Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe and blood clotting
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1 of 12 (473552)
06-30-2008 4:06 PM


One of the problems with playing a "God of the Gaps" game in areas of current research is that gaps are liable to tighten or close around the player as research progresses. In this case, I should say "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps", as the player concerned is Michael Behe, one of the I.D. movement's few biologists, and the best known of them.
One of Behe's examples of supposedly un-evolvable irreducibly complex systems is the mammalian blood clotting system. His problem with this was the research of evolutionary biologist Russell Doolittle, who already had a good hypothesis as to how the clotting system arose when Dr. Behe first made his claim in the book Darwin's Black Box (1996).
Dr. Doolittle has been doing a lot since then in his area of research, and many of you will know that he had established that bony fish had a simpler version of our clotting system, thus throwing the "irreducibly complex" claim into doubt, several tears ago (2003).
More recently, his team has established that jawless fish like the Lamprey have even simpler versions. So, what's happening is that clotting systems of ever decreasing complexity are being found as the genomes of simpler organisms are unravelled, and evidence of some of the steps of the evolution of the mammalian system is being revealed. It's similar to the way that the evolution of our eyes has been illustrated by looking at the eyes of distantly related organisms which retained simpler versions.
Bad news for Behe.
I owe most of this (including the illustration) to an excellent article by Ian Musgrave on Panda's Thumb, for those who want more detail. Here.
Diagram shows decreasing complexity in three clotting systems.
Musgrave predicts a further decrease in Amphioxus, a simple, pre-vertebrate chordate, and recommends (tongue in cheek) that Behe and the I.D. people check out its clotting system before someone else does.
Incidentally, the two missing parts in the Lamprey's clotting system would both cause haemophilia in us, which is why Behe claimed that they had to be included in all such clotting systems. No problem for the Lamprey, though.
So, for discussion here is whether or not anyone thinks that this is a serious embarrassment for Behe and I.D.
I do. We've all noticed his claims about "irreducible complexity" being a central plank of the creationist platform. Will they keep it up, or slip quietly on to looking for new gaps for their God/designer?
Intelligent Design, if this passes, Admins
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by camanintx, posted 07-01-2008 5:18 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 07-01-2008 7:35 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 12 (473571)
06-30-2008 6:55 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
camanintx
Junior Member (Idle past 5212 days)
Posts: 4
From: 3rd rock from the Sun
Joined: 09-11-2007


Message 3 of 12 (473665)
07-01-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-30-2008 4:06 PM


I think Behe and ID have moved well beyond embarrassment.

"Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?" -- Karen Owens

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-30-2008 4:06 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 12 (473675)
07-01-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-30-2008 4:06 PM


Musgrave predicts a further decrease in Amphioxus, a simple, pre-vertebrate chordate,
The Amphioxus genome has just been sequenced. I'll bet that someone who knew which genes to look at could answer this prediction in a half hour. Or I could, maybe, in a half-decade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-30-2008 4:06 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluegenes, posted 07-01-2008 8:19 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 5 of 12 (473679)
07-01-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
07-01-2008 7:35 PM


Employment for IDiots.
Coragyps writes:
I'll bet that someone who knew which genes to look at could answer this prediction in a half hour. Or I could, maybe, in a half-decade.
Dunno about half an hour! In spite of my name and the avatar picture (D.N.A.), I'm in the half a decade league, as well. But Musgrave was suggesting that it would be a good line of research for I.D. supporters. They could prove a point by searching for an un-reduced and irreducible mammalian clotting system. That would provide them with something foriegn and exotic, a new experience for them, evidence.
A good job for Randman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 07-01-2008 7:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 12 (473809)
07-03-2008 2:00 AM


Will anyone defend Behe?
No-one seems to want to defend Behe. For a while, I've noticed that the I.D. people with the best understanding of science are distancing themselves from him. Behe did actually make more concrete claims than the others about what kind of things he thinks the designer is responsible for, and that's a risky business, as explained in the post above.
It's better to be vague when you've got no real evidence behind you.
This is a bump to see if anyone will try and argue that the clotting system is "IC".

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 7 of 12 (474714)
07-10-2008 10:18 AM


Bump for I.C. advocates.
A bump for Beretta, who might want to support Behe and his I.C.
Unless it's empty rhetoric, of course.

  
imnotbncre8ive
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 08-27-2008


Message 8 of 12 (479427)
08-27-2008 5:06 AM


The refutation is appreciated. But I think scientists have been over this so many times their hair has begun to fall out. ID was never about scientific inquiry, only about advancing their agenda of injecting religion into public schools. Valid refutations are invaluable for convincing the undecided, those who are misled into believing there is a scientific controversy here. For the rest of the hardcore faithful, its a waste of time. They don't care that they do not conduct science, they devote their resources to a successful public relations campaign. I believe scientists should respond in kind, but so far I do not know of any organized attempt to do so at the level that Discovery Institute has done.
In the Dover trial, even after presented with a mountain of evidence against his claims of irreducible complexity in his three famous cases (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting system, immune system), Behe continued to insist that the evidence was "not enough". This is antithetical to the very spirit of science. We can only shake our heads and move on to more productive endeavors.
Edited by imnotbncre8ive, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 08-27-2008 5:41 AM imnotbncre8ive has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 9 of 12 (479428)
08-27-2008 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by imnotbncre8ive
08-27-2008 5:06 AM


imnotbncr8ive writes:
They don't care that they do not conduct science, they devote their resources to a successful public relations campaign.
Actually, I visit a lot over at Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" blog, and I think that plenty of the folks there genuinely believe that there are structures that cannot possibly evolve. Like Behe, when challenged, they end up doing a god of the gaps argument, or arguments from incredulity, and trying to put the burden of proof on those offering naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
But they genuinely believe.
When I saw that someone had replied to this forgotten thread (which is just there to make a point to I.D. supporters) I was sort of hoping that some IDiot might try and defend Behe. Instead, just sensible comments from a newcomer.
Welcome to EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by imnotbncre8ive, posted 08-27-2008 5:06 AM imnotbncre8ive has not replied

  
imnotbncre8ive
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 08-27-2008


Message 10 of 12 (479432)
08-27-2008 6:23 AM


Haha, thank you for the welcome. I could not fall asleep, hence my post then and now. I suppose I meant that they are not interested in conducting science as we and all professional scientists accept it. They conduct the pseudo-science that they hope to replace science with, which consists wholly of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and dishonesty. William Dembski and other creationists love using Hoyle's fallacy. (Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia)
William Dembski loves appealing to his brainchild 'specified complexity', which he is very adept at using to mislead individuals with no experience in advanced mathematics and information theory. Even mathematicians discredit intelligent design by concluding 'specified complexity' is essentially garbage.
The individuals who visit Dembski's blog are misguided, ignorant, and perhaps uneducated (though my impression is that ID is the 'educated' believer's version of YEC).
I am young and inexperienced in the ways of the world, and I have only realized very recently that America is perhaps the only developed nation that still contests the validity of evolution by natural selection. It came as a bit of a shock, to be honest.
Edited by imnotbncre8ive, : No reason given.
Edited by imnotbncre8ive, : No reason given.
Edited by imnotbncre8ive, : CUZ I FELT LIKE IT!!!!!!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by onifre, posted 08-27-2008 7:10 PM imnotbncre8ive has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 11 of 12 (479499)
08-27-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by imnotbncre8ive
08-27-2008 6:23 AM


I have only realized very recently that America is perhaps the only developed nation that still contests the validity of evolution by natural selection.
Off topic, but since im an American, i'd like to make a small correction. 'America', as in the governing body, does not contest evolution. Certain states, and more so, counties within the states, have tried to introduce ID as science. In no case did it succeed, and the one time it did it was for a very brief period and it was the Dover Pa. trail that over turned the school boards decision and fired the school board members. It is required teaching in all public schools(granted some schools may slack a bit on this), but it is required non the less. And all biology classes at the college and university level teach evolution so in no way are any of these institutions of higher learning effected by the small ID movement that plagues certain rural Christian towns.
Yes we are the nation where the larges amount of citizen don't believe in evolution, for a 1st world nation(57%),(Page Not Found). But, it has to do more with up bringing and religious ideologies, rather than what the government and our schools and universities believe in.
Also, my theory is that the fundamentalist Christians out fuck the smarter people because we're busy in school, or in a library, or studying late night hours. They over populated the middle of the US with little ignorant believers...actually thats a hypothesis at best

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by imnotbncre8ive, posted 08-27-2008 6:23 AM imnotbncre8ive has not replied

  
imnotbncre8ive
Junior Member (Idle past 5691 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 08-27-2008


Message 12 of 12 (479503)
08-27-2008 8:53 PM


I'm American too, and I agree with your corrections. Although, I am not sure about them out-fucking everyone. They're into the abstinence... OR ELSE... methodology. No condoms! They teach that in poor countries like Africa, and look at the success we have in combating AIDS.
I recently read the book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America" by Chris Hedges. It concerns the Christian Dominionist movement and draws parallels between it and fascism. The point that unsettles me most is their fervent belief that they are called upon by God to 'take dominion' over America, and perhaps even the other nations. If you are interested in this, I encourage you to investigate this book. Or maybe this is old news to everyone by now. I for one only recently stumbled upon it.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024