Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

That is another huge criticism I have with Behe's work. He focuses on mutations like those mutations were the only ones possible. To paraphrase Behe, the chances of a mutation occuring in specific protein leading to a change in specificity is astronomical. However, he doesn't figure in all possible mutations to all possible proteins that would have resulted in the same enzyme functionality. Behe is trying to tell us that there is only one possible outcome when in fact there are many possible pathways and outcomes that will result in the same functionality. If anybody wants examples of this I can dig them up.

"now, i'm not assuming that you actually HAVE behe's book. but if you do, turn to pages 38 and 39 and follow along. behe says that no system with subsystems can be ic. you can just reduce it to it's component parts, no problem. everything else just comes from functional additions to the subsystem, or combination of subsystems. ie: nothing with "parts" can be ic." ArachnophiliaI do have the book and have just gone over the pages you mentioned. However, I'm not sure I've come to the same conclusion. On page 39, paragraph 3, Behe gives his definition of IC "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 efectively cease functioning." A part is not a system! I'll specifically use his example of blood clotting. You need thrombin which initially exists as the inactive form prothrombin. This thrombin can then cleave fibrinogen to fibrin and so on and so on. A cascade reaction is formed and the end product is blood clotting. The entire cascade is the system while everything else are the parts required. Again, I'm only a 3rd year bio student, so perhaps I'm not understanding properly. This is simply how I took it.By the way I've yet to figure out how to incorporate someone else's post into mine so I don't have to retype what they said. Can anyone give some help here. ThanksThis message has been edited by jjburklo, 11-16-2004 06:38 PM

In modern "IC" systems removing one part may prevent the whole from working. But much of the problem with IC systems is that their proponents analyze them as modern intact systems without considering possible steps in the development of these systems, or even looking at lower organisms.It seems there are some invertebrates that manage clotting reactions without having any dedicated clotting system at all: Taken from The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting, an on-line document that gives some possibilities on how the modern human clotting cascade could have evolved from a single protein.A counter question to keep in mind is this: Why would a designer make such a complex system for blood clotting when a simpler one would do?

And regarding the quoting; just copy and paste from the message you're responding to, and hit the "raw text" button under any message to see how to make quote boxes and text formatting.Also, check out this thread on formatting and style.And welcome! Hopefully you'll stick around awhile.

here's the quote in question. now, i don't have behe's book anymore (i returned it to the library) so i'm gonna have to quote the paper i wrote on it instead, which contains the section of page 38 i'm concerned with. it's where behe is talking about the flaws in other ic arguments.

quote:

---

Behe explains that other arguments such as ones found in Hitching’s The Neck of the Giraffe are "vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system" (38). If it can be pointed out that Behe’s argument contains the same fallacy, that the systems he cites as Irreducibly Complex can be reduced to at least one subsystem on which the other can be built, his argument crumbles very quickly

---

he argues futher (if photographic memory serves) at the top of page 39, why a stereo cannot be an ic system. yes, the parts do not play music absent one part, but it's really just a combination speakers, a cd player, a reciever, etc. the only difference is semmantics, really. what behe is trying to do is argue in the smallest terms possible: just the parts. no systems of subsystems. unless you're a dolphin.

quote:

---

[] in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that [Behe] talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, [] lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, [] and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises. (Miller, Q&A)

---

http://www.ncseweb.org/..._dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp so, as a third year bio student, how do you understand the process of evolution to work? why the objections to it? have you read dawkin's book, "the blind watchmaker"? and what do you think of it if you have? well, you've got the reply button down, that's a start.copy and paste works well. ever used html? ubb code is very similar, with start and close tags. [qs] or [quote] and [/qs] or [/quote] work pretty well. if you wanna see how someone did something, you can also click the little raw-text button next to the reply button.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-17-2004 02:55 AM

and his definition given in interviews is outright preposterous. when challenged on the matter, he insists that system must still have THE SAME function.yeah, of course the intended function doesn't work when you take away parts. it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. but what if it does something else? no, that's not ok with behe. see the part vs system debate above. behe defines part in the smallest term he can. i bet he'd go quantum if he could. i would make a very similar argument: that there is no such thing as a direct route. evolution is not guided, like putting parts of a mousetrap together. it is formative, changing the components themselves. and it's one iteration at a time. either one thing works better, or it doesn't. it's not going anywhere. but the fact that it makes progress should not be a suprise.since i still have my paper open, i'll quote dawkins:

quote:

---

Natural Selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind, and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. (5)

---

exactly. and probability arguments are insane. of course the specifics are unlikely. with lots of possibilities, each individual outcome is a tiny probability. but one of them WILL happen, not matter what. and lots of them look very similar.and when guided by some selecting force like natural selection, you can get very, very remote probabilities very very quickly.although i played dawkin's game for a while and couldn't get much out of it. a single dot seems the be the most succesful form of e-life. which, i guess isn't suprising: single celled organisms are by far the most plentiful kind of life on the planet. it was the fact that i repeatedly LOST structure and variation that disturbed me.

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).

are the "whip" "motor" and "hook" composed of parts?that's a rather big logical flaw, wouldn't you say?

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".

which of course makes even less sense. like i said, it reduces it to a tautology: a system without it's parts doesn't work.what a profound theory.

quote:

---

unless you're a dolphin.

---

So not every animal has the same process of clotting blood. Regardless, evolution has to account for blood clotting in humans, which as far as I can see is an IC.

quote:

---

so, as a third year bio student, how do you understand the process of evolution to work? why the objections to it? have you read dawkin's book, "the blind watchmaker"? and what do you think of it if you have?

---

Even though a 3rd year bio student in college, I've still been exposed to enough of evolution to understand it. I'm fed it in every biology class i take. However, I've also done my own research outside of class both pro evolution and pro creation. I have not read Dawkin's book as of yet, but I have read several rebuttals to it from the pro creation side. My main objection comes from my faith as a Christian. The Bible won't allow for evolution. For me the Bible is authoritative, which I'm sure you will disagree and your entitled to it. But I've experienced the truth of the Bible and a relationship with Jesus Christ. Scientifically, I also don't see how evolution can account for life today. Natural selection is a loss of genetic information. It eliminates genes from the pool. It's comparable to a company losing money every year yet still making a profit? That doesn't make sense in my eyes. Also, if we look at the similarity between humans and apes, we find that there is a 4% difference in the genome (yes some say otherwise, but from what I've read 4% seems to be the most trustworthy figure). That's equivalent to 120 million base pairs, 12 million words, or 40 extremely large textbooks of information. I don't see how mutations can account for all of this. When I am taught the major "proofs" for evolution, and then read "Icons of Evolution" that refute every single one of those proofs, I begin to question. When I read bold faced lies and improper reporting of data in my biology text books such as that of the falsified drawings of Haeckel's embyro's (which for over a 100 years now has been known to be false!), or the peppered moth experiment, which has some serious methodology problems as well as not completely showing all the statistics taken from other places. When I read Behe's book I begin to question. When I read Dr. Paul Davies, "The mind of God", who is not a Christian, but shows quite thoroughly the need for a creator I begin to question. Now you might say the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, I disagree. Evolution must be able to account for beginnings. When I read Gitts "In the Beginning There was Information" and specifically states that "there is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process nor material phenomenon known that can do this." And I've yet to read from another source a pathway for matter giving rise to information. Now perhaps that's my own ignorance and you might point me elsewhere, but I have looked and not found a suitable explanation. When I see this I begin to question. When I read about the cambrian explosion and how out of the blue many different body forms appear in animals without any kind of transitional form, I begin to question. When I read quotes from evolutionists such as Richard Lewontin's "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow COMPEL US TO ACCEPT A METERIAL EXPLANATION, on the contrary we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce a material explanation no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a DIVINE FOOT in the door." This shows lack of confidence in evolution, and merely states that although he is not compelled to believe in evolution by "methods or institutions of science", but rather refuses to believe in a designer so he'll believe in evolution instead, this makes me question. Now I'll admit the majority of what I have read is pro creation. But while not extensive, I do have a thorough background on evolution and I have read pro evolution sources. I'm sure grad school will make me as knowledgeable as you'd like. In any case, the fact that I may not be as knowledgeable as you'd like, although I do consider myself knowledgeable on the subject, doesn't mean I cannot form an opinion on the matter. For now, my opinion is that evolution isn't true.Sorry if this has brough the thread off topic, but it needed a reply

JJ,There is a lot of info in that post, most of which isn't on topic here. My request is that you start topics on what you think is important, or search this site for topics that might address what you believe are the shortcomings of evolution. I would love to answer many of your questions and objections, but both I and Amdins prefer that threads stay on topic. Just suggestions for new topics:1. The Bible, can it be non-literal and still be true?
2. Does natural selection remove information?
3. Support of lies in evolution?
4. Information and DNA (there are several topics on this site in thies vein).
5. Cambrian Explosion.Those are just a few. I would like to discuss all of those topics, but they deserve a thread of their own. Happy posting and hope to debate with you in the future.

quote:

---

So not every animal has the same process of clotting blood. Regardless, evolution has to account for blood clotting in humans, which as far as I can see is an IC.

---

And it has done so:The following study demonstrates the ongoing evolution of the blood clotting cascade:The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes.And a long description of possible evolutionary pathways that could result in the blood clotting cascade as hypothesized by Ken Miller: The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood ClottingAlso, it is very interesting that if it was a "Common Design, Common Designer" phenomena that created the blood clotting cascade, why are the clotting cascades so different between different organisms? The differences seen in the different clotting cascades is best described through evolution, not a common designer.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-17-2004 03:52 PM

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