It's not clear to me that we have a counter-example to IC.

As, indeed, its not clear what IC is. IMHO, the unevolvability of ICness is an unfalsifiable concept, because regardless of what structures scientists show have evolved, IDists will always claim there is some other structure that is really IC for which scientists have not yet demonstrated a mutation-by-mutation evolution. Thus ICness is useless as anything other than a DI anti-evolutionary propaganda point.

Those who have read Darwin's Black Box might recall Behe's description of a gated ion channel. On pp. 108-110, Behe describes the signal recognition particle (SRP)-mediated transport of proteins (footnote 3) as a gated transport process. In so doing, he asserts (among other things) that "(b)ecause gated transport requires a minimum of three separate components to function, it is irreducibly complex". The three components he describes for SRP-mediated protein translocation are the signal peptide, SRP, and the transport channel. The T-urf13 gated ion channel also consists of three components "“ the fungal toxin (footnote 4) is analogous to the signal peptide, the toxin binding site is analogous to SRP, and the ion channel is analogous to the protein channel. In case this comparison has hidden the bottom line, it is this "“ T-urf13 is irreducibly complex in exactly the same way that Behe asserts for SRP-mediated protein transport.

I've emphasized Art's use of "analogous" for a reason. If it is only analogous, then it may not be IC "in exactly the same way that Behe asserts…."

Mike Gene:
1. It formed due to purely random events, yet since it is low in information content (no CSI), as you say, the Law of Conservation of Information is not violated. The problem is that there is no evidence that t-urf13 is low in information content. In fact, the evidence appears to suggest the contrary. How? If t-urf13 was really low in information content, it would be commonly generated by evolution. That is, many other proteins (most incorporate at least two helices) would be able to mimic t-urf13 to generate the same phenotype via the same mechanism. Do they?

2. It formed due to purely random events, yet contains a high information content (my first proposal). This may violate the Law of Conservation of Information, yet such a "law" is only a statistical formulation and lucky things happen. If I sit down to play poker for the very first time, is it impossible that the first hand I am dealt is a Royal Flush? Extremely unlikely, yes, but impossible? ID proponents might not like this explanation, but I have no problem with it. For one thing, if included in our specifications is the requirement that some part serves the organism in a useful way, t-urf13 fails to qualify (is a monkey wrench in the machine). Secondly, evidence of one lucky draw is not evidence that analogous lucky draws have been behind the origin of major evolutionary innovations.

3. It formed due to random events due to residual design (my second proposal). This explanation does not violate the Law of Conservation of Information. As I have speculated, rRNA genes may have originally been designed to fulfill two functions - code for rRNA and code for amino acid sequence.

It's not clear to me that we have a counter-example to IC.

Since the peer reviewed publications would love nothing better than to refute Behe, the absence of such articles speaks volumes.

What about the articles referenced here which show the evolution of an IC gated ion channel?

Salim wrote:

His ideas are considered to be entirely discredited - not because of their association with ID or any kind of conspiracy but because they were investigated and found to be bogus.

I'm not aware of any Darwinian explanations for the evolution of any of Behe's examples of IC systems that have been in peer reviewed publications. Since the peer reviewed publications would love nothing better than to refute Behe, the absence of such articles speaks volumes.

You have to be kidding me.

I don't have to, and I wasn't. Are you kidding?

Obviously I'm no expert on biochemistry, I suspect many of Behe's critics (exspecially the more rabid and raving ones on blogs like Panda's Thumb) are not either.

You're dodging. As you well know, I wasn't talking about *all* of Behe's critics. I was very specifically talking about his scientific peers. If you're no expert, how do you decide that their arguments carry less weight than Behe's? I put it to you that you just don't like their conclusions, regardless of how they arrived at them. If I'm wrong, please tell me why Behe's arguments are more convincing than those of his peers.

I am however quite qualified to recognize bluster, misrepresentation and pointless rhetoric when I see it.

I take your word for that.

What you're basically arguing is that Dawkins et al are right, people just don't understand what they are saying because they lack understanding of the biology involved.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that you have chosen sides not based on the quality of the arguments (which you admit you cannot properly judge), but based on what you think are the religious implications of their conclusions.

As for Behe testifying that astrology (right now, here in 2007) is ''science", that is complete bunk and an utter misrepresentation of what Behe did say during the Dover trial.

Maybe you're right, but you are just making an assertion. Why is it bunk?

You have to be kidding me. Obviously I'm no expert on biochemistry, I suspect many of Behe's critics (exspecially the more rabid and raving ones on blogs like Panda's Thumb) are not either. I am however quite qualified to recognize bluster, misrepresentation and pointless rhetoric when I see it. And the matter of the fact is that Behe's critics employ a lot of the latter, which makes their 'scientific' arguments suspect. What you're basically arguing is that Dawkins et al are right, people just don't understand what they are saying because they lack understanding of the biology involved. I think that is a very poor argument.

As for Behe testifying that astrology (right now, here in 2007) is ''science", that is complete bunk and an utter misrepresentation of what Behe did say during the Dover trial.

Why is it that you continue to engage Behe with pointless rhetoric, when even an 11th grader can spot the fallacy you are perpetuating? Consensus science is not necessarily 'true', nor does your appeal to authority deal with Behe's actual arguments.

As a lawyer, you are probably not an expert on the scientific subject that Behe addresses, and if so you are therefore not really qualified to judge the scientific arguments on their merits. So why should you give more weight to Behe's expert opinion than to that of his numerous peers that disagree with him? I think because you like Behe's conclusions, not his arguments. You might argue that Behe's numerous peers are biased, but what is your evidence for that, and why do you think (if in fact you do) that Behe is not biased? It was Behe who testified that in his view astrology is science.

Why is it that you continue to engage Behe with pointless rhetoric, when even an 11th grader can spot the fallacy you are perpetuating? Consensus science is not necessarily 'true', nor does your appeal to authority deal with Behe's actual arguments. There are plenty of examples in the literature where scientists could not accept data because it didn't fit their prejudices. Given the materialist vision of many in the biological science, resistance to Behe's ideas does not come as a surprise.

Obviously pointing this out to you does not prove Behe's ideas, but the criticisms leveled against him so far are weak. But then again, since you seem to be pretty fond of Dawkins, I guess that settles the matter regardless. Behe must be a sucker because Dawkins says so, eh.

Behe's claim regarding IC systems, is that no direct Darwinian pathways exist. He always admitted that there may exist indirect pathways, but that such pathways become more and more improbable, the more steps are needed, especially if such steps are not selectable.

Is Behe suggesting that "indirect" evolutionary pathways are impossible or merely improbable?

I'm not aware that Behe or anybody else has seriously addressed any of the proposed accounts of immune-system evolution with any specificity. Indeed, at the Dover trial Behe claimed not to have been aware of much of the literature concerning the evolution of immunity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...

Biologists do not currently consider Behe's theories to be "controversial". His ideas are considered to be entirely discredited - not because of their association with ID or any kind of conspiracy but because they were investigated and found to be bogus.

jean:

It would seem rather useless to point that out to a critic whose reference is the talkorigins faq! It's par for the course for the darwinist critic to point to a supposed 'skeptic' resource which considers the matter resolved, and then claim this settles it.

I think the talk-origins report I linked to is a very good summary of the regard in which Behe's theories are currently held by mainstream biology.

My expectation was not that it would change your mind, but to show you that Behe's claims have been taken seriously, were understood, but had been found to be bogus by precisely the audience that would have the best skills to verify his claims.

Why is it that you think a great many highly qualified biologists fail to find validity in Behe's IC hypothesis? It has been many years since Behe first proposed the idea of IC, and yet this idea has been remarkably unsuccessful.

Do you perhaps believe that the majority of biologists simply failed to understand his arguments? Perhaps you think that as committed materialists they were unfairly biased against his claims. Or maybe you believe that Behe and his supporters failed to communicate his ideas effectively - perhaps you have some other theory that explains why the biological consensus is so strongly against Behe's ideas.