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