I did the website/link because I also wrote this up for a couple other groups/people and would have made more of a topic out of it, but I didnt want to start a thread that had the potential to debate a dozen or more topics espically if no one was guranteed to be around to defend the points. Let me know if anyone would like any more specific details or elboration on what went on.
I don't know whether to thank you or offer condolences that you had to sit through such a "scientific" meeting. In any case, given that Behe is the only one in the entire group that at the very least has a background in a relevant field to evolutionary biology (if one is kind), did he offer anything novel? It sounds like he is pushing IC further and further back from full blown structures to protein interactions. Having just attended an admittedly dry seminar on the way the HIV protein Rev interacts with the HIV RNA molecule, it is simple chemistry and hardly irreducible...it is also a far from optimal interaction (which IDists seem to assume that everything is optimal)yet the tradeoff is that it allows HIV a lot of room to respond to different cellular conditions. Given a variable system, operating under the normal constraints of biochemical reactions, how does Behe justify IC? I don't really expect an answer since thus far, the entire ID movement has been mired in its inability to get beyond assertion of IC and the impossibility of its evolving and provide a legitimate example.
I thought this quote from the column was quite appropriate and describes the ID movement in a concise and accurate way:
This is something that never seems settled in the ID movement, where is the designer inserting himself? At the beginning of time? At the beginning of life? At the Cambrian explosion? At the creation of human beings? Everywhere along the path? Is he still inserting himself? None of this, of course, is explained or answered in any talk. This talk at best can be seen inserting the designer at the beginning, defining the fundamental and natural laws. They try to escape this trap by saying that making things designed for an observer means the designer planned observers but I am not convinced that logic follows.
Behe didn't offer much of anything new. His talk opened with that damnable mouse trap and went downhill from there. If you have read Darwinís black box you know his talk. He used the same evidence with no alterations. I have read some of the debates he has had and seen problems pointed out to him he wasn't able to offer an explanation for. He didn't here either. The only "critics" he tried to answer were Russell Doolittle and anyone who quoted him because apparently he misinterpreted a paper he used in the rebuttal of Behe. Towards the end of the speech he talked a LITTLE about his modeling of multiprotein complexes. From what I gathered he took a gene, duplicated it then determined what mutations would have to occur on both genes to make the two proteins complementary so they could form a complex. He calculated the length of time necessary for random mutation to get these mutations correct and not add others (basically the chance to get an exact sequence of mutations at random) and found it to be a LONG time. I don't think there is anything earth shattering there, itís sort of a statistical straw man.
quote:From what I gathered he took a gene, duplicated it then determined what mutations would have to occur on both genes to make the two proteins complementary so they could form a complex.
This from a biochemist? Why the hell would the entire protein need to be complementary to interact? I guess he did not clear this up either? Most protein protein interactions are via specific domains...hell, they can even be linked by a few disulfide bonds..sounds like Behe confused proteins with DNA..not to mention dimers and trimers made up of mutliple copies of the same protein..no need for complementary changes in the DNA...on the other hand, I am sure Phillip Johnson was very impressed
"He calculated the length of time necessary for random mutation to get these mutations correct and not add others (basically the chance to get an exact sequence of mutations at random) and found it to be a LONG time. I don't think there is anything earth shattering there, itís sort of a statistical straw man."
Behe constructed a statistical strawman? Do tell. In other news....a dog bit a man today. The amazing thing is that anyone still thinks Behe has something useful to contribute to the discussion.
I have been unconvinced about a principled IC and this week I have wondered if entropy increases are not correlated with changes in free path lengths of molecular motion which composites into a proteins' given locomotion from its past amino acid changes. It even seems possible that differences in 1-D symmetry *fully* explain the given material IC 'targets'.
If macrothermodynamics is more than a qualitative position on the relation of DNA stability and chemical degredation (it might remand form appearing old in shape but young in chemical mixture etc) and 1-D symmetry of any kind of polymer in the cells then it seems that IC is reducible to claims about D'Arcy Thompson transform metrics NOT being purely chemical. They might be purely biophysical orbe by being informed by notions of Shannon type definitions but so far , I am unimpressed with ID's IC except as a principle of 1-D structure consequences.
Perhaps I will learn that this conference indeed brought IC notions this far?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-07-2005 06:43 PM
I am fully convinced of the existence of what I Kant named , "designed effect" in the Critique of Judgement but the place where this notion could have been brought in at the conference but does not seem to have occurred is where you reported,
quote: Nelsonís message was primarily that there is strong evidence for multiple independent origins life and that abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are at major odds with each other.
The designed effect as an effect IS biased to original earth extrapolations of life and there can still be some prior human design even if there is life orginiating randomly in more than one place in the systematic constiution no matter what the debate about a univers's center and edge is or is not.
I do not understand why Creationists have not attempted to read Kant backward in explaining there right to exist. That much seems uncensorable by science fearing religion in the appearence of authority nor by govt giving freedom to the LOWER faculty.
It is not a position that main line scientists miscognize the double nature of the cause and effect here.
It seems doubled because two material diretums substitute where the "struggle" is in form for shape not the base fudamental elements. Thus G. Gladyshev seems very perceptive from
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS
Georgi P. Gladyshev* International Academy of Creative Endeavors San Diego, USA Ė Moscow, Russia N. N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences
ABSTRACT The classical formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are presented. Some mistakes in the understanding the physical meaning of this general law of nature are noted. It is asserted that many misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics are related to terminological confusion and the underestimation (the disregard) of the theory developed by J.W. Gibbs and other founders of "true thermodynamics,
quote:I would like to note that the quotations presented below do not pertain to the second law of thermodynamics in its classical form [2, 9, 10]. Today, they may seem surprising, especially taking into account that all this was written several years after Gibbs published his works. For example, Boltzmann (1886) wrote, "The general struggle for existence of animate beings is therefore not a struggle for raw materials - these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly availableónor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat (albeit unfortunately not transformable), but a struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth.".
This from a biochemist? Why the hell would the entire protein need to be complementary to interact? I guess he did not clear this up either? Most protein protein interactions are via specific domains
What makes you say he was trying to make the whole protein complemntary? I'd be surprised if he worked with any more than two single domain proteins?
...hell, they can even be linked by a few disulfide bonds
That's trivial as we all know and crucially not specific. It's not easy to get two proteins to form a complex, disulfide bonds aside. He was clearly trying to do it without disulfides! Using pahge-display we all know it takes tens of billions of attempts.
He's trying to generate high affinity not non-spcific binding!
..sounds like Behe confused proteins with DNA
You clearly should have realized that you are on the wrong track here. Behe IS a biochemist so your thoughts here are utterly impossible!
..not to mention dimers and trimers made up of mutliple copies of the same protein..no need for complementary changes in the DNA...on the other hand, I am sure Phillip Johnson was very impressed
But getting SPECIFIC dimerization is NOT trivial. Of course any hydorphobic protein will dimerise but not *specifically* (for itsself ahead of other hydrophobic proteins) without design or billions of steps. And dimerization is much easier tha ngetting two differnt proteins to bind that don't already do so!
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2005 09:18 PM
OK - 15 months later I finally get around to looking at it...
and it's no longer there.
You still have it? Can you post it somewhere?
Perhaps, if you contact Admin or AdminAsgara, they can store it somewhere at .
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham