Orr Misrepresents Science
by KrauzeI usually consider myself a pretty circuitous guy, couching my statements in qualifying if's and maybe's . But sometimes, something just needs to be said, and needs to be said bluntly: In his recent ID-critical article, Allen Orr's mouth is writing checks the evidence can't cash.
Alluding to a molecular pump known as the type three secretory system (TTSS), used by bacteria for injecting poisons into other cells, Orr claims that "there's now strong evidence that several flagellar proteins once played roles in a type of molecular pump found in the membranes of bacterial cells." OK, here's the facts: There's strong evidence that the bacterial flagellum exists. There's strong evidence that the TTSS also exists. And there's strong evidence that the two systems are related, as evidenced by the many similarities between them. But as far as the majority of scientists studying this relationsship is regarded, the TTSS is descended from the flagellum, not, as Orr claims, the other way around.
Robert Macnab, writing in the Journal of Bacteriology, noted that, since "[f]lagella are very ancient organelles, predating by far the targets for bacterial pathogenesis", it's reasonable to conclude that "the rest of the type III pathways must have evolved from the flagellar one." (1999, 7152) Mecsas and Strauss write: "The bacterial flagellum exists in a wide range of eubacteria and some archaebacteria, which indicates that it probably emerged well before gram-negative bacteria, the hosts of the type III virulence factor secretion systems identified thus far." (1996, 280) Other researchers taking this position are Stephens and Shapiro (1996) and Nguyen, et al. (2000). In fact, the only dissenting voices comes from Gohpna, Ron and Graur (2003), and they're arguing that the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum are both descended from a third system.
ID critics often seek to portray themselves as Defenders of Science, protecting the public against falsehoods from the "ID creationists". But Orr, in claiming "strong evidence" for a claim that is at best controversial and at worst universally rejected in the scientific community, is himself engaging in what can only be described as a case of gross misrepresentation (whether comitted knowingly or not). Also, it is often said that ID proponents should get off their lazy butts and do the scientific research necessary to test their claims. Well, where's Allen Orr doing research to test his non-consensus claim that the flagellum is descended from the TTSS?
PS. William Dembski at Uncommon Descent has a longer reply, though more overbearing of Orr's misrepresentation.
References
Macnab R.M., 1999, "The Bacterial Flagellum: Reversible Rotary Propellor and Type III Export Apparatus", Journal of Bacteriology 181(23):7149-53
Mecsas J. & Strauss E.J., 1996, "Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Virulence: Type III Secretion and Pathogenicity Islands", Emerging Infectious Diseases 2(4):271-88
Nguyen L., et al., 2000, "Phylogenetic analyses of the Constituents of Type III Protein Secretion Systems", Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology 2(2):125-44
Stephens C. & Shapiro L., 1996, "Delivering the payload", Current Biology 6(8):927-30
May 31st, 2005 at 9:21 am
A recent paper agrees with Gophna et al's view:
Pallen MJ, SA Beatson and CM Bailey (2005). Bioinformatics, genomics and evolution of non-flagellar type-III secretion systems: a Darwinian perspective. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29(2):201-29.
From the abstract:
Here is the pertinent passage:
As for Orr's remarks, I'm not sure you can justify saying he is 'misrepresenting science'. If the modern TTSS and the flagellum are descended from a common ancestor, then that ancestor may very well have been a TTSS-like secretion system. If so, then Orr's remarks are well within that interpretation.
KC
Comment by KC — May 31, 2005 @ 9:21 am
May 31st, 2005 at 10:14 am
Hi KC,
Nice to see you here. Also, thanks for the reference, which I hadn't seen when I wrote my post. However, my point that Orr was misrepresenting the research on this area still stands. I took account of the "flagellum and secretory system both evolving from a common ancestory" position when I wrote, "Orr, in claiming "strong evidence" for a claim that is at best controversial and at worst universally rejected in the scientific community, is himself engaging in what can only be described as a case of gross misrepresentation (whether comitted knowingly or not)."
Comment by Krauze — May 31, 2005 @ 10:14 am
June 1st, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Orr appears to be guiltier of an even bigger blunder with the following comment:
Thoroughly Darwinian? If a GPS device is made an integral, required part of automotive technology, it won't be because of a random, undirected process.
Comment by Scott in PA — June 1, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
June 1st, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Scott writes:
Scott, Orr is addressing Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity. which Behe defines as:
Behe isn't concerned with the randomness or undirectedness of the modification here, only that an IC system cannot be built from small successive modifications. Since Orr is addressing that aspect of the argument, it's not necessary that his analogy include a random, undirected component. His analogy is thoroughly Darwinian in the sense he took pains to describe: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement. That is all that is needed to examine Behe's IC argument, and that is all Orr was doing in that passage.
Comment by KC — June 1, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:41 pm
KC,
It appears you have no understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity. The whole point is that a system is irreducible complex if it CANNOT BE FORMED through the slight, successive modifications of random mutations acting on natural selection. Obviously, anything can be built through small, successive modifications if it is directed by an intelligent source.
Comment by Markus Mac — June 2, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Markus,
I have been referring to Behe's own definition of Irreducible Complexity, which I quoted above. You will note that he does not say anything about random modifications. So I suggest you take up any misunderstanding of Irreducible Complexity with him.
Comment by KC — June 2, 2005 @ 3:57 pm
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Sorry Markus, but in this case, I'm gonna' side with KC. IC is a statement about the structure of a system ("what happens when I remove a part?") not about its possible origin. Now, whether the addition of a GPS system to a car qualifies as a "small modification", and how relevant developments in human technology are to biological evolution in the first place, are entirely different subjects would seem to be better questions to discuss, but unfortunately, I do not have the time to engage in such a discussion.
Comment by Krauze — June 2, 2005 @ 4:07 pm
September 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Krauze: N. J. Matzke has an extensive article on the Talk Design site that seems to make a strong case for the bacterial flagellum to have evolved from a Type III secretory system that evolved first for protein export, and then for adhesion, and only subsequently for injection of toxins.
But regardless of whether the TTSS or the flagellum came first, clearly neither one is irreducibly complex, which is why Behe's argument fails when it comes to the bacterial flagellum.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 9, 2005 @ 12:00 am
September 12th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Hi Eric,
Sorry about not replying earlier, but the non-ID parts of my life are rather hectic at the moment.
As for Matzke's article, it actually supports my point. Whereas Orr claimed "strong evidence" for his TTSS-to-flagellum-story, Matzke acknowledges that the evidence actually goes against this. His conviction of its truth is purely a function of his belief in the scarcity of data, and his hope that future evidence will change the situation. The "strong case" you're talking of rests more on philosophy than on evidence.
"But regardless of whether the TTSS or the flagellum came first, clearly neither one is irreducibly complex, which is why Behe's argument fails when it comes to the bacterial flagellum."
Actually, the flagellum is irreducibly complex, as evidenced by the success of geneticists in studying it by observing bacteria with mutations in their flagellum genes. A car also contains a lamp which, together with a battery and a wire connecting them, is functional without the rest of the car. But that doesn't mean that a car isn't irreducibly complex.
Comment by Krauze — September 12, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
October 5th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
krauze:
I'd completely forgotten about this thread. Anyway, a bacterial flagellum may be IC according to Behe's definition of IC, but the more important question is, can a flagellum have evolved from simpler precursors? It appears that it in fact can have done so, which of course kills the Behe's thesis.
Any car currently manufactured today is far from irreducibly complex. Can a car with no doors still function as a car? Of course. Can it function without an engine? Not as a car, perhaps, but it certainly can function as, e.g., shelter in a thunderstorm.
Behe's definition of irreducible complexity isn't really applicable to biology, because it doesn't really matter if removing a part from an allegedly IC structure renders it non-functional for the original function. What if it works quite well doing a different function? In fact, if NDE is an accurate reflection of reality, virtually any structure in existence in biology today probably has precursor components that worked just fine in a different context.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 5, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 6:31 am
Hi Eric,
"Anyway, a bacterial flagellum may be IC according to Behe's definition of IC, but the more important question is, can a flagellum have evolved from simpler precursors? It appears that it in fact can have done so, which of course kills the Behe's thesis."
Behe's thesis is that the flagellum was designed. Now, I certainly agree that the flagellum could have evolved. How does this translate into the belief that it did evolve? After all, no one has shown that design is impossible either.
"Any car currently manufactured today is far from irreducibly complex. Can a car with no doors still function as a car? Of course. Can it function without an engine? Not as a car, perhaps, but it certainly can function as, e.g., shelter in a thunderstorm."
And this is significant why? Did the car arise as a modification of a structure originally built for providing shelter in a thunderstorm?
"Behe's definition of irreducible complexity isn't really applicable to biology, because it doesn't really matter if removing a part from an allegedly IC structure renders it non-functional for the original function."
One moment you agree that the flagellum may be IC, the next moment you claim that the definition "isn't really applicable to biology". And you're wrong, as explained in my last comment: The succesfull application of IC to biology is illustrated by the fact that geneticists routinely knock out genes through mutagenesis to see how the cell works.
However, I might be misunderstanding you, and you might be claiming that IC isn't really applicable to evolution. If so, read this essay.
"In fact, if NDE is an accurate reflection of reality, virtually any structure in existence in biology today probably has precursor components that worked just fine in a different context."
Yes, if NDE is an accurate reflection of reality. Is there any evidence that the parts of the flagellum ever served other functions before becoming part of the flagellum?
Comment by Krauze — October 6, 2005 @ 6:31 am
October 6th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Car doors are not part of the IC core of a car. Even if the IC core of a car is removed, yes the shell could serve another function. But that does not mean the IC core can evolve via some blindwatchmaker process from that shell. The parts required just aren't there. And with what is there no duplication with modification process could create that core.
Also just how did that shell arise? IOW you just can't start with a level of complexity that requires explaining in the first place. So yes, you can remove parts from an IC structure/ IC core and still have a functioning something. However that is not the same as getting to that point- the functioning something created by messing with a design- via some blindwatchmaker process.
But anyway, Dr. Behe tells us why Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Also from Dr. Behe (on falsifying his claims of IC):
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 9:38 am
October 6th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Krauze:
And no one ever will. Think about it: how would one go about proving that something could not have been designed? This is one of the main complaints scientists have with ID in general.
A particular flagellum (there are many different ones) may be IC, but it's already been demonstrated that IC structures can indeed have evolved. So IC really isn't a hallmark of design, is it? And so far, none of the structures Behe has claimed are IC (the flagellum, the blood clotting sequence, the complementary immune system) has been proven to be IC anyway. So there are not one but two problems with Behe's thesis: a) he's had trouble proving any particular structure actually is IC, and b) IC structures have been observed to evolve anyway.
Yes. CF Miller. Remember, there isn't just the Type III SS; there are also type II SS that are homologous with the flagellum. The argument that the TTSS could not have evolved before the flagellum because the flagellum precedes the existence of eukaryotic prey is unavailing, because the TTSS has other uses, including motility systems.
I guess my conclusion is again that Behe has not demonstrated that the flagellum is in fact IC, and further he has not demonstrated that IC systems are unevolvable.
Joe G:
Your long quote from Behe fails to make a critical distinction. It is certainly possible to falsify certain claims (e.g., unevolvability of IC systems, impossibility of CSI without design, etc.) without actually falsifying ID itself. Again, there is no conceivable way to prove that any particular structure, biological or not, cannot have been designed.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Hi Eric,
Krauze: "Behe's thesis is that the flagellum was designed. Now, I certainly agree that the flagellum could have evolved. How does this translate into the belief that it did evolve? After all, no one has shown that design is impossible either."
Eric: "And no one ever will. Think about it: how would one go about proving that something could not have been designed? This is one of the main complaints scientists have with ID in general."
You're dodging my question: How does the fact that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved translate into the belief that it did evolve?
"A particular flagellum (there are many different ones) may be IC, but it's already been demonstrated that IC structures can indeed have evolved."
I've already agreed with you that IC structures can have evolved. Where am I supposed to go from here?
"So IC really isn't a hallmark of design, is it?"
I've never claimed IC alone is sufficient to demonstrate design. This is laid out in the essay I linked to in my previous comment.
"And so far, none of the structures Behe has claimed are IC (the flagellum, the blood clotting sequence, the complementary immune system) has been proven to be IC anyway."
I've already deal with this in my previous comments. Is there some particular reason why you refuse to engage my points?
Krauze: "Is there any evidence that the parts of the flagellum ever served other functions before becoming part of the flagellum?"
Eric: "Yes. CF Miller."
I'm not aware of any place where Miller presents such evidence. However, you're welcome to post a reference.
"Remember, there isn't just the Type III SS; there are also type II SS that are homologous with the flagellum."
Type II secretory systems are homologous with bacterial flagella? Got any references for that?
"The argument that the TTSS could not have evolved before the flagellum because the flagellum precedes the existence of eukaryotic prey is unavailing, because the TTSS has other uses, including motility systems."
This isn't the only reason why most researchers reject the TTSS -> flagellum story. From a recent article:
Comment by Krauze — October 6, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Hi Krauze:
I'm not intentionally dodging your question.
Anyway, I guess we're talking epistomologically here. How does it translate into a "belief" that it did evolve? I think it's more accurate to say that it's a working assumption that it did evolve, and therefore the question is, "how did it evolve?" I think I've dealt with your question here in a way you might find illuminating. I guess my point is, whether you assume the flagellum was designed or that it evolved, either way you're going to want to investigate how it got to be where it is now, right? If you assume design, I think you're still going to want to know how that design actually ended up inside a bacterium, and since ID specifically excludes interventionist hypotheses, I'm not sure it's the proper tool to figure that out. NDE is most assuredly concerned with how biological structures came to be, so maybe it's just a matter of using the right tool for the job.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Krauze:
Oops. I realize I only addressed one of your questions (hopefully without dodging it!). I'll address the remainder later this evening, when I actually have time to do some research. (I'm supposed to be working right now
).
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
ericmurphy:
and since ID specifically excludes interventionist hypotheses,
That is false. ID is indifferent to intervention. IOW design is still design whether intervention occurred or it was designed in at the beginning.
ericmurphy:
Again, there is no conceivable way to prove that any particular structure, biological or not, cannot have been designed.
And there is no conceivable way to prove that any particular structure, biological or not, cannot have arisen via NDE processes.
However ID is about the design inference. And there wouldn't be a design inference if we didn't observe IC or CSI OR if it was shown that all IC structures and CSI could arise from scratch via blindwatchmaker processes. THAT is how science is done.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Joe G:
Joe, I'm taking this right out of The Design Inference. Dembski specifically states that ID is "not an interventionist theory at all." If you have an issue with this, take it up with Dembski, not me.
Of course there is. If Behe were right, and IC structures cannot have arisen via NDE processes, then wouldn't it be true that it had been proven that IC structures "cannot have arisen via NDE processes?"
If it could be proven that IC structures required design, or that CSI required design, sure, there would be reason to infer design. But since neither has been proven (to say the least), there is currently no need to infer design.
I'm already beginning to feel like I'm repeating myself…
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Krauze:
I guess, since my day is going in fits and starts, I'll deal with your questions piecemeal, if you have no objection:
If one of the points I'm not dealing with is your claim that Allen Orr is misstating the scientific consensus when he states that "the" bacterial flagellum is derived from the TTSS, I don't think I have an issue with that claim. I'm not sure who Orr is, or if he's actually a scientist, as distinct from a journalist, so I'm not sure it's fair to criticize him for not doing any research (other than of the literature). But in any event, if it is in fact true that both the TTSS and the flagellum are both derived from a simpler system, that does seem to undercut the argument that the flagellum is IC. Right?
In the meantime, I guess I'll have to do a little more research into the current understanding of the evolutionary pathways taken to develop both the various secretory systems and the flagellum. In the meantime, if you have a copy of it, you might want to peruse the relevant chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails, which seems to give a good synopsis of current research in this area.
In the meantime, I think I can add agree with the statement that IC "is not applicable to evolution," if what you mean by that is that IC is not an insurmountable barrier to evolution even when it does actually exist, e.g., here.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
and since ID specifically excludes interventionist hypotheses,
That is false. ID is indifferent to intervention. IOW design is still design whether intervention occurred or it was designed in at the beginning.
ericmurphy:
Joe, I'm taking this right out of The Design Inference. Dembski specifically states that ID is "not an interventionist theory at all." If you have an issue with this, take it up with Dembski, not me.
Dembski is correct. What you are doing with what he says is incorrect.
And there is no conceivable way to prove that any particular structure, biological or not, cannot have arisen via NDE processes.
ericmurphy:
Of course there is. If Behe were right, and IC structures cannot have arisen via NDE processes, then wouldn't it be true that it had been proven that IC structures "cannot have arisen via NDE processes?"
But how would you prove they couldn't? How could we tell if Behe is correct?
However ID is about the design inference. And there wouldn't be a design inference if we didn't observe IC or CSI OR if it was shown that all IC structures and CSI could arise from scratch via blindwatchmaker processes. THAT is how science is done.
ericmurphy:
If it could be proven that IC structures required design, or that CSI required design, sure, there would be reason to infer design.
Unbelievable. Only if design can be proven can we infer design? Obviously you don't understand how science is done.
Well it just so happens that our current stae of knowledge IC & CSI = design. And it also just so happens that no one has been able to demonstrate that blindwatchmaker processes can account for the origin of either.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 9:04 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
ericmurphy:
But in any event, if it is in fact true that both the TTSS and the flagellum are both derived from a simpler system, that does seem to undercut the argument that the flagellum is IC.
What if the data shows both are derived from a more complex system? Or if anything the TTSS is derived from the flagellum?
Why does anyone think the bacterial nylon thingy presents a problem for ID or is evidence for the NDE?
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Joe G:
Is ID a theory of intervention or not? Does ID attempt to discover how the flagellum got to be the way it is, or not? You say ID is indifferent to intervention. If that's the case, then how does it investigate the mechanism by which the flagellum got to be a flagellum? Behe says it got "poofed" into existence. Is that what happened?
That's the question ID is supposed to be answering. Is it true that IC systems cannot evolve, or isn't it? Behe and Dembski both say it's true. The scientific community thinks they're wrong.
Joe, I've already shown that IC and CSI do not demonstrate design. Are you going to force me to repost all that stuff again?
Frankly, if the ID community wants to infer design, they can infer design. What comes next? What predictions arise, and what new information do we get from that inference? Does a design inference advance the state of biological knowledge? Not so far.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 10:59 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 12:13 am
Krauze:
A few more responses:
I'm reading "Darwin's Transparent Box: the Biochemical Evidence for Evolution" (Ussery 2004) in Why Intelligent Design Fails. A couple of things jumped out at me: there are hundreds of different versions of the flagellin protein (the one that forms the flagellar paddle). The E. coli version of the protein has 595 amino acids, coded for by 1785 base pairs. Other versions of the protein range from exact matches to differences in amino acids of 75%, all still maintaining the same function. For the rotor, some proteins match the E. coli version exactly, others differ by more than two thirds. (Ussery, supra)
For the motor, you can substitute a sodium-ion-driven motor for a proton-driven motor, and the flagellum will still work. (Asai, Y., et. al., "Ion-coupling Determinants of NA(plus)-Driven and H(plus)-driven Flagellar Motors," J. Mol. Bio. 327:453-63: 2003). Since there are numerous other motors in the bacterium that perform various functions, it's not necessary for a motor to have evolved specifically for the flagellum. (Ussery, supra) Therefore, the three different parts of the flagellum could have evolved separately, only combining later to form the flagellum. I think this means the flagellum is not IC.
I'm also reading Ian Musgrave (the same guy who deconstructed the Behe-Snoke paper on multiple-residue mutations in Protein Science) in the same book ("The Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum," Musgrave 2004). Musgrave points out that secretion plays an important role in many bacterial motility systems. Some of these motility systems bear a strong resemblance to the TTSS (Spoorman, A. M., "Gliding Motility in Bateria: Insights from Studies of M. xanthus, Mic. and Mol. Biol. Rev. 63:621-41: 1999), which tends to militate against the argument that the TTSS must have evolved from the flagellum.
Further, the archaebacterial flagellum is significantly simpler than the eubacterial flagellum (Thomas, et.al., "The Archaebacterial Flagellum: A different Kind of Prokaryotic Motility Structure," FEMS Mic. Biol. Rev. 25: 147-74: 2001) "There is a clear link between secretory systems and motility, from simple gliding systems to more-complex swimming systems," Musgrave, supra.
Also, some bacteria use TTSS-like systems to prey on other bacteria, so Type-III systems may have been used for predation before the rise of eukaryotes. (Guerrero, R. et. al., "Predatory Prokaryotes: Predation and Primary Consumption Evolved in Bacteria," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 83: 2138-42: 1986)
I couldn't find any references that Type-II secretory systems are homologous with flagella (but they do seem to be homolgous with Type-IV pili, which have a similar function), so I guess I'll have to retract that claim.
But I think all of this demonstrates that the flagellum is not IC, and that various parts of it evolved at various times for various functions. So whether the flagellum evolved from the TTSS, or the other way around, or whether both evolved from an earlier precursor, it looks to me like that flagellum is not IC, and could in fact have evolved from simpler precursors.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 12:13 am
October 7th, 2005 at 12:20 am
Joe G:
Because it's an IC system: 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 functioning." It is essential to the metabolism of the species of bacterium that possesses it. It has definitely evolved in less than the last hundred years, because the nylon waste that it metabolizes did not exist in nature before 1930. But ID states that IC systems cannot evolve, and that IC is therefore a hallmark of design.
Based on these facts, it appears to me that the bacterial nylon thingy presents a problem for ID and is evidence for the NDE.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 12:20 am
October 7th, 2005 at 8:42 am
ericmurphy:
Is ID a theory of intervention or not? Does ID attempt to discover how the flagellum got to be the way it is, or not? You say ID is indifferent to intervention. If that's the case, then how does it investigate the mechanism by which the flagellum got to be a flagellum? Behe says it got "poofed" into existence. Is that what happened?
You say you understand ID and then you post that. ID is about the detection and understanding of design. Period. It does not matter to ID how the design was implemented. The ONLY way to make any reasonable inference to that end is by studying the design.
then you say:
ericmurphy:
But ID states that IC systems cannot evolve, and that IC is therefore a hallmark of design.
ID does NOT make any such claim.
ericmurphy:
Joe, I've already shown that IC and CSI do not demonstrate design. Are you going to force me to repost all that stuff again?
By all means. It wasn't any good the first time you posted it and I doubt anything has changed since.
ericmurphy:
Does a design inference advance the state of biological knowledge? Not so far.
Has the NDE advanced the state of biological knowledge? Not yet.
Nylon digesting bacteria do not falsify ID
ericmurphy:
But I think all of this demonstrates that the flagellum is not IC, and that various parts of it evolved at various times for various functions.
But that type of argument has already been refuted:
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Comment by Joe G — October 7, 2005 @ 8:42 am
October 7th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Joe G:
You have your own personal version of ID that has little, if anything, to do with what most ID advocates claim for the theory. Your claim that all ID is is an inference of design is not only contradicted by most ID advocate but also by your own prior statements. You deny virtually every statement I make about ID, without reference to any supporting evidence whatsoever, and you change your position whenever it suits you. Your statement that ID makes no claim that IC systems cannot evolve is ridiculous on its face: that claim is in fact central to ID.
My earlier posts conclusively demonstrated that the three premises that you say underpin ID have all been falsified. Your response to my argument, that it "wasn't any good," is weak to the point of invisibility. You've presented no contrary evidence, no refutation, no counterarguments. In short, you've failed to address a single point I made. Your claim that NDE has not avanced the state of biological knowledge is laughable. Most of your claims as to the insufficiency of NDE are laughable, and most have been addressed to the satisfaction of virtually all biological scientists decades ago.
Nylon ingesting bacteria do not falsify ID because ID is unfalsifiable. Nylon ingesting bacteria falsify two central premises of ID, that IC systems cannot evolve, and that unidrected processes cannot generate new information.
Your link to the Behe "rebuttal" of Miller, et. al. makes the same tired argument: that NDE doesn't have a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how the flagellum evolved. Such arguments are worthless.
Your "refutations" of NDE arguements have been refuted over and over again, which you would know if you bothered to read anything other ID-friendly texts. You ask me to support my assertions, then refuse to read them, pretending that they don't exist.
If you think this is a way to win arguments, good luck to you.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Joe G:
One more thing: Dembski thinks the nylonase-possessing bacteria doesn't present a problem for ID because the mutation seems "special" Duh! Any beneficial mutation is going to seem special! Does it seem designed? Not unless you think the designer is incompetent:
– Dave Thomas, The Nylon Bug
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 8:50 am
ericmurphy:
You have your own personal version of ID that has little, if anything, to do with what most ID advocates claim for the theory.
That is false.
ericmurphy:
Your claim that all ID is is an inference of design is not only contradicted by most ID advocate but also by your own prior statements.
I said ID is about the detection and understanding of the design.
ericmurphy:
Your statement that ID makes no claim that IC systems cannot evolve is ridiculous on its face: that claim is in fact central to ID.
Show me one IDists who says that IC systems cannot evolve. I know Dr. Behe states there isn't any evidence that IC systems can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random variations culled by natural selection but that does not mean they cannot evolve. Evolution has several meanings.
ericmurphy:
My earlier posts conclusively demonstrated that the three premises that you say underpin ID have all been falsified.
Then one has to wonder why those arguments were not used in the court case in PA.
Show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates life can arise from non-living matter via some blindwatchmaker process or admit you cannot.
ericmurphy:
Nylon ingesting bacteria do not falsify ID because ID is unfalsifiable. Nylon ingesting bacteria falsify two central premises of ID, that IC systems cannot evolve, and that unidrected processes cannot generate new information.
ID is falsifiable- I have told you how to do so and the fact that scientists are trying to falsify it refutes you. Alsao it has NOT been demonstrated that the mutation that allowed for nylon digestion was random.
ID does not and never has said that IC systems cannot evolve and it never said that new information cannot be generated by blindwatchmaker processes.
I challenge you to present the evidence that supports your claim.
ericmurphy:
Your link to the Behe "rebuttal" of Miller, et. al. makes the same tired argument: that NDE doesn't have a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how the flagellum evolved. Such arguments are worthless.
Miller's argument is worthless because it does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Also if no detail is given then all you have is a belief. And beliefs are not science. IOW beliefs are worthless.
ericmurphy:
Your "refutations" of NDE arguements have been refuted over and over again, which you would know if you bothered to read anything other ID-friendly texts.
What "refutations" I just merely pointed out the facts. One fact is we don't know if the transformations required by the NDE are even possible.
One more thing- when you or anyone else can design life then you can say the designer is incompetent. However by saying it before you can do so makes you look even more incompetent or worse.
Comment by Joe G — October 8, 2005 @ 8:50 am
October 8th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Hi Eric,
"Anyway, I guess we're talking epistomologically here. How does it translate into a "belief" that it did evolve? I think it's more accurate to say that it's a working assumption that it did evolve, and therefore the question is, "how did it evolve?""
Yes, I think this is the position of the scientific community as well. It would be interesting to discuss why a worldwide community of researchers can get away with simply exploring the consequences of "a working assumption", without supporting that assumption, whereas teleologists must first demonstrate design to such a degree that the entire National Academy of Science is convinced.
However, this would lead us away from the topic, which is the statements you made earlier, claiming that Behe's thesis had been "killed". How exactly does an unsupported working hypothesis kill Behe's thesis?
"I think I've dealt with your question here in a way you might find illuminating."
Not really. Apart from some ID=religion memes, it was just a philosophical argument why others should accept your working hypothesis. In other words, there's no need to even look at the flagellum or the TTSS before concluding that they evolved.
"I guess my point is, whether you assume the flagellum was designed or that it evolved, either way you're going to want to investigate how it got to be where it is now, right?"
No, this is the tangent you want to draw the discussion into. We can discuss the utility of ID later, but in this thread, the topic is Orr's claims that the TTSS is a precursor to the bacterial flagellum.
Comment by Krauze — October 8, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Joe G:
Let's not play word games. Behe claims that IC is a barrier to neodarwinian evolution. He's wrong.
One of them already has, and we're only six days into the testimony. We're not even halfway through the plaintiff's case yet. And besides, the point of the case is not to show that ID is wrong. The point is to show that ID is an impermissible intrusion of religion into the science classroom.
And wait a minute — didn't you berate me earlier for mentioning court trials, telling me science isn't conducted in a courtroom? Didn't you state that even talking about court trials showed my ignorance of science?
I've already shown you articles citing hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate exactly that. I don't have a subscription to any peer-reviewed papers; in case you haven't noticed, most of them cost hundreds of dollars a year. If you want to read a peer-reviewed article showing evidence that life could have evolved from non-living matter, read the footnotes, write down the reference, and get a copy of the paper yourself. Unlike you, I have no reason to doubt that peer-reviewed papers say what the author says they say.
And in the meantime, I'd like you to show me one peer-reviewed article that demonstrates life could not have arisen from non-living matter, or admit that you cannot. Actually, you don't have to admit it. I already know that no such paper exists.
ID is not falsifiable. You showed me how (not that I didn't already know) to falsify individual claims that ID makes. Falsifying those claims (which, for the record, has already happened) does not falsify ID. Read Ken Miller's testimony in the Kitzmiller case. You cannot falsify the assumption that life was designed. How many times do I have to say it? How could anyone prove that any mutation wasn't done on purpose? What has been demonstrated is that it would have been easy for a single mutation causing a frame shift to have occurred.
Read No Free Lunch. That's exactly the claim that Dembski makes: that undirected processes cannot generate new information. What do you think his "Law of Conservation of Information" is supposed to prove?
Really? Then Behe's arguments are worthless because he has never published a paper on IC or the bacterial flagellum in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Miller's article "The Flagellum Unspun" is a draft of an article he subsequently published in a scientific journal, and in case you didn't read my response to Krauze, I cited four peer-reviewed papers on the non-IC-ness of the bacterial flagellum in that one post.
Has it been proven? No; of course not. The evidence that such transformations are not only possible but have actually happened is sufficiently overwhelming as to make your statement completely wrong.
I don't make any claims to be able to design life. I can't direct a movie either; that doesn't stop me from saying that Ed Wood was an incompetent director.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 8, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
Krauze:
Good point. I think the thread's already been dragged there
, but I guess I can agree with the statement that it hasn't been proven that the bacterial flagellum definitely evolved from the TTSS.
If I can discuss the epistemological issue just briefly, in answer to why the scientific community can "get away" with exploring the consequences of a "working assumption" is that such an assumption leads to results. So far, I think you'd agree that the opposite assumption hasn't led to quite as many results, wouldn't you?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 8, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
ericmurphy:
Let's not play word games. Behe claims that IC is a barrier to neodarwinian evolution. He's wrong.
Funny. The absence of evidence from peer-review demonstrates he still could be right. IOW he has not yet been refuted.
Show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates life can arise from non-living matter via some blindwatchmaker process or admit you cannot.
ericmurphy:
I've already shown you articles citing hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate exactly that.
Eric, that is a lie. That evidence does not exist. If it did Harvard wouldn't have just started a multi-million dollar venture to figure that out.
ericmurphy:
And in the meantime, I'd like you to show me one peer-reviewed article that demonstrates life could not have arisen from non-living matter, or admit that you cannot.
Seeing that is not how science works obviously I cannot. But seeing you don't know how science works I can understand your request. However the fact that I can't answer your request also shows it is impossible to falsify the anti-ID position. IOW the NDE can't be falsified using your criteria.
ericmurphy:
ID is not falsifiable.
You keep repeating as if that will make it come true. However reality says once you remove the requirement for a designer the design inference falls. That is how science works.
Miller has been refuted so many times it is difficult to believe anyone would rely on what he says. He will be refuted again in this trial.
Comment by Joe G — October 8, 2005 @ 6:46 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Hi Eric,
If an approach doesn't yield experimental results, there can be two reasons: Either, the problem is theoretical, with the approach itself being useless. Or the problem is logistical, with the resources required to extract its potential lacking; a diverse network of researchers, money for equipment, lab assistants, and space rent, as well as a atmosphere that allows for tentative guesses and initial failures without the researchers having to fear for their careers.
I know that ID can lead to useful insights about biology, as I have myself experienced this, and know other people who have as well. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that shows a hold-up in the logistic resources of ID.
For some hints at how ID can be used to provide insights, see here and here.
Comment by Krauze — October 8, 2005 @ 6:48 pm