Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

The reference had to do with the word "residue" I took to take and have here forwarded, in that I am now looking for the different grass and hay by comparing the central dogma as a set of Hamiltonians to the equivalent analytic geometry of rotations to set any such correlation (should it exist) to effects of thermal contacts which would be quantitative. You will have to give me some time as I ensure that for there are no simple mathematical contradictions in this apporach at first. If I find none then I would have, I think a large enough physical surface on which to place claims of reduction of IC on. If I can do this phsyical manipulation we would not need to see any references to "spirtual planes" although you or rather perhaps more I, would have access to the thought in private. I am not arguing that Provine for instance must find that ther is God and not his control of free will but I AM ARGUING that I should have been given an undergraduate degree to look into issues such molecularly that Gould asserted with or without Rhodes that species a can not offspring into species B in geological time. I think the notion of stratigraphic "simulatenity" applies to cells and not ecologies as if we could discuss the at large as well. I wil not do that to remain on topic.Yes there "needs" to be a mechanism but Provine in argument with Johsnon tried to say that even Darwin allowed a seperation of descent and any mechanism. I do not find this at all to be true. So if Darwin said that he was wrong. I am working up the kinematics of "spread"in terms of statistical dynamics of thermal ionic currents which would spread at a differnt rate than heat transfer thus could be a phsycho-chemical paramter subject to disturbing if not other kinds of selection when not occuring by self-organization. It is all so scientific that it is a joke I was given the hospital and not the degree. I consider Gould's statement that heirarchies are allometric and not self-similar to be at fault but the cladistic investment of computer algorthims has not helped the statement of gene flow over all either. If heireachies incidentally are proportionately MORE self-similar than metrically divided creationism stands to gain even more ground but this can not be attained until biology stops proping up the drug industry and starts to work differntly on diseases. If the quarternions work then I may have a workable mathmatical defintion of alleomorph series and show that Watson would have been likely mistaken (in so far as IC would then be cognizable)to think with Gate's $ heritible disease can be solved but Lewontin already said this out(side) of cist content. Again give me the time to read back to IC and Behe. I do appreciated your responses. Thanks. Brad.

brad -I will get to this, just not for a while yet.

always a safe approach. I was familiar with Provine but not Provine and made provincial mistake is assuming only one of interest to evolution debates, my bad.RProvine is interesting with his work on laughter and evolution of behaviorWProvine is new to me and I can see why he would be a lightening rod for some, but feel he like Dawkins overstates the case. At best he can only say that he sees no god within his provenance. He also appears to be working essentially on the evolution of evolution and thus is a little 'incestuous' for me.From A to B in time T is the problem we have discussed before with concerns on limits to T. Is geological T the scale of the geologists? I believe that Darwin allowed for several mechanisms, but am not sure he would allow just any. Certainly he allowed Lamarkish acquired characteristics inheritance, but was unaware of a certain monk and genetics. Scientifically we can talk about where evolution is on what mechanisms are available and which have been shown invalid, and this more appropriate than talking about 100 year old formulations from before certain information revolutions. There are ways to divide populations (habitats and habits), and ways to select individuals (natural selection and sexual selection, and in "higher" developed to intellectual conceptualization of interrelations I would expect intellectual selection - though this may work against needs of species as evidence fewer offspring correlation with education, which begs question of intellect being a beneficial trait) and both have interrelated effect on final outcomes. There is no doubt that the information of DNA, genetics and a kind of genetic paleontology is in the process of making possibly far reaching changes to the previous assumed structure of {the life we know the way we know it}, but this is still in the infancy stage as things go even in the fast world of scientific innovation: only the third complete genome structure has been completed and none of the three existent (human, mouse, rat) is too deep on varietal differences.Whether this lead to new thoughts of complexity of systems is unknown at this time.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I havent done my homework on Quaternions yet I still eked out a hubric statement on prediction so lets forgive the superlative and get down to growing the vine somewhere else. Provine would not give me the support when I was dealing with neophytes (Provine is not) such as Humphries who (now at Kansas I understand) was dogmatic (Provine is not) about encoding of polymorphic characters but he was too busy with Wright to attend to me when I was there. He reniged on letting me use his library though he showed it me once. moving on...Will is actually TOO conservative for my blood and Marjorie Green agreed in some philosophy standing in judgment of Will AFTER he spoke but look if one can not DO NEW DESIGNS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE Provine's elite grad students will not permit excurions into IC of anyone else for this matter. That is why it was sad that Simon Levin saw my design as TOO philosophical for this was starting to get too hard for Will when for Simon he just prefers strict applied stuff. My guess is that Behe gets the same read and write from many but I have not had a chance to comisurate. I like to make sure I can not actualy bring both the cake and eat it too. We should take our personal conversation to some other thread. I will no longer respond as much as I like to to material but that on IC here.It is possible that Behe did not do enough work on Mendel before writing but then I would have looked to Lester to see if there was something else I might have missed genetically in Creationism. It is possible that my links to Wise's work was enough to catch myself into the glare of up to date Creationism but I have never followed the ICC proceedings nor CRS so I really dont know.I am starting to get very senstized to words like "previous assumed strucutre" and on that very wording alone am inclined for EVOLUTIONARY REASONIG to look even more out of my own ordinary into IC as alternative if that is what the generation of Zimmer is sipping my zip code way.Let's try to say what IS known. There is no way that Gould can say that heirarchies ARE allopatric EXCEPT within his own "structure". If one is a creationist or an ICist then this cirularity that may indeed be self-similar indeed does not find a circle( humanly speaking as an agnostic (might)) but a projection and then one remains mathmatically with parrallels only and material differences of the caliber of Bohr and Einstein and not even Provine's teacher Dick Lewontin. let's not prejudge where you or I or anyone esle here fits into that sequence as of yet please.

Loudmouth quote from another topic:
______________________________________________________________________
All they seem to do is point a finger and arbitrarily call things designed. A testable theory/hypothesis would rid ID theory of its subjective nature by using objective evidence/models.
______________________________________________________________________But the Bible only claims that the alleged Creator can be DEDUCED.
Science deduces the unseen all the time but fails to do so in the most important of all deductions.Behe identifies and explains IC systems, then points out that the claims of gradual slow improvement cannot account for the IC systems that he evidences.No amount of sidesteppping and contortions can elude this point: Longstanding evolutionary processes of gradual/slow improvement is proven false by Behe's IC systems because every component must be present or the system fails.How did these IC systems evolve into their present state ?This is spectacular evidence in favor of ID because the complexity is so ridiculous and overdone that it can be equated to be a sloppy fingerprint that was left behind by the Designer. This is a reasonable deduction, especially if you have some God sense.I guess in this context the ToE is reduced to being a theory once again in spite of its reputation as proven fact.Loudmouth:This is your area of expertise - science. My presence here is as a learner and not an opponent. I like to play devils advocate but all in good nature.I meant what I said in my topic about being against the nonsense of YEC. If you ever want my support via Biblical knowledge in a debate with a YEC then I will surely give it. I can thrash them to shreds Biblically but in science you are the man.

And yet everyone of Behe's examples of IC have been shown to be nothing of the sort, rather they are failures of understanding and of ignorance of facts.every example that I am aware of has been refuted as being IC.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

NOT ACCORDING TO PHYSICIST MARK PERAKH :Michael Behe's IC systems, IF they are in fact IC, then his simple claim that these IC systems cannot be attributed to the slow step by tiny step evolutionary mutative process ?IDists have interpreted this evidence to clearly say, by deduction, that the alleged Creator was involved.Physicist Mark Perakh, in his 2004 book "Unintelligent Design" wants to refute Behe by redefining IC systems to already belong to Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) which of course is a product of randomness/chance.This refutation (providing that I have accurately represented his position) is in fact not a refutation, but an admission that the systems are IC (which Perakh assumes as he is not a micro biologist) and that the IC systems are to be arbitrarily assigned to randomness.
This "refutation" completely ignores and fails to address Behe's claim against the long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. I was extremely disappointed to see Behe's claims sidestepped.Perakh is interpreting claims of Divine involvement, which are based upon evidence, that an IDer was not involved based solely on his worldview - fine.IC systems exist.Cause: IDer or chance/randomness*.Pick according to your worldview.Philosophy is King**.* Perakh admits in his book that if proponents of ID want to claim that the alleged Designer creates/designs under the appearance of chance/randomness THEN this renders the entire debate meaningless.** And the philosophy of the N.T. declares and explains why certains cannot deduce ID. (opening text) And post 36 strongly evidences that the God of Genesis operates/controls under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident.[edited to add that this excerpt was cut and pasted from my topic "Philosophy is King"/Free for All Forum][This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-24-2004]

You're even wrong about what Behe says.Behe admitted that indirect routes were possible. All he offered against that possibility was his unsupported personal opinion that such routes were so unlikely that they should be dismissed.To this day it remains an unsupported personal opinion - while evidence to the contrary, such as that shown in post 1 continues to mount.Behe's argument is thoroughly dead.

Provide an example and demonstrate why it is irreducable

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Behe admitted that indirect routes were possible. All he offered against that possibility was his unsupported personal opinion that such routes were so unlikely that they should be dismissed.
______________________________________________________________________I'm not exactly sure what indirect routes means in relation to the precise issue at issue here. Would you mind evidencing this assertion ? Are you essentially saying that Behe has admitted to being refuted ?What about my evidence pertaining to physicist Mark Perakh ? Why would this physicist and his admission that IC systems exist be incorrect ? Must every scientist be a micro-biologist to contribute accurately in this issue ? (post 187 this topic)

In _Darwin's Black Box_ Behe admitted that his argument did not rule out indirect routes.While I don't have the book to hand the quote can be found online in a number of places - on sites that agree with and sites that disagree with Behe. (Taken from Irreducible Complexity Demystified )As I have stated Behe has never justified his claims concerning probability. They remain his personal opinion, and therefore his argument remains incomplete.This paper looks at the possible routes (as general classifications)
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/JTB.htmlI beleive that you have misunderstood Perakh's comments, and that he is referring to "Irreducible Complexity" as the term is used in Algorithmic Theory of Probability (see Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics )

This is really quite a strech but I will enter it just for flaging if necessary in the future.IF MACR0THERMODYNAICS only works for bilaterians (no jelly fish or coral reef polyps in a whole population etc)(and we have (thus) notion thus of BAUPLAN seperable from clade)it may only be polybarmins that ONLY(becuase of thermal contact undrstood to paradigmatic new norm(if)) currently classify scaling to the kingdom level, the changes underwending then, it may be possible to DEDUCE chemical correlations across what we currently study only in terms of adaptations to light which would be simply equilibria comprehended in Paley's natural theology as to Plank folded within be reduced to a creationist legacy currently undsupported both by right of creatonism and lack of influence of macrothermodynamics. The ICR position that ID tacks or adds GOD ON would then be ripe for the plucking.We are not revolving like this yet though.

quote:

---

But the Bible only claims that the alleged Creator can be DEDUCED.
Science deduces the unseen all the time but fails to do so in the most important of all deductions.

---

Science deals with the physically detectable while religion deals with the spiritually detectable. I have never seen a way to meld the two since they rely on two different detection paradigms. I know what the Bible claims, but it is just that, a claim. For me I think god could possibly be detectable, just not through our physical senses. Religion and Science are separate, which is probably how it should be for the sake of both. By the way, I would say that God could be inferred, but never deduced. That would require falsifying the existence of every known diety, both past and present, as well as those that could exist outside the experience of man. Show me the scientific assay for measuring which dieties are fictional and I will buy you a beer.

quote:

---

Behe identifies and explains IC systems, then points out that the claims of gradual slow improvement cannot account for the IC systems that he evidences.

---

That's what he claims, but he never shows these IC systems coming about in huge steps as he claims they must. Behe doesn't have any positive evidence, only questions and his unsupported claims. Perhaps you could give us a history on the development of the bacterial flagella?

quote:

---

This is spectacular evidence in favor of ID because the complexity is so ridiculous and overdone that it can be equated to be a sloppy fingerprint that was left behind by the Designer. This is a reasonable deduction, especially if you have some God sense.

---

It is a reasonable inferrence for someone who relies on subjective, personal revelation. Science deals with objective, or more accurately intersubjective, evidence that does not rely on personal revelation. Apples and oranges.But when addressing complexity in the cell, to me it doesn't look intelligently designed. Trust me, if it were up to me I would make sweeping changes. Of course, you could argue that this might be unintelligent design , but this misses the point. Cellular systems that should be simple are in fact extremely complex. Behe's comparison to Rube Goldberg machines is actually quite fitting, in that simple, everyday operations are done by 2 tons of belts, pulleys, and levers. Just to use another of Behe's analogies, if you are familiar with the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons you will remember the complicated traps that he set up to kill his nemesis the hound. Didn't you ever ask yourself why he didn't just walk up with a hammer and hit him over the head? This is what I see when looking at the internal workings of the cell, an overly designed structure that would have been done completely different if under the command of a sane intelligence capable of common sense. The more parts to a system, the more likely the system will break down. This is exactly what we find within organisms, systems that create problems due to their interdependence on a multitude of triggers and down-regulators.

quote:

---

I guess in this context the ToE is reduced to being a theory once again in spite of its reputation as proven fact.

---

Only observed evolution seen within extant organisms is fact, while the extrapolation of observed mechanisms into the realm of fossilized organisms is theory, a well tested and supported theory. There is no reduction, since evolution has been and always will be a theory. Of course, Germ theory is only a theory, but I bet you still take antibiotics. ID is a step below since they have not observed an organism being intelligently designed by a supernatural diety and therefore have nothing to extrapolate back. At least the mechanisms of evolution can be observed and their effects can be tested for within the fossil record and in the genetic lineages of extant species. On the other hand, ID "scientists" rely on smoke and mirrors. They construct theories not for their accuracy or testability but for their emotional appeal. Quite a different aim (dare I say Wedge Doctrine) for a group looking for scientific legitamacy.Somehow you think calling something a "theory" is an insult. It is quite the opposite with a scientific context, given that theories supported by 150 years of research are in fact held in high esteem. Using theory in conjuction with intelligent design is somewhat of an insult to scientists who have strived to make unbiased, falsifiable, and testable hypotheses. ID scientists make me think of three year old's crying because their fingerpaintings don't sell for millions of dollars like van Gogh's paintings. It is all in the technique, of which ID scientists have none, other than their penchant for dramatic presentation.

quote:

---

This is your area of expertise - science. My presence here is as a learner and not an opponent. I like to play devils advocate but all in good nature.

---

Devil's advocate, yes I can see that. I offer my explanations and questions in the same vein, open for fair criticism. However, the devil's advocate should also offer conditions under which he/she would withdraw their criticism. IDists have never offered such conditions, as their pseudotheory stands unfalsifiable. Something is designed because . . . they think it's designed. It is like seeing a face in a cloud and proclaiming someone is up there with a leafblower making cloud art. They (IDists) ignore evidence in favor of what makes them feel better. Not the best way to do science.PS: Sorry for the long post, feeling a little crusty after a long, drawn out weekend. Venting is always a good Monday afternoon constitutional.

quote:

---

I'm not exactly sure what indirect routes means in relation to the precise issue at issue here. Would you mind evidencing this assertion ? Are you essentially saying that Behe has admitted to being refuted ?

---

An indirect route for the three boned mamallian middle ear ossicle system is described in the opening post (authored by your's truly). In my example, the jaw bones in the reptile are functionaly changed to become ear bones in the mammal. This is why hypothesizing that the flagella developed through changing protein function is not a dream, but a reality that can be evidenced by the fossil record. Behe believes that indirect pathways (as the one in the OP) are not possible. Not because they haven't been observed, but because he doesn't believe they are possible above a certain complexity level. We are only left with Behe's incredulity, not a testable hypothesis.

Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I beleive that you have misunderstood Perakh's comments, and that he is referring to "Irreducible Complexity" as the term is used in Algorithmic Theory of Probability
______________________________________________________________________Negative, I do understand and this was my complaint. Perakh arbitrarily assigns these IC systems to belong to ATP. Note that this position does not deny that IC systems exist.Perakh is saying that IC systems were the product of random/chance.Behe says IC systems defy the step by tiny step evolutionary process of improvement. He also claims that IC systems evidence ID.My point is that worldview settles the issue, which makes philosophy king.