Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity

In case you aven't realised Behe's argument is supposed to apply to biology. And Behe specifically applies it to biochemical systems. So careating novel proteins, losing unneeede proteins and increasing and decreasing protein specificity have a lot more to do with Behe's argument than the moustrap - which is only an example of an IC system.To take building the mousetrap as an analogy for the evolution of a biochemical system is to fall into a cognitive "trap". While it is easy to do so - and Behe himself appears to have fallen into that very trap. It is easy to think of assembling a mousetrap - the step-by-step assembly of ready-made components to produce the intended result. And that is exactly how evolution does not work. Evolution does not assemble components one-by-one to produce a preplanned result. Assembling the mousetrap is not an analogy for evolution. As an illustration of irreducible complexity it is prefectly acceptable but to take it beyond that is a serious mistake.

There are certainly problems with Behe's original definition. For instance the "well matched" criterion is an error. The whole idea that biochemistry can be broken down to well-defined systems with strict boundaries and a single well-defined function is also open to question. Behe was even unclear on what constituted a component - leading many readers to think that he meant that each protein in the flagellum should be considered a component.But the biggest problem is in dealing with what Behe calls "indirect" routes of evolution. Behe was badly wrong to dismiss them in a single sentence and many people have wrongly believed that Behe ignored them altogether (on one side criticising Behe for the omission and on the other assuming that such routes could not exist - as Dembski did). I would argue that we should EXPECT evolution to operate by indirect routes and what Behe considers unlikely is in fact normal.I would say that Behe's idea that the indirect routes are unlikely is also the result of thinking about evolution in the wrong way. The specific route may be unlikely. The actual system we see may also be unlikely. But that evolution would follow indirect routes and produce IC systems is - IMHO - not unlikely at all, in fact I believe that it would be very unlikely that we would not find IC systems.

Actually Behe argues that there are exactly three parts to the flagellum (the "whip", the "motor" and IIRC the hook, linking the two). It isn't clear in the book but we have to show some charity and accept that that is what he meant. But it really does mess up the argument relying solely on biochemistry and we have to wonder why the bones in the mammalian ear (incus, malleus, stapes) are not accepted as an IC system (apart from the obvious reason that such acceptance would blow Behe's argument out of the water).

That's one of the problems - there is no objective definition of "part". I don't think that it is fatal, the big problem is the "indirect routes" which Behe needs to deal with. So far his best (or rather least bad) attempt is to offer a complete redefinition of "Irreducible Complexity".

Surely as a biology student you should know that Icons of Evolution is worthless and full of distortions. I mean consider the Peppered Moth - surely it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with taking staged photographs to illustrate the difference in colour. Nor is it the case that the moths do not rest on trunks (as Wells knew) and there is no basic principle at stake because even the vast majority of Creationists accept simple adaptions of that sort. Really it's just an excuse to smear evolution - and that says all you need to know about Wells.And you can forget Gitt's idea of information - you have to know that the genome is translated through mindless chemicals and so does not contain any information as Gitt defines it.. With no "Gitt-Information" to explain there is no problem - Gitt's argument is irrelevant.This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-17-2004 06:17 PM