mind.
The suggestion that you are willing to consider both sides of the issue? An insult? Not at all. But demonstration is more convincing than declaration.
I am a layman (3 years University biochemistry 30 years ago, only) and you are , too, but here's a proposal that would demostrate our open-mindedness. You tell me the title of the book with the best explanation of ID and I'll get it, read it and publish my critique of it (here or elsewhere to be agreed) and I will do the same for the ToE, for you to read, critique and publish. Deal?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 16, 2008 @ 5:47 am
August 16th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Sorry, I overlooked your question:
I would suggest science is the study of observable and measurable phenomena.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 16, 2008 @ 6:02 am
August 16th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Raevmo says,
Good to see you've kept your sense of humor despite being caught trying to hype an intriguing sounding paper into something it is not.
As for "easy", that maybe a little too ambiguous for some of us, and maybe a little too reflective of "human experience" for others. I think we probably can agree that if we are considering the source of the variations to be mutataions random with respect to fitness, "breaking" something is probably most common (with NS culling those out in most situations), evolving another system from existing parts is rarer, and building IC systems would be even more unlikely.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 16, 2008 @ 6:08 am
August 16th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Alan says:
Using that definition, ID qualifies.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 16, 2008 @ 6:10 am
August 16th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Darwinists show a tendency to think backwards in terms of function.
They think because oil is a lubricant, this will cause less friction and thus trigger motion, long and behold a 3.8 Litre engine will be the dynamic result.
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 6:14 am
August 16th, 2008 at 8:20 am
RogerRabbit says:
A bold assertion. Can you justify it?
ETA:
PS Thoughts on my offer?
PPS Definitions of "intelligent" and/or "design" that are independent of human experience?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 16, 2008 @ 8:20 am
August 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am
RogerRabbitt, you once again wave your hands and neglect to support your position.
Behe: At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems… Examples of irreducible complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry textbook. But if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena of the past forty years?
Behe is clearly arguing that once you identify an IC system, we can conclude it couldn't have evolved. It is based upon his definition of IC and his fallacious argument found in those two sentences.
Let me reiterate. I have repeatedly attempted to engage the issue. If you can't or won't defend Behe's proposition, then there is no argument.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 9:27 am
August 16th, 2008 at 9:39 am
That is almost certainly not correct for any reasonable RNA World hypothesis. RNA replicators would have evolved in a complex network of interacting molecules, with helper molecules, segregating structures, and under a variety of environmental conditions.
The most likely reason why there is a dearth of information about the origin of fundamental molecular structures is that these events occurred billions of years ago on an Earth that no longer exists.
It is Behe who claims that IC's "power resides mostly in its definition". Then he says it is only a matter of finding IC to disprove evolution. Behe makes a fallacious argument.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 9:39 am
August 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I can now see why most Darwinists get banned from UD on the first day. Repetitiveness, purposeful ignorance/stupidity, flaws in logic or logical incoherency/inconsistency will do the trick.
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 9:49 am
August 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
If the prediction is that the bell will ring, falsification would have occurred if the bell didn't ring. You might argue that the bell would have rung anyway. Perhaps another theory might explain the same result. Or that it wasn't a bell, but a goat. Or you could even argue that the prediction wasn't properly entailed in the hypothesis, that the result was coincidental. This would require reading Muller's paper (what an idea!) and understanding why he would make such a prediction. (I have repeatedly tried to engage that issue.) But this certainly suggests, at the very least, that Irreducible Complexity is consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
But you can't unring the bell.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 9:54 am
August 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Hey Bradford,
Who designed the designer? Who designed that designer? …eh?
Micheal Behe doesn't make the distinction between Darwinian Evolution and evolution now does he? I read all of his books (The God Delusion and The God delusion), one I have right here on my lap, Micheal Behe obviously doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution, therefore he must be a young earth creationist.
If spiders aren't intelligent, how do they manage to create spider webs Bradford? Doesn't that refute ID?
During embryological phase, there is no thinking mind involved, doesn't that refute ID Bradford?
Snowflakes are complex specified information processing systems, that must prove ID is false since snowflakes come about through natural unguided processes.
And hey btw, what is intelligence? Nobody knows, I guess ID is refuted.
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 10:03 am
August 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Can anyone provide me with any evidence supporting the idea of front-loaded genetic information? When we look at genomes, what we find is increased complexity going from bacteria to protozoa to metazoa to vertebrates. Additionally, we sometimes see evidence for loss of gene function when a species adapts to a new environmental niche. An example is the loss of olfactory receptors in mammals with a reduced (sometimes to zero) reliance on sense of smell. Another is the loss of hemoglobin in Antarctic fish, whose habitat obviates the need for red blood cells. A third is the loss of the GULO gene in apes and humans, species whose diets alleviate the necessity to make their own vitamin C. Although these genes have mutated to non-functionality, their remnants remain in the genome.
It seems to me that front-loading of genetic information makes the very strong prediction that we should find in the genomes of simple species remnants of genes whose functions are specific to complex species. If all of the genetic information to make vertebrates (for example) was front-loaded into the earliest bacterial species, followed by functional loss of information from the genomes of species that did not need particular genes, we should see remnants of at least some of those lost genes. Are there, for example, remnants of metazoan-specific genes found in the genomes of protozoa or bacteria? As far as I am aware, there are not. For instance, a search of genomes for a large class of metazoan-specific genes that encode tyrosine kinase receptors, a distinctly metazoan innovation (from the evolutionary perspective), reveals nothing in the way of related pseudogenes or gene remnants in any bacterial or protozoan genome. This is the sort of evidence that one would have to produce for the idea of front-loading to be taken seriously. In the absence of evidential support for the idea, the rest of the discussion is meaningless. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence for the generation of new information through established evolutionary mechanisms, such as gene duplication (followed by mutational specialization), exon shuffling, and exonization of SINES, just to name a few. Where is the evidence for front-loading? Somebody help me to understand why this idea is worthy of serious consideration.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 10:35 am
August 16th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Zachriel,
Actually, I'd say that the bell rang a long time ago. But this illustrates a common misconception among scientismists.
In 1934, philosopher of science Karl Popper published an important book entitled Logik der Forschung, or The Logic of Scientific Discovery. In his book he criticised naturalism in science, and emphasized the importance of testability, or falsifiability, as being essential to any scientific hypothesis.
Since Popper's work, falsifiability has been universally accepted in the scientific community as an essential criterion to demarcate science from non-science or pseudo-science. In science, predictions must be specific and distinguishing, as well as empirically testable and falsifiable.
So once again, I ask you,
Stories about ringing bells are simply non-answers, since we all know that IC already exists and has existed for millenia. If you're still stumped by my question I'll give you a little hint. Read the two sentences directly before the quote you snipped from Muller's 1918 paper to see what Muller really "predicted".
Comment by chunkdz — August 16, 2008 @ 10:57 am
August 16th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Computerist,
Behe wrote "Darwin's Black Box" and "Edge of Evolution". "The God Delusion" was by Richard Dawkins.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 11:10 am
August 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
David E. Levin,
It's not worthy of your consideration.
However, when the hotly anticipated "The Design Matrix: The Scholastic Version" comes out, (illustrations by Thomas Kinkade and forward by Dr. James Dobson) we'll be sure to let you know.
Comment by chunkdz — August 16, 2008 @ 11:27 am
August 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am
chunckdz,
Great answer! Until (or unless) there is some evidential support for these ideas, the scientific community will continue to regard ID, in its various forms, as unworthy of serious consideration.
The ID crowd can continue to write popular books that do not reflect what the scientific evidence says, but we all know what happens when they try to push their pseudoscience into public school classrooms. I can't wait for the sequel to Kitzmiller v. Dover….
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 11:36 am
August 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
[...] at Telic Thoughts, David E Levin writes: It seems to me that front-loading of genetic information makes the very strong prediction that we [...]
Pingback by Front-Loading Prediction | The Design Matrix — August 16, 2008 @ 11:47 am
August 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Oh you haven't seen anything yet! Just you wait until Mike and Casey Luskin publish their new book "Of Tetrahymena and People" (Zondervan Publishing 2009) Then we'll show you and all your jack booted skull kicking atheist buddies! LONG LIVE THE THEOCRACY!!!!!!!!
Comment by chunkdz — August 16, 2008 @ 11:48 am
August 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
from ping-back
Mike,
I was specifically looking for remnants of metazoan-specific genes in protozoa, not the rare example of a functional form of a gene. Where are the remnants? Perhaps my example of RTKs was not the best as there appears to be an example of an RTK in tetrahymena, but there are many other examples of metazoan-specific genes, or vertebrate-specific genes. Again, where are the remnants of these genes in protozoan and bacterial genomes.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
chunkdz,
You guys just can't help letting that religion thing slip into your patter. You think that helps your cause?
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Of course. Outcomes limited to mere replication, without directed systems resulting, are DOA.
Directed outcomes are capable of marvelous results. It's naturally forming products that are relevant.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
computerist:
An objection based on an appeal to causality right? Yet if we ask why is there something rather than nothing we are told this is merely a question for armchair philosophers. A chain of causality is the basis for an objection to one paradigm while the alternative paradigm gets to rest on the assertion that the universe is existential. It just is so don't ask how it came to be or what preceeded its existence. Inconsistency, thy name is critic.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Yes, all valid hypotheses must make empirically testable predictions, and be reasonably consistent with previous observations. The question Muller considers, among others, is the origin of "reaction systems", including "interlocking complexity". He posits that (one way) they evolve is by adding a part, then through a process of optimization, making the part necessary. We have evidence supporting Muller's hypothesis that many reaction systems, such as enzymatic cascades, have evolved by this process. I posted Muller's explanation above.
Yes, I've read Muller. He briefly restates the Theory of Evolution, including the postulate that each change must provide a survival value, then deduces the empirical implication with regards to how an IC reaction system evolves as a consequence of these natural processes.
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Are you saying that IC is not consistent with natural evolution? If you have a claim to make, then make it.
That sums it up.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Please define "directed". Are you claiming that there would not be a variety of environmental conditions? Or that replicating molecules would not be part of networks?
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Mike Gene's response (see ping-back) to my question regarding genomic remnants predicted by front-loading of genetic information was to identify a rare example of a functional protozoan gene once thought to be metazoan-specific. This was not an honest engagement of either my question, or the prediction made by front-loading. It was just a diversionary tactic. Again, I ask, where are the remnants of metazoan genes within the genomes of protozoa? The question speaks to the issue of genomic decay that we know occurs in the absence of functional selection.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
There clearly would have been a variety of earthly prebiotic conditions. The question is would any result in the generation of a a self-sustaining replication process involving RNA?
That remains to be seen. Networks of interacting molecules must have the capacity to replicate as networks. That in turn requires an information carrying nucleic acid able to store and pass on information needed to duplicate such networks.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
No, the question concerned your assertion that "Self-replicating RNA has a one dimensional fitness parameter."
Possibly. That is not known with any certainty.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
David Levin:
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I asked Raevmo to define selection criteria and was informed that replication speed was the parameter.
Bradford: Networks of interacting molecules must have the capacity to replicate as networks. That in turn requires an information carrying nucleic acid able to store and pass on information needed to duplicate such networks.
How would networks of interacting molecules replicate as systems without an information storing molecule. That was Shroedinger's insight.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Raevmo provided at least *two* selection criteria; speed and fidelity.
A Gap is not an argument. But in any case, there has been some work on autocatalytic reaction networks (e.g. adenosine esters), but its relationship to abiogenesis is still speculative at this time.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Bradford,
We know of a great many precursor genes in protozoa that evolved into different, but related genes in metazoa. What we don't see are the non-functional remnants of once functional metazoan genes in the genomes of protozoa or bacteria, a prediction made by the front-loading all the information required to make a metazoan species into the genome of a primordial single-celled species. All those genes that were not needed in simpler species have apparently disappeared without a trace–no remnants like those we see in the genomes of species that have lost the need for a particular gene.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Why is sequence fidelity naturally selected for as long as replication occurs?
Bradford: How would networks of interacting molecules replicate as systems without an information storing molecule.
This is not a gap. It points to a causality issue. Erwin Shroedinger's intuition has been shown to be right previously. Why would one expect something different with respect to prebiotic systems?
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
meh…
I don't know how you deal with these goofballs Bradford, I honestly don't.
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
computerist:
I knew you were being sarcastic but decided to use your comment to make an earnest point. Next time I'll use one of the yellow faces or perhaps mr green to signal an acknowledgement.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
computerist,
Yeah, it's pretty much always the case that the scientific mainstream is represented by goofballs. It's amazing we figure out anything at all, isn't it? Even more amazing is that we make a pretty good living at it, too. Oh, and let's not forget the various contributions to society we goofballs have a habit of making on a regular basis. It's just unbelievable how well this goofy science stuff works.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
computerist:
I grew up in a home full of them and responses are like auto-pilot for me.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
No objection to anything here Bradford, I am simply doing the Darwinist's (and us) a favor and asking all they're popular questions in one comment before we have to go through another hundred or so where only one might be raised.
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Bradford,
Indeed, your responses do seem to lack thought.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
So Bradford, lacking thought and responding in auto-pilot mode, does that not falsify ID since no intelligence seems to have been involved? Spiders also create spider webs without any intelligence involved.
Comment by computerist — August 16, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
This assumes that the metrazoan genes in the genomes of protozoa and bacteria were not needed by them. A specious assumption.
Comment by Bilbo — August 16, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Bilbo,
You missed the point. Metazoan-specific genes are those defined as being absent in protozoa and bacteria. So, by definition, such genes were not needed by the simpler species. If they were front-loaded, they have been lost without a trace. Why are there no remnants? Huge numbers of genes that must have been lost with not one pseudogene, not one detectable remnant to be found. Not at all what one would expect if all this information was front-loaded.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Wow. A hostile remark from a critic.
When cliches and strawmen are put forth time and time again auto-mode is the most appropriate response.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
David, I think this statement of yours is enough to conclude not to take you seriously on anything you might have to say on the subject of metazoan-specific genes in bacterial or protozoan genomes. Perhaps you're jumping to conclusions way ahead of time?
Comment by Bilbo — August 16, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Most phenotypic mutations are deleterious. With a high mutation rate, there is a greater probability of a beneficial mutation being found with deleterious mutations, consequently lowering the chance of fixation. On the other hand, there is a biochemical cost to fidelity. And too low of a mutation rate can result in being overtaken by a more evolutionarily nimble competitor. This results in balancing selection, diversification, and complexity.
Another factor is hardiness and stability. And all these factors take place within a wide variety of environmental conditions.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Bilbo,
How so? The statement is accurate. There are no pseudogenes or remnants of these genes to be found in the databases of protozoan or bacterial sequences. Besides which, nobody has tried to address the question of where the remnants of lost genes are from the supposed front-loading of information. It's a garbage idea without any evidential support.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
David:
I agree
Who was the straw man who proposed it? And in which imaginary world is a designer so constrained that the only way he can frontload information is through nonfunctional genes.
It must be boring to live in such a world but on the other hand it does have the advantage that you get to feel tough while knocking over your imaginary foes so easily.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 16, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
FMM,
This illustrates another problem for ID. There are no testable ideas there to work with or build upon. Just a collection of very squishy, ethereal notions. Until (or unless) ID can generate some evidential support for one or another of its many versions, it's not worth serious consideration. Until then, evolutionary theory does a very good job of explaining what we observe. This is not to say that we can detail every evolutionary pathway, but we have a pretty good understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to the process. In some cases, we can delineate the evolutionary pathway through the identification of clear, living intermediate forms.
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
David:
Wow. So now ID makes no predictions. Funny how only a couple of hours ago you were saying
It did not take you long to digest all the possible ID hypotheses and do a 180 degree turn from strongly testable but falsified to not testable at all.
It might be a good idea to relax and try to at least learn a little about the options available before you make such blanket statements.
If you were to turn another 180 degrees it might make us both dizzy.
So you haven’t given ID any “serious consideration” yet you claim that it is both falsified and un-falsifiable.
Why should I consider such a shallow a critique to be worthy of “serious consideration”?
Of course it does in your opinion but if you ever want to convince the majority of the population who disagree you might want to at least listen to those who are not as convinced.
Dialogue is always better when it involves more that one voice.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 16, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Apparently lost in the game of hot potato, which has now degenerated (predictably) into trading personal insults, was a straightforward factual statement that I will support with published research: An intense selective regime for any function should reveal the irreducible core of the function.
If the concept of a biological function means anything then there must be some irreducible, some definitive statement of what that function is and how it is minimally actualized (materialized). So I don’t understand what is the problem.
Does function mean nothing in biology?
Comment by Rock — August 16, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Alan Fox says:
Sorry, missed it first time around. I'll get back to you on my thoughts on the matter later.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 16, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Zachriel,
For the third time, I asked:
To which you responded:
Hmmm, that's not a prediction.
Not a prediction either.
An explanation is not a prediction either.
And restating Darwinism isn't a prediction either. All he "predicted" is that evolution must occur by small successive steps that lead to a survival benefit. Darwin already said that 40 years earlier, and it wasn't a prediction then either.
Ummm, you are the one who says the Theory Of Evolution predicts IC, yet you can't point to any part of MET that entails that IC should occur. And you have yet to show how such a claim could be falsified. It would seem that it is you that is having difficulty.
So, since you are unable to back up your claim, then I should have to come up with a claim of my own to defend? Great logic, Zach.
For the record, restating Darwin's thesis is NOT a prediction that IC will occur.
Should you ever actually come up with a real scientific prediction as such, please be sure to tell us how it can be falsified. If you are unable to do so, it is a safe bet that you are outside the realm of science and into the netherworlds of scientism.
Comment by chunkdz — August 16, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Rock:
I encourage you to cite the published research. I'm always interested in what you have to say.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Rock,
From the Darwinist standpoint there is only one function: survive.
Comment by chunkdz — August 16, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
FMM,
It doesn't make any predictions. When one tries to pin down an idea pertaining to ID so that a prediction might be made, ID proponents are careful to maintain the squishiness of the idea, just as you have done. If you wish to accept the mechanism of front-loaded information that is lost in species that do not need it, then we have a testable idea (which it fails). But it was you who rejected the mechanism. So, what we are left with is a bunch of untestable ideas, no defined mechanism to explore.
Here is the challenge to you. Come up with a proposed mechanism of front-loading information, one that will allow the generation of testable predictions. Are you up to it? Are any of you up to it? Or am I right that this stuff does not ever lead to testable hypotheses?
Comment by David E Levin — August 16, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Zach,
In an apparent attempt to Cite Behe saying something you claimed for him, you provide us a quote. Now I'm not sure he is even addressing exactly the same issue, but let's assume that for the sake of argument. Your claim involved "only a matter of…to reach the conclusion", whereas the actual quote talks about "mostly". Supporting my claim of Behe's nuance, not your claim of absolutes.
Within a page of the definition of IC in DBB, Behe says:
So, no he doesn't conclude "it couldn't have evolved." And that's not even going into the fact that Behe takes pains to distinguish Darwinian evolution from more general use of the word "evolved", which people can use to mean many different things. Another nuance that seems to have escaped your grasp.
Now Alan wants a demonstration of being open-minded. This is it. I was a Darwinian and approached DBB with skepticism. The difference between Zach and I, is that I can accurately relate what Behe says. Whether you disagree with Behe or not, what Behe actually said shouldn't be that difficult an issue.
So Alan, in light of your proposal, who do you think is more accurately characterizing Behe's position in DBB? Because it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to engage in meaningful debate, if we can't agree on the meaning of simple written English.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 16, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
And that this process would lead to IC reaction systems, in particular, that new factors which were originally an asset would become necessary.
Muller did that in 1918.
I provided several possible avenues of objection. However, the fact is that evolutionary processes lead to IC systems, e.g. the mammalian blood clotting cascade. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable—not false.
Huh? You've been around long enough to understand the scientific method. The propositional format is as follows: *Given* the Theory of Evolution, then we expect to see the evolution of interlocking complexity, that is, new factors which were originally an asset become necessary.
If P then Q.Muller restates the Theory of Evolution, then uses the postulates of the theory to predict the evolution of IC. Many examples of this process have been discovered.It doesn't take a circuitous route. The simple process of adding parts and making them necessary through a process of optimization is all it takes. It's the same
IC Functionthroughout.Cooption is a common enough evolutionary process, and it doesn't require an appeal to brute luck.
No one postulates adaptation by cosmically unlikely events, but by slight, successive and selectable modifications of a precursor system. There are several pathways to the evolution of IC.
Comment by Zachriel — August 16, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
August 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
David:
We don’t need to identify a mechanism to make predictions based on frontloading.
In fact I will make a prediction right now that a mechanism will be found that would make the storage of information in a genome possible while at the same time shielding it from excessive selection pressure. I believe that clues to this mechanism are found in ultra conserved genes with no known function.
I also predict that you will say that my prediction is not distinguishing or is too vague and reject it out of hand. Just as folks like you do with all the other predictions that come from my side.
I think you will find that I make ID predictions here all the time. I can afford to do so because I’m just a fundamentalist nobody on an internet blog.
What surprises me is the fact that your side can’t come up with any predictions that distinguish MET from ID despite having minds as sharp as yours. This is even more striking when given all the phenomena that ID can explain that are not even a part of MET like the origin of the first cell and the fine tuning of the universe etc.
I will tell you that until you do come up with such a prediction the majority of mankind will continue to believe your theory is at best incomplete and at worst wrong.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 16, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Yes, function means nothing to them. Darwin blurred out all function with a blob of protoplasm, apparently Darwinists don't like giving up tradition that easily.
Comment by computerist — August 17, 2008 @ 12:52 am
August 17th, 2008 at 3:13 am
David,
"Perhaps my example of RTKs was not the best as there appears to be an example of an RTK in tetrahymena, but there are many other examples of metazoan-specific genes, or vertebrate-specific genes."
In other words, if a gene is distributed according to the predictions of front-loading, it obviously isn't a "good example" to use. "Let's look somewhere else, please!"
Comment by Krauze — August 17, 2008 @ 3:13 am
August 17th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Good point, MET always lives up to the standards of what ID thinks it can't do. Which means that nothing is impossible for MET, it explains everything already even though it doesn't explain everything.
Comment by computerist — August 17, 2008 @ 4:12 am
August 17th, 2008 at 8:32 am
You would want to show how the mechanism is entailed in your hypothesis. There might also be competing hypotheses. You might find this to be of interest:
Katzman et al., Human Genome Ultraconserved Elements Are Ultraselected, Science 2007.
Does this finding call into doubt your hypothesis?
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 8:32 am
August 17th, 2008 at 8:46 am
In fact, the Theory of Evolution is highly constrained in what it predicts (1st order): Life evolved and diversified from common ancestors. New biological forms are preceded by similar forms. New features are modifications of features existing in a preceding form. Adaptation occurs due to the relative reproductive success of naturally occurring heritable variation.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 8:46 am
August 17th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Zach
lets look at your constraints to see if any are distinguishing
This is also predicted by frontloading nothing to work with here
You need to define “similar” here it seems to vague. At one extreme it could be said that even YEC predicts this. At the other extreme it is obviously false as every child is different than his parents.
Unless you can give a quantifiable constraint this too is unhelpful
This is also predicted by ID unless you include the concept of function somthing you apperently refuse to do. nothing useful here
You would need to define “naturally” is this a quantifiable quality?
How can we know when a variation is natural as apposed to designed?
Perhaps we can squeeze a testable distinguishing prediction out of you yet if we keep at it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 9:31 am
August 17th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Given Zach's simplified algorithm, I think its safe to say that evolution has no bearing whatsoever on ID.
Front-loading hypothesis, totally independent of MET.
Comment by computerist — August 17, 2008 @ 9:48 am
August 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am
There is also the option of emailing him for a clarifation on a particular point.
I can't comment as I haven't read DBB. Do you want to nominate DBB as your choice? Maybe we should move this to an open thread.
Re emailing Prof. Behe, I am quite happy to have a go, if you and Zach could agree on a question that encapsulates your difference in interpreting Behe's words.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 10:18 am
August 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The claim was that the Theory of Evolution predicted everything. I assume you agree it does not.
It's also consistent with Last Thursdayism. Both Frontloading and Last Thursdayism are extraneous.
Biblical Creationism indicates that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground. It doesn't indicate any intermediate steps, and most Biblical Creationists do not think there were.
Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
It's called Comparative Biology, involves a great deal of quantitative analysis, and "encompasses Evolutionary Biology, Systematics, Neontology, Paleontology, Ethology, Anthropology, and Biogeography as well as historical approaches to Developmental biology, Genomics, Physiology, Ecology and many other areas of the biological sciences… has numerous applications in human health, genetics, biomedicine, and conservation biology."
So does Last Thursdayism. Both Frontloading and Last Thursdayism are extraneous.
That's a clear misrepresentation of my views. Please provide a specific comment you take issue with.
I'm rather surprised that would be an issue. We directly observe biological variation and know that the variation is due to natural mechanisms such as recombination and mutation.
Even before Darwin it was known that the bones in reptilian embryos that formed bones in the jaw, instead formed bones of the mammalian middle ear. It was predicted by Gaupp and others a century ago that this fact implied an evolutionary relationship and that, as strange as it might seem, these bones must have evolved through intermediate forms. The transitional should be found in strata associated with the crown of mammalian radiation. Pelycosaurs, Therapsids, and now Eutriconodont. It may not mean much to you, but it's rather amazing that the analysis of embryos can predict the content of rocks.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 10:36 am
August 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Alan Fox says:
Two points. First, I'm not sure how the qualifier "that is not comparative to human experience" applies, since it almost undercuts that reasoning.
Secondly, I'm not sure it is all that difficult to understand these common English words. They aren't meant to be highly technical, or extremely precise, or difficult to understand, but to convey a general concept. I've only encountered one area where I thought ID critics were genuinely confused about intelligent, where they thought of intelligent as smart, as in Albert Einstien is smart. That it was saying something about the quality of the design, instead of just clarifying that it was teleological, as opposed to design by NS, as Darwinists might propose as a use of the word design.
So here from a web source, Wikipedia I think, are definitions for design and intelligence (intelligent being defined as having the quality of intelligence):
Now you can parse these every which way you wish, but they were really intended to help convey the concept. For example, I've seen folks, maybe TP but I'm not sure, harp on "the ability to learn" in intelligence, and how that could apply if the IDer was the omnipotent God. Doesn't bother me at all, because like I said, the definitions aren't meant to be precise. There are different aspects of such words that may apply in one usage and not another, as in talking about NS designing a system. When it is used that way, I grasp the meaining, and don't feel the need to post a definition that may conflict with that usage. YMMV.
With respect to specifics, you'll have to be more specific.
But generally, a lot of specifics are not known. The same applies to biology in general, physics, etc. Not every question one is asked is relevant or easily answered. I have no problem being challenged in meaningful debate. But the exchange with Zachriel about lungs or ears was anything but. I pointed out to him that if he thought those examples were meaningful or relevant, the onus is on him to make a detailed case for it, rather than expecting me to work on provding a meaningful answer to examples that were apparently poorly chosen IMHO. I'm willing to entertain a case that I am wrong about that, but none has been forthcoming. If it ain't worth his time and effort, why would it be worth mine?
I'm not dismissive about ToE. I used to support it and engaged in many discussions where I was the guy saying "No, no, no. You don't understand. In science theory means blah, blah, blah." My problems come about in what advocates claim for it beyond the evidence, and the position they adopt toward critics, including Behe and other ID advocates. I have no problem with folks being dismissive toward ID, or arguing against it. But 95% of what I've seen since reading DBB has been false and/or misleading, such as what Zachriel has been posting about what Behe said in DBB. One must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticisms.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 11:27 am
August 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
The onus is on those who think that IC (Irreducible Complexity) is a scientifically meaningful or relevant concept to provide a way to determine if something is IC or not. You have resisted every attempt to clarify the concept with regards to common examples. However, you have said the the mammalian middle ear (which *amplifies* as well as transmits the auditory signal) is not IC—even though it is "composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." The definition seems so flexible as to lack any empirical utility.
You have also said you know of no macroscopic IC systems. Yet, chunkdz said that people have known for millennia about biological IC. As the microscope is a fairly recent invention, perhaps there really is some ambiguity in the definition. Let me know when you have it sorted out.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 11:56 am
August 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
FMM,
What genes are you talking about? I predict that study of any highly conserved gene with no known function will eventually yield an understanding of its function, not a conclusion that it has no function.
Another question for you—who are the ID scientists actually doing research? Behe isn't. He just reinterprets the work of others. Wells doesn't. How would we know if "Mike Gene" does? We don't even know who he is.
The reason I ask this question is that it seems to be the most important element of the ID strategy as put forth in the "Wedge" document by the DI:
"The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").
Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication
Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal
Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade…."
So, 10 years into the five-year plan, where is this scholarship? I haven't seen any ID research, just popularized books. It seems to me that they jumped directly to Phase II. Interesting…..
You see, research requires the generation of testable hypotheses, followed by rigorous tests of those hypotheses. Darwin's great insight was the mechanism by which evolution occurs. This mechanism has great explanatory power that extends all the way to the molecular observations we make today. Everything we understand in biology holds together very nicely under this mechanism (and its extension in the Modern Synthesis). Any competing idea will have to have explanatory power that is at least as good as that provided by evolutionary theory. This must include a defined mechanism, because without mechanism, competing ideas cannot rise to the same level. Better get working.
Comment by David E Levin — August 17, 2008 @ 11:58 am
August 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
ZAch:
Your stated constraint was not about intermediate steps it was about new biological forms being preceded by similar forms. According to YEC Adam was preceded by God and Adam like all creation is in some was similar to God. Therefore YEC also has this constraint. Nothing distinguishing here.
The question is how dissimilar must forms be to fall out side your constraint. We can study similarities all day but until you are willing to say that a certain quantified level of difference is beyond the power of MET distinguishing predictions will be impossible.
So you acknowledge that at least in some respects MET has no more explanatory power than Last Thursdayism at last some progress is being made.
It’s important to remember that an observation is not a prediction.
You have repeatedly asserted on this very thread that IC features can arise from features having a vastly different function. How is my contention that you don’t predict that features will always have a similar function as their predecessors a misrepresentation of your view?
The question is what level of variation would be considered un natural? Do you consider all variation natural no matter how unlikely it was to occur? For instance if we found “property of Yahweh” written in code on ultra conserved DNA would this be a sign of design of not?
I’m only trying to help you make a prediction and to do so you must be willing to quantify natural. Are you willing to do that?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Zachriel:
Why does this lack empirical utility when we witness organisms naturally inhibit function which can entail multiple parts. What is RNAi capable of effecting? If there is any confusion I think it was engendered by critics who falsely claim that IC necessarily implies a claim of impossible. If a pathway is identified it does not mean that a system was not composed of multiple interacting parts. Only that a pathway to that system was located.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Is there something about "biological form" that you consider confusing?
Evolution selects among natural variations in populations.
Please quit misrepresenting my position. The Theory of Evolution makes empirical predictions in many different fields, from geology to genomics.
But that's not what you said. You said I refused to consider the concept of function. That is flatly untrue. For instance, biological cooption is defined in terms of function.
We don't have to guess. There are all sorts of living things that we can observe to determine the extent and source of natural variation. We can even measure the rate of evolutionary change in extant populations. And we can predict that the observed rate must be faster than the historic rate. It turns out that it's many, many times faster than necessary to explain the historical pattern.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
David,
So we possibly have a distinguishing prediction see how easy this prediction stuff is. In order to narrow this down all we need to come to an agreement as to what “function” is and how long you would have to look before you are willing to Give ID “serious consideration”
I don’t know nor is it relevent to our discussion. Numbers of researchers don’t prove or disprove an idea.
You forget that ID has already won the battle for public opinion so we are now ready for phase three. It will require a distinguishing prediction from your side to move us back to phase one.
If no distinguishing predictions are made ID has exactly the explanatory power as MET in biology with the added bonus that it can explain things like the origin of the first cell and the fine-tuning of the universe.
So it seems to me that your side is the one with work to do. That is if you want to convince the majority of the world who are not convinced.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Because we get different answers as to whether something is IC depending on whom we ask.
We would normally construe irreducible complexity as a system that is sensitive to minor changes, such as the removal of a part. Muller calls this "interlocking complexity". On first glance, it is an interesting question how such a system could evolve, but they not only can, but they do so by a variety of fairly straightforward mechanisms.
The mammalian ear "exhibits function which can entail multiple parts". The middle ear is comprised of three bones that amplify and transmit the auditory signal. Remove any one, and it ceases to function. Is the mammalian ear irreducibly complex? The mammalian middle ear? Are there any macroscopic IC biological systems?
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Zachriel says:
No, I don't believe I did. I think it is easy to be confused about who said exactly what in a thread this long, but then again I'm not sure you should really be confused about what my position is vis a vis the ear, though you seem to want to avoid addressing it.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Zach:
I don't think so. Was the form of what procededed the first cell biological?
Again with the “natural” are you willing to define and quantify natural? If you are not Met is scientifically equivalent to ID
I’m not asking you to guess I’m asking you to predict If you are not willing to make a prediction we will never get anywhere.
We don’t know the historical pattern in it’s entirety in fact many of its most important features are missing. That’s why predictions from your side would be nice so we could compare them to our observations as they are made.
Come on Zach go out on a limb for once. Put your beliefs to the test It can be exhilarating.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I nominate the heart.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Zachriel says:
Not sure of what you are saying here, but if you are referring to the lung and ear, I am completely unawares of those being common examples of IC. Maybe you can point me to Behe using them, or some other major ID proponent doing so.
I would have thought Behe would have used them in the book if he thought they were IC, since they would probably resulted in an easier read for those not familiar with some of the more technical terminology involved in the bacterial flagellum.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Exactly. A former poster here, aiguy, valiantly attempted to point this problem out. The challenge is to produce a definition of "intelligent" and/or "design" that is independent from human experience.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
RogerRabbit:
Behe, a biochemist, probably chose the examples he cited because he was comfortable with them. Don't take that as limiting whether others can cite different examples. If you think a system fits the definition feel free to say so.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Why is that limitation relevant?
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
@ RogerRabbit
Is this quote provided by TP upthread appropriate for the current issue?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I am suggesting "intelligence" is a comparative concept, and has no meaning beyond human experience. Do you disagree?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Alan Fox says:
Either you misunderstood my post, or I misunderstand your response.
I saw some of the aiguy stuff, and I find it totally irrelevant for ID.
I can't clarify for humans a term by using something outside the human experience. Gotta relate it to something they know, or they won't understand.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Inappropriate analogies abound. Mousetraps for instance
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Bradford,
It seems to me Behe, either in his book or one of his responses to critics, discouraged folks from thinking organs in general or maybe specific organs, met the definition for IC. Generally, they aren't "single systems", but complex collections of systems, and therefore have high level "functions" based on the interaction of more basic functions. Very complex to unravel, and then to try to workout whether Darwinian approaches work.
Also note the title of Behe's first book. He is saying that he didn't have a problem with Darwinism until he started looking inside the BB close up.
Now I neither discourage you nor Zachriel, nor whoever else, from taking on the challenge. But like I said to Zach, the task seems to be more complex to me than may appear to him and maybe you, at first blush.
So go for it if you wish. Maybe you can intrigue me and draw me into the debate. But I remain skeptical at this point.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Alan,
Mousetraps are well within the human experience, hence that's why he chose it.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
@ RogerRabbit
Are you up for my offer? I haven't read DBB.
Is TP's extract appropriate for assessing your semantic dispute (if that is what it is) with Zachriel?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Of course he did. He was writing a book for popular consumption, after all. It is still an inappropriate analogy.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Gotta mow the grass now. I'm still thinking about issues related to it. I applaud the offer, but I might offer some other suggestions for the challenge, but still trying to work them out in my mind.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Alan Fox:
Most things are comparative to some degree. Does mathematics have meaning beyond human experience; logic; philosophy; scientific methodology and more?
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
RogerRabbit:
You're right about Behe. He chose the term black box to emphasize his point that great complexity on a molecular level underlies phenotypic systems. We humans have come to realize this with the advent of more advanced technology.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Well, the things you list are human activities. Whether math and philosophy are able to go beyond the limit of human experience, I don't know. Science, by defintion, cannot. Have I misunderstood in gaining the impression that ID posits a designing intelligence that is beyond human experience?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
No worries. you could always email me (alan_fox_AThotmail.com*) if and when you want to take it further.
*making the obvious change.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Allen
I know your challenge was not for me but as an uneducated slob I would like to understand ToE better and I’m over due for a good read. Do you know of any books that interact with ID on a serious level and not just the straw man versions of it you see critiqued around here?
On our side I would recommend Denton’s “Nature’s Destiny” for a cross disciplinary overview and both of Behe’s books for a view more focused on biology.
I’m ashamed to say I haven’t read Mike Gene’s book mostly because I like to thumb through something before I spend hard earned minimum wage on it.
I’m waiting for my birthday but I expect it to be excellent as well.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Alan:
If by "beyond human experience" you mean "totally other" then you have misunderstood ID. If the designing intellegence was "totally other" it could not be reconsized as intellegence by us.
All ID claims is that the designing intelligence in not necessarily human. it does not posit that it is "beyond human experience" whatever that means.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
A couple of quick replies because I'm running out of time for my chores this weeked.
Alan, Re your definition of science, we might have to include that as a sequel to our book debate. I see Behe as studying and measuring biochemical systems, flagella, HIV studies, etc, just like other scientists. It's his conclusions that are different, not his activities.
Again, demarcation is a minefield, so that is a discussion all its own.
As for TP's quote, yes it is relevant, but not necessarily sufficient. It's basically just a couple of paragraphs from DBB immediately following the definition of IC.
As far as the moustrap being inappropriate, that begs a whole lot of questions, but the point at issue was whether it clarified the language he used in defining IC. I think it does.
Speaking of which, since you haven't read the book (and it would probably be my choice if we do agree on the challenge), and I'm not sure about Zach, if you go to Google and type in :
behe nuts and bolts
The first link I got was a google book search that brings up parts of the chapter in DBB that we've been quoting and debating. Starts on page 39.
For Bradford and Zach, the second half of page 41 talks about the difficulties of evaluating organs for IC. On page 42, which doesn't show up unfortunately, right after a section very similiar to what Zach linked to at ARN, Behe says:
The 1st step in determining IC is to specify both the function of the system and all system components.
That's what I wanted Zach to for the examples he thinks are so easy. I don't think they are as easy as he says.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Alan Fox:
Don't confuse Nature with science. The former exists independently of humans even as humans are part of it. But science is a human devised means of studying and testing to produce data which humans then are able to interpret by virtue of their advanced intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Yes I do mean "other than". If you or anyone could attempt to correct my misunderstanding, I would be grateful.
Well, exactly.
There's a whole lot riding on "not necessarily". You mean to say that the "Intelligent Designer" could be human?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
If RogerRabbit decides not to go ahead, sure.
Well, there's a problem. My offer was to read any book nominated by an ID proponent, on the understanding they would reciprocate by reading and critiquing a book nominated by me. You get a free choice on the book I have to read and critique, but the book you read has to be my choice without strings.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
FMM,
This post reveals your profound intellectual dishonesty. You show a blatant disregard for the truth. For you, it's all about public opinion and pushing the ID/creationist agenda through, regardless of scientific merit.
Moreover, you have delusions of significance. Public opinion is not the relevant battle ground. Science will continue to march along doing what it does best (answering previously unanswered questions), regardless of public opinion. However, I admit that we will have to do a better job in the future of educating our scientifically illiterate population about the difference between science and religion, or risk future generations in the US losing the ability to conduct science. In any case, best of luck with Phase 3….
Comment by David E Levin — August 17, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
@ RogerRabbit
I may get different search results as Google seems to slant it according to country (France in my case). I guess I need to get a copy of DBB.
Just to check if I am grasping the concept, no multicellular organism has evolved a wheel as a structure. so the wheel is irreducibly complex. So if a wheel structure were found to exist in a multicellular organism, that would disprove evolution by common descent with modification.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Alan,
Google France brings up the same link on my computer. Or you can go to books.google.com
The second part doesn't follow from ID. Merely because something hasn't evolved, doesn't imply it is IC. That's why Behe lays out the tests.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 17, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
David,
First of all relax life will be easier if you don't take it so seriously.
What in the world makes you think that? I’m am merely stating facts. I could care less about things like public opinion or the supposed ID/creationist agenda.
It was you who brought that stuff up. I have absolutely zero interest in the wedge document or the DI for that matter. It’s all about politics IMHO and science should be independent of politics if possible.
I would love to have a discussion about the truth of ID vs MET but you have not given me any thing to work with. All you have done is repeat the same old talking points that no one but your little group cares anything about.
I have said that it looks like ID and MET have exactly the same scientific merit when it comes to biology. If you disagree give me a distinguishing prediction.
If you don’t even make an attempt yet still claim that the two ideas are not the same I will assume it is you who are being intellectually dishonest.
If you are not even willing to have a discussion I can’t help but believe that it's you who don’t care about the truth and you want to do is stop the supposed ID/creationist agenda regardless of scientific merit or lack there of.
Then why bother posting here at all? You have already said that you don’t believe any of us are scientists why not just ignore us and the public at large. I can assure you we will have no problem ignoring you.
Good luck with that, especially because in the end it’s the unwashed masses that you disdain so much as to not even bother to listen to what they have to say who will determine what you are allowed to teach. That these same folks reject Darwinism after being taught it for 150 years should tell you somthing.
Thanks, at some point I will have to find out what it is
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Allen,
I believe that broadly speaking human intelligence is the same as dolphin intelligence or spider intelligence and perhaps even computer intelligence but if you were to talk to me about mineral intelligence or hurricane intelligence I would not know what you were talking about so in that case the phrase would be meaning less to me.
Does that help?
Yes that is exactly what I’m saying the "Intelligent Designer"could be human it just could not be mineral.
Here's the deal If you suggest a book and it’s in my local library I will read it no matter what you or Roger Rabbit do. I’m that desperate for a good read.
I’ve read the book of Mormon the Koran and the God Delusion simply because some one asked me to. Your book couldn’t be as bad as them.
The only string I have is that I can find it for free.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
FMM,
It certainly does. It means that they are credulous and easily led. Nevertheless, scientists chose their battles (i.e. Kitzmiller v Dover). When they do, ID/creationism loses every time because it's always recognized for what it is—religion masquerading as science.
This suggests that ID is on an equal footing with evolutionary theory. It's not. Unlike evolutionary theory, ID enjoys no evidential support. Evolutionary theory is not an idea under scientific fire. It's under political/religious fire. It is you who must provide some evidence for the notion of an intelligent designer.
Science is, for the most part, independent of politics. But ID is not science.
I'm quite willing to discuss the evidence. Where would you like to start?
Comment by David E Levin — August 17, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
New biological forms are preceded by similar forms. You responded to this by suggesting that this is consistent with Biblical Creation. It is not. Instead of simply admitting the error, I have to dredge up through the thread to remind you of what you said.
No one knows for sure. That's why the Theory of Evolution doesn't currently apply to that realm.
Predict what? Some straw man of your devising? Even if there was some anomaly, that doesn't necessarily imply a telic mechanism.
But this is irrelevant to my original statement: New biological forms are preceded by similar forms. This is an observation and a prediction. You have expressed difficulty with the term "similar" even though there are entire fields of study involved in defining what we mean by similar, and whether this agrees with *observed* variation in biological populations.
Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. We do know with reasonable scientific certainty that the vast majority of taxa descended and diverged over a period of millions of years from a common ancestor.
I keep providing predictions, but you keep ignoring them. I will repeat one here.
Even before Darwin it was known that the bones in reptilian embryos which formed bones in the jaw, instead formed bones of the mammalian middle ear. It was predicted by Gaupp and others a century ago that this fact implied an evolutionary relationship and that, as strange as it might seem, these bones must have evolved through intermediate forms. The transitional should be found in strata associated with the crown of mammalian radiation. Pelycosaurs, Therapsids, and now Eutriconodont. It may not mean much to you, but it's rather amazing that the analysis of embryos can predict the content of rocks.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Fine, but here aiguy would, I suspect make the point that, say, computer intelligence could only be described in some comparative way that involved some sort of performance test
I am certainly not doing that.
Maybe. I infer that you think, evolution necessarily being an intelligently guided process, that intelligence does not reside in rocks or wind. I reiterate that you are unlikely to find an intelligent designer that is not natural by scientific means. But I am happy for you or anyone to make the attempt.
OK? How would that work?
That's more responsbility than I can handle! What the heck; "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 17, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Oddly, then that scientists give them names like "respiratory system" and "circulatory system" and "nervous system". And we should certainly be able to define just those aspects of the system that are of concern. So, with Bradford's example of the heart, we might consider just the basic pump with chambers and values.
Perhaps. Yet you spent dozens of posts explaining why you couldn't explain how you were using the terminology, when it is quite apparent that IDers often express quite different views of IC.
As I consider the entire project to be based on a fallacious argument, I really don't think it is my task. Even under the most restrictive definition, IC can still evolve both directly and indirectly (slight, reasonably probable, successive and selectable modifications of a precursor system). Behe's argument fails on fundamental grounds, and his biological examples are just window-dressing.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I know the Theory of Evolution. What is the Theory of ID?
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Hey Guys,
Thanks for a fun Sunday diversion,
David,
Apparently they are not easily led to accept Darwinism. If so it would have happend many years ago.
I was not aware that science was conducted in a court of law
Why? Me and the majority of the world are already convinced I’m not two concerned if you reject ID. You can believe what you choose. Some folks reject that the earth is round but I don’t lose much sleep worrying about them either .
Why not start with the subject of this thread Mike Gene’s take on IC? Do you know what it is? Do you care? Do you know the arguments? From both sides not just strawman summaries posted on atheist websites?
How about describing Behe thesis in the best possible terms once you’ve done that we can move on to discussing whether or not he has made his case and whether or not Mike Gene made a worthy contribution to the discussion.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Zach:
Exactly Your constraint is silent when it comes to the similarity of the form that proceeded the original creation and only applies to what happened after that event therefore it does not exclude YEC.
Predict what? Some straw man of your devising? Even if there was some anomaly, that doesn't necessarily imply a telic mechanism.
exactly my point there are no distinguishings pridictions forthcoming
Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.
I did not say it was I only asked for a prediction so evaluate MET explanatory power apparently you have none.
I keep providing predictions, but you keep ignoring them.
Those aren’t predictions and they are not distinquishing. They are antidotes about past predictions that ID would also make.
Predictions involve what we don’t yet know not what we know. I can give you lots of antidotes about ID predicting function for Junk ID and vestal organs but you would not be satisfied with that would you?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Allen,
I would tentatively agree with aguy on this one and suggest CSI as such a test.
Use your imagination. A time machine a star gate perhaps or inhabitants of planet X from a galaxy far far away.
done I'll check it out the next time I'm in town and let you know!!!
Peace
PS I meant Junk DNA in my last comment to Zach not Junk ID. but I would predict a function for Junk ID as well
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 17, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You must be kidding. A young Earth is inconsistent with evolutionary biology and with the geological sciences. That's another prediction, by the way.
You're saying that deducing from the Theory of Evolution where to look for a heretofore unknown organism fossilized in hundred million year old rock, and foretelling many of its distinguishing characteristics is not a prediction?
antidote, a remedy to counteract the effects of poison.
I know the Theory of Evolution. What is the Theory of ID?
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Zachriel says:
And as I said a couple of times, have at it. I don't think it is a productive use of my time, but I won't discourage you. Instead of saying it is a simple question that you think you can define well, demonstrate it.
But of course:
Exactly. What I've been saying the whole time. There can't be a meaningful dialogue when you think you can define for me what I should be arguing, while you sit back and dismiss the whole issue. You can assume for yourself whatever priveledged position in the debate that you wish, but I'm under no obligation to recognize it.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 18, 2008 @ 5:55 am
August 18th, 2008 at 7:53 am
That's incredibly ironic. It's not that you don't have time to post—you posted more than forty times on this thread—you just don't want to be bothered to defend your position, or even answer simple questions intended to clarify your views. But you won't discourage me from defending your position.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 7:53 am
August 18th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Zach:
your right I meant anecdote
When trying to win a debate it's always good to point out spelling errors It reinforces the impression that your opponent is uneducated.
When having a discussion however it might be better to try and ignore them and pay attention to what is trying to be communicated
pre·dict
: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason
Your story might have been a pridiction 100 years ago but now it's only a story.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 18, 2008 @ 8:02 am
August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Zach,
It's an interesting tack these guys take. They have figured out how not to defend their position while claiming it to be superior and demanding a defense of evolutionary theory. Clever, but it won't work in any setting in which their feet are held to the fire. Unfortunately, that can't be done here.
Best of luck with them.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 8:22 am
August 18th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I really couldn't guess what you meant. (It really surprises me that you would think that I was denigrating your comments due to a spelling error.)
It's a *confirmed* prediction, and one that combined careful studies of embryonic development done in 1918 with the content of geological strata discovered in 2007. Think about it for a moment. The team who found the fossil didn't just stick a shovel in the backyard and find Eutriconodont. It was discovered in 125 million year old strata.
That's what science is all about. Making predictions, and then testing them. ID doesn't do that.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 8:29 am
August 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
FMM,
It's not. But it sometimes has to be defended in a court of law, where the rules of evidence reign supreme. Indefensible positions are seen as just that. What goes on in fora like these cannot stand up to the demands of logical thought and evidential support. This is your playground, have fun with it. Science always wins where it counts.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 8:34 am
August 18th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Fifth monarchy man,
A key characteristic of science is that theories can be modified or discarded in the light of new evidence. Does this finding call into doubt your hypothesis?
Katzman et al., Human Genome Ultraconserved Elements Are Ultraselected, Science 2007.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 9:25 am
August 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Zachriel,
Well, what's difficult to understand is why a professional scientist like yourself can't find a falsification criteria for your prediction. You have yet to show how the prediction "The Theory of Evolution predicts IC" can be falsified. You seem to actually believe that since IC exists in nature, your prediction no longer needs falsification. Classic question begging at best.
This might be part of your problem. There is nothing about this statement which entails an IC system. We might more readily expect kludgy,redundant, non IC systems to come from this. You are simply making a post-diction about what we find in nature, and asserting that MET must be the explanation. This is not scientific, it's not correct, and it sure isn't falsifiable. It's circular.
Is everyone getting the picture about Zachriel now? This repeated tendency to make sweeping metaphysical claims and then dressing them up as if they are science? Do we all recall his statement that "abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis"? Now we can add to that the prediction that "MET predicts IC". Neither proposition is falsifiable, therefore Popper tells us that these claims are to be classified as non-science or pseudoscience. From what I've garnered about young Zach, I'd say he's simply ensconced in the cult of scientism.
Comment by chunkdz — August 18, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
It's not exactly topical, but attempting to go with the flow here:
The old Cold War joke in the defense industry was that our Soviet counterparts, scientists and engineers, always claimed to have invented what they stole. (The story goes that Russian spies were deliberately fed flawed designs, which they slavishly reproduced, much to their chagrin. However, it remains in doubt as to who has the last laugh.) According to Soviet propagandists (and Russian nationalists to this day) they practically invented modern civilization as we know it. (We should be properly grateful—if “modern civilization” was anything but a mixed blessing.) A remarkable feat for a country that has long impressed its neighbors as only half-civilized.
Predicting the existence of a fossil taxon does not even distinguish evolutionary theory from creationism. Two creationists scientists, Cuvier and Owen, are said to have done exactly the same thing. Owen is reported to have received a few long bones in the mail from New Zealand. Owen examined the bones, sat down a drew a picture of the creature and sent the drawing back to his correspondent in New Zealand with instructions to look for something like this. The elephant bird was not found, because it was extinct. But more of its remains were found, and they looked just like the picture Owen drew. Now, if I take that as a prediction of creationism, I should be a little red-faced. But I don’t. The prediction was derived from Owens knowledge of comparative anatomy. Any anatomist (evolutionary or not) who’s mastered his science can do the same thing.
Seems to me that the first question for IDers to ask when presented with this challenge is, in fact, the prediction unique and distinguishing of evolutionary theory—is it in fact a prediction of evolutionary theory, or is it a prediction that may be derived independently of any knowledge of evolution and only from knowledge of the basic science (such as in Owen’s case, comparative anatomy)?
We’ve rather conveniently forgotten that the major scientific disciplines, the branches of science, that altogether we call “evolutionary biology,” we’re all pioneered by creationists. Not evolutionists. On Zachriel’s argument I should count those predictions as confirming creationism!
Speaking of predictions made about fossilized life forms, maybe we should remind ourselves that Darwin could not even get the basic facts of geology and phylogeny correct. He knew well enough what those facts were and also that they were irreconcilable with his own conception of what they should be, the predictions of his own theory!
We should also remind ourselves that Darwin’s conception of “common descent” is by of analogy with genealogy. It is simply an extension or extrapolation of an observation that anyone with eyes in their head can make: All life forms are derived from other life forms that they resemble. Nor is that extrapolation itself unique to Darwin’s theory of evolution! Or even evolutionism broadly speaking, as creationists since antiquity have also believed that!
Comment by Rock — August 18, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Yet if he had said that IC is empirically identifiable he would have been more scientifically accurate.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Muller's prediction was falsifiable, not falsified. The evolution of enzymatic cascades are examples confirming Muller's hypothesis. It might have been otherwise. I also suggested avenues to dispute the claim.
The lack of a consistent definition of IC (as demonstrated on this thread) makes that very difficult to unambiguously determine. It is normally construed as interdependence. Interlocking complexity means a functional system composed of several interacting parts where the removal of any one part causes the system to stop functioning. By this definition, the mammalian middle ear exhibits interlocking complexity, as do the heart muscle, the respiratory system, or the flagellum.
The prediction is that parts which were once helpful become necessary through a process of optimization (within their historical constraints). And yes, they will sometimes appear to be kludgy and redundant. (However, loss of redundancy is one path to interdependence.)
That is directly contrary to what I wrote in direct response to you above. One objection is that another theory might explain the same result. By itself, a single prediction is not sufficient to confirm the Theory of Evolution.
scientism, an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.
Your claim is misapplied. I am well-aware of the limitations of science, and do not claim that it applies to all realms of human experience.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Biblical Creationism does not consider reptiles and humans to be descendents of a common ancestor, so the prediction of intermediate species is not predicted by Biblical Creationism.
As you point out, that's a prediction from comparative anatomy. That's quite different from predicting the existence of a common ancestor or intermediate structures due to common descent.
Common Descent predicts that dogs and daisies and Danes share a common ancestor. It is only obvious because you use your modern eyes, just as the Earth spinning through space is only obvious because of your vantage.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Zach:
I’m not sure
When I read the paper it seems to say that ultra conserved non functioning DNA has less variation than protein coding regions. There is no mention of a proposed function for these regions
I’m not sure why this would make me doubt that a mechanism will be found that shields regions like these from selection but I could be misunderstanding the article. Feel free to enlighten me
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 18, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Because they found that ultraconserved regions are ultraselected, directly contrary to your prediction. Here's another article you might find interesting.
Ovcharenko, Widespread Ultraconservation Divergence in Primates, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2008: "The distribution and evolution of ultraconserved elements (UCEs, DNA stretches that are perfectly identical in primates and rodents) were examined in genomes of 3 primate species (human, chimpanzee, and rhesus macaque). It was found that the number of UCEs has decreased throughout primate evolution… Sequence polymorphism analyses indicate that mutation fixation within an UCE can trigger a relaxation in the selective constraint on that element. "
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Zach,
Confirmations are not the same as falsification.
But you are correct, in a sense – it might have been otherwise. The prediction could have been falsified if there was no biological irreducible complexity found in the known universe, so in some alternate universe you might actually be correct.
Specific and distinguishing predictions require specific and distinguishing falsification criteria, not handwaving vaguery.
Comment by chunkdz — August 18, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
FMM,
They do not say anything about non-functioning DNA; that's your twist on it. What they say is: "These data argue that ultraconserved elements are currently, as well as hisorically, strongly constrained functional elements." (emphasis added). What the data actually do is to distinguish between two models— one in which strong purifying selection (i.e. functional selection) is at work; the other in which these sequences are mutational cold-spots (i.e. protected in some way from mutational change). The idea you have put your money on (that such sequences are non-functional, but constrained from mutation by some unknown mechanism), takes a serious hit from this paper. These sequences mutate, but new mutations are strongly selected against before they have an opportunity to expand within a population.
They don't know what the functions are yet, though some have been suggested to be transcriptional enhancers of neighboring developmental genes. This remains an open question.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
You're still confusing falsification with falsifiability.
If it would take a search of the entire universe, an exhaustive search might be impossible. However, it doesn't take an exhaustive search of the entire universe. Muller and his collegues were studying reaction systems in detail, and a century of research since has confirmed the hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Zach:
David:
What evidence do we have for this besides the limited variation in the DNA itself? Limited variation is part of what I predict after all.
If we have limited variation with out an obvious function it seems to me to strongly suggest an unknown mechanism to preserve the sequence without "selection".
Calling this stuff ultraselected with out even knowing what it does seems to me to be assuming what is in question.
I’m perfectly willing to admit my prediction was wrong after all I just came up with it yesterday, but I don’t see any reason to based on what we know so far.
What am I missing?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 18, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t say anything about Biblical creationism, Zachriel. Ronald Fisher was a “Biblical creationist.” He believed in the God, and preached from the Bible from the pulpit at Cambridge. He believed that God played a role (the decisive, creative role, I should say) in the existence of the universe. That makes him a creationist, in my book. But Fisher certainly wasn’t a Biblical literalist. Which in this context is what is usually meant by “Biblical creationism.” Dembski’s not a Biblical literalist either. Neither is Behe, Neither is Nelson. Neither is Witt. Indeed, one’s hard pressed to find a Biblical creationist among the IDers. But most IDers are creationists, even if they aren’t Biblical creationist seusu stricto literalists. Usually Biblical creationists announce themselves by whipping out a Bible and whacking you over the head with it. In the context of these discussions I’ve quoted the Bible more often than Bradford, or Bilbo, or Mike Gene, or Joy, or all the TelicThinkers combined!
Owen wasn’t a Biblical creationist, and neither was Cuvier, who was actually charged with heresy! (He wasn’t sufficiently “Biblical” in his beliefs.)
A brief on Cuvier
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/h...
In fact, Cuvier’s beliefs, except for his creationism (which was not Biblical and earned him an accusation of heresy), are more consistent with modern geology and paleontology than Lyell’s and Darwin’s “uniformitarianism.” (Which, btw, led Darwin to estimate that the entire history of life on Earth was only about 300-million years long! Wrong prediction again, Charlie!)
“As you point out, that's a prediction from comparative anatomy. That's quite different from predicting the existence of a common ancestor or intermediate structures due to common descent.”
And no its not “quite different.” Before Darwin ever put pen to paper natural philosophers (and natural theologians) were quite aware of “intermediate forms,” on the basis of comparative anatomy and geological succession. From our perspective, comparative anatomy makes little sense if common descent isn’t true and those old-timers had some really “imaginative” theories (even bizarre, see Owen’s theory) to account for those observations.
I hope what isn’t lost in this diversion is that predictions must be correctly attributed to the facts and theories from which they are directly derived. That’s very important to science. Needless to say, its important that we get it right. And sometimes it involves more knowledge of the genealogy of ideas. (Than you’re average scientists is inclined to pursue, as Kuhn observed.) Rather than simply repeating what historians often refer to (in a mea culpa) as the “Darwin myth” and “Darwin legend.” Darwin is not the author of a single original idea in the history of evolutionary thought. Not evolution. Not “common descent.” Not “my theory,” natural selection. Not one. Worse for Darwin, and the very reason for the charge of plagiarism, his contemporaries were already familiar with “his” ideas. As Owen wrote in his review of Origin.
And its not due to my “modern perspective,” as I said, its an ancient belief and is in no way shape or form an original contribution to science made Darwin.
Comment by Rock — August 18, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Fifth monarchy man wrote:
The problem is that my imagination may be inadequate for the purpose. And, of course the unknown and unimaginable is unaffected by the exent of my ability to imagine. Much like the inadequacy of Mike Behe's imagination when it comes to unknown pathways to so-called irreducibly complex systems. Behe should try a more challenging example of irreducible complexity. I can't imagine the wheel as a structure evolving in nature, and if such a structure were found to exist, this wouild be powerful evidence against evolutionary mechanisms. If Behe wants to refute evolution, he should look for that wheel.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 18, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
PS.
I am talking about multicellular structures, here. I would have edited but "you are not authorized"???
Comment by Alan Fox — August 18, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Isn’t there a wheel in the bacterial flagellum?
Since his name came up, What about “Muller’s ratchet”? Is a ratchet a wheel?
What is a “wheel”? Do you know? Can you describe it? Is a pendulum a wheel? What about an oscillator? How about a feedback loop? Is that a “wheel”?
Maybe you are thinking about the wheels on your car. Wheels are quite common in human designs. What exactly is their advantage? Do you understand the basic concept of a wheel? It’s mechanics? Can you even identify a wheel if you saw it?!
If I were to show you that “wheels” are common in biology also, would you accept that as “evidence of design”?
There are some mechanical engineers here. Can they explain?
Comment by Rock — August 18, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Rock:
Not one? Not a single one? How about sexual selection?
Comment by Raevmo — August 18, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
FMM,
No. It's not that the variation is limited. It's the distribution of mutations in the population when there is variation. In cases where a sequence is not under selection, mutations either disappear or expand within the population through drift. This means that when you see a polymorphism under non-selected conditions, it is typically represented within a significant fraction of the population (because it didn't disappear). However, under negative selection conditions (purifying selection), new mutations are removed rapidly from the population. So, in this case, when you see a polymorphism, it is generally only in one individual. You will not see it in 5 or 10% of the population. This is what they saw. The majority of the polymorphisms detected were found in only one allele from one individual among hundreds. This was examined for a large number of variations within a large number of these highly conserved sequences. This argues for a strong selective pressure that removes mutant forms from the population.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Yes, there are subcellular rotary motors in bacteria. I unfortunately overlooked to include multicellular in my original comment and was too late to edit, hence the follow-up comment. But Nick Matzke covers the evolutionary pathways to these structures well enough to refute Behe's claim for these to be IC.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 18, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Rock,
Darwin had limited resources and information 150 years ago. Considering that there was no fossil record for the microbes that existed prior to the Cambrian, Darwin was only about 2-fold off in his estimate for the age of the oldest observable forms at that time. Not bad for a guy working without radiometric dating techniques.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Absolutely Rock. You do know what a wheel is, don't you?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 18, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Rock:
You may be right about that. You're a mainstream heretic.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
David E Levin
ID/creationism loses every time because it's always recognized for what it is—religion masquerading as science.
People keep saying that.
I have been a member of ISCID since 2002. I am aware of the fact that I am an ID'r but exactly what religion do I belong to? What religion could I possibly be hiding!? I did once (in 2001) try to establish a "Worldwide Church of Kindness" and also a "Worldwide Church of Fun" but neither of these has succeeded.. at least not yet..
Comment by William Brookfield — August 18, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
William,
Don't know. Tell me who your designer is and I'll tell you the religion.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Naturalism is an ideological commitment as well. The belief that Nature designed life's first cell and set evolutionary processes in motion is an empirically unsupported belief.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
This is critical gooblygock. If Matzke's pathways are sufficient then he has shown what the pathway is. That does not mean structures were not IC. It means a pathway to them exists.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
August 18th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Bradford,
No problem there. Everyone acknowledges that the origin of life remains a major unknown. Don't conflate that with the origin of species, for which there is a well-established mechanism.
Comment by David E Levin — August 18, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
August 19th, 2008 at 8:01 am
creationism, doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.
Common Descent is contrary to the common meaning of creationism.
Comment by Zachriel — August 19, 2008 @ 8:01 am
August 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Zach:
It all depends on your reading of Genesis. The “Common” reading you refer to is really a Seventh day Adventist take on the text that only became popular less that 100 years ago after most of the folks Rock was talking about were dead.
FYI
The Church read Genesis in a way that does not conflict with common decent (at least for animal life) for most of its history.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 19, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
August 20th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Hi Dave
Thanks for your response
David E Levin Says:
Don't know. Tell me who your designer is and I'll tell you the religion.
I am not sure what you mean by "your designer." Do you mean "who or what do I think was the designer of me"? Or are you asking about the designer of the bacterial flagella or the cosmos? I have some opinions regarding these things but I don't see how my opinions are "religious" as defined below.
Regarding my designer, I don't really know but I do supect that on some level I have designed myself and projected myself into this physical system. Regarding the flagella, I suspect that collectives such as "species" might have organizing abilities (intelligence) that we have overlooked. In such a case the flagella would have been designed by the "species brain" or "collective brain." WRT cosmology I find the fine tuning argument to be compelling and I am convinced that the universe is the product of some kind of cosmic fine tuner — intelligent design at the cosmic level.
"religion" From Merriam Webster…
re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-ˈli-jən Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
Comment by William Brookfield — August 20, 2008 @ 1:03 am