Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

quote:

---

If someone is going to claim that a given system meets Behe's definition of IC, one of the first things he/she must do is identify the function of the proposed system.

---

The middle ear ossicles are part of the IC hearing system. They transfer sound waves from the outer tympanum to the inner ear via the oval window. If one of these ossicles is removed, the organism would be deaf.

quote:

---

So, what is it? (And no, it's not hearing: the ossicles alone do not produce hearing).

---

And actin alone does not produce flagellar motion. Fibrinogen alone does not cause blood clotting. However, these are parts of IC systems which Behe referrences. In the same way, I am referrencing parts of an IC system that do not produce the function by themselves, but do produce the function in conjunction with other parts in the system.

quote:

---

PS: I don't know why people don't stick to the systems Behe mentioned in his book: supposedly, he's been refuted on them.

---

Actually, I would like your comment on this part of my argument (honest cricisms, I really mean it). My argument is that for Behe to claim that biomolecular IC systems (eg; blood clotting, flagella) came about through intelligent design, he must produce the history of these systems. In other words, he must show how these systems came about through huge steps that could only come about due to ID. Or, what evidence does Behe have that shows these IC systems coming about in "one fell swoop". It is very obvious that he, nor anyone else, has this evidence. Behe's contention that IC systems came about swiftly, and possibly in one fell swoop, is not based on evidence, just on his ad hoc hypothesis.My method, of using fossilized IC systems, gets around this problem. Since we can trace the morphological changes in these systems (middle ear, in this case), we should be able to judge whether these systems come about slowly over millions of years or in one fell swoop. In the case of the middle ear ossicles, it happens over millions of years and in gradual steps. Not only is the integrity of the hearing system kept intact, but the jaw is also able to articulate in ways that won't hinder prey capture or mastication. This is the type of co-aptation that other have hypothesized about possible pathways towards biomolecular IC systems. That it is observable in the fossil record seems to support such a pathway.In conclusion, Behe's contention that IC systems come about in one fell swoop is not evidenced, only hypothesized. IC systems found in the fossil record come about through slow and gradual morphological changes. It seems more likely, through observed changes in the fossil record, that IC systems come about through gradual steps culled by millions of years of evolution.

quote:

---

We need to talk about one system at a time. I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but it was my impression that it was the ossicles that were claimed to be an IC system, not the complete hearing system. So I guess before we agree on the function of the system, we must first agree on what the system is.

​

So everyone, what is the actual system under consideration?

---

The system is the middle ear ossicles. The function is transfer of sound from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear. If one of the ossicles is removed from the mammalian middle ear, this function is lost. This is an IC system. Behe himself does not rule out macroscopic IC systems, therefore macroscopic IC systems can be used as direct evidence.

quote:

---

But I didn't say that. I said the function of the ossicles themselves is not hearing, and that is correct.

---

Yes, there function is the transfer, amplification, and attenuation of sound vibrations. This is the function we will focus on. Whether this is related to hearing or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that mammals depend on this transfer of sound waves in order to survive.

quote:

---

The burden of proof is upon those who claim it is IC. Now, for them to assert that system X is IC, they must be able to identify the function of the system...they also need to be able to identify the system under consideration.

---

Burden of proof has been met.

quote:

---

So your "Refutation" of Behe is that a PART of an (alleged) IC system can evolve? How does that refute Behe?

---

The sole function of the entire middle ear system is sound wave transfer. The parts of the mammalian middle ear are the malleus, stapes, and incus. This refutes Behe because this IC system was gradually formed via evolutionary mechanisms over millions of years. Behe must now show how his IC systems formed by an intelligent designer came about in one fell swoop. Saying evolutionary pathways are lacking with respect to IC systems is now in doubt with the evidence of an IC system forming through evolutionary mechanisms.

quote:

---

Therefore I feel quite confident in proclaiming Miller to be wrong: it is quite clear that actin is in fact not a major component of cilia. Chalk up another biological boo-boo for Miller.

---

Hagemann factor (in blood clotting) is listed as an irreducible part of the clotting cascade by Behe. It is not found in dolphins or porpoises and yet their blood clots just fine. A boo-boo for Behe.From here: [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004]

quote:

---

But by switching to gross anatomy you are demoting your counter down to an argument from analogy.

---

Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems. It is not analogy, it is direct evidence. Instead of dodging this IC system, why don't you confront it. Show me how removing one of the parts of the middle ear will not result in the loss of sound wave transmission from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.

Just so we all are clear on what we are arguing about, here are some pictures of both the reptilian and mammalian middle ear configurations.Reptilian: The stapes alone is responsible for the transfer of sound from the outer tympanum to the oval window. The quadrate and articular are part of the jaw. Sound is also transfered through these jaw bones, but independent of the outer tympanum.Mammalian: The quadrate and articular have now become the incus and the quadrate has become the malleus. These two bones have disassociated from the jaw and inserted themselves between the stapes and the outer tympanum. These three bones form an IC systems whose function is to transfer sound waves from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear. Similar co-aptation is considered possible but inadequate for evolutionary pathways, according to Behe. This example shows how co-aptation CAN AND IS used as an evolutionary pathway.Also, even though the lower jaw is losing both the articular and the quadrate, the jaw never loses function and is adequate both for prey capture and mastication.

quote:

---

Michael Behe: So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations."

---

Easy. First, the customer likes the addition of a battery powered headlight. The customer then likes the improvement of a front wheeled powered magneto for supplying power to the headlight. Larger and larger magnetos supply larger and larger headlights. Then it is discovered that by applying power to the magneto, it can run in the opposite direction and power the bicycle. However, the magneto is very poor at this. Better and better mangetos, and eventually electrical engines are created to power the bicycle. Then it is found that instead of charging the battery every night, why not use a small gas powered generator to supply the battery. Then it is found that large gas powered generators are able to power the bicycle all by themselves.In this analogy, the movement towards a power system starts with a front wheel powered headlight bicycle and ends with a gas powered motorcycle. Therefore, we can go from a bicycle to a motorcycle. of course this analogy lacks one thing. It is irrelevant how machines are designed since they are not subject to natural selection mechanisms BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REPRODUCE.

DNAUnion,Since I started the thread, I will take the initiative and lay it out for you.IC system: Mammalian middle ear ossicles (stapes, malleus, and incus).Function: Transfer soundwaves from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.Argument for system being IC: Removal of just one unit (ossicle) will abolish the function of the whole system, sound waves will not transfer from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.You claim that Behe excludes macroscopic IC systems. I would like a reference for this. Again, this is Behe's definition of IC from this page: I will concede that the intro to the Behe quote does say "at the molecular level". However, the definition itself does not exclude macroscopic IC systems. You do have a point that Behe meant for his definition to apply only to molecular systems. However, the evolutionary pathways that have been hypothesized for creating molecular IC systems are the same ones evidenced in macroscopic IC systems.For Behe to claim that such indirect pathways are possible but inadequate he must first have 2 things.1. The complete history of how that molecular IC system came about. Behe must show how each step in the actual development of the current day IC system were such as to exclude evolutionary pathways. For example, he must show the step by step development of the bacterial flagella. The observed complete history, not Behe's just so stories.2. Behe must show how indirect evolutionary pathways that resulted in macroscopic/skeletal IC systems do not apply to molecular IC systems. He says that co-aptation is not an option for molecular IC systems, but this seems to be an ad hoc hypothesis used to exclude counter-evidence. His logic for excluding indirect evolutionary pathways must be based on evidence, not his own incredulity.Really, there is nothing to refute except Behe's own incredulity of possible indirect evolutionary pathways. I guess the only way to refute Behe's IC via ID hypothesis is to show that Behe does believe that indirect pathways can develop molecular IC systems. I refuted the notion that indirect evolutionary pathways can develop IC systems in the absence of Behe's incredulity.And one more question for DNAUnion, and I would really like an answer in order to make this debate move along. Why does Behe exclude macroscopic/skeletal IC systems? It would seem that if such systems came about in the fossil record in "one fell swoop", his theory would only be strengthened. It would be like evolutionists discounting genetic data that shows no common ancestor but relying on morphology alone to show common ancestry. You can't pick and choose once you make predictions.

DNAUnion,I am not surprised that Behe excludes macroscopic systems. That being said, the only reason that he seems to exclude them is that they are at a "higher level". I see no reason why higher level systems can not show us how evolution can occur to result in IC systems. From one of the Behe quotes "The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step." I argue that the fossil record can and does. Again, co-aptation as an indirect evolutionary pathway that is viable both at the macro and biomolecular level. The development of the middle ear ossicles is a result of selection on individual changes in protein expression. Unless you want to suggest that phenotype is not caused by genotype, the middle ear ossicles are the direct result of protein expression, as is the flagella and blood clotting pathway. Therefore, both are under the same selection pressure, natural selection. New variation is brought about by random mutation.Secondly, what do the interactions of proteins/molecules in one system tell us about another system in their current configurations? Nothing. What does 11-trans-retinal and rhodopsin tell us about fibrinogen in the clotting cascade? Nothing. What does the evolutionary pathway seen in the fossil record, and the middle ear ossicles in particular, tell us about the history of fibrinogen in the clotting cascade? That it could have been previously used in another system and has since become integral in the clotting cascade. I would contend that the pathways in the fossil record tell us MORE than looking at current and unchanging configurations of molecular machines. This is the trap that Behe falls into. He looks at the current configuration of the bacflag and thinks it has been that way throughout history. He should look at the fossil record and learn a few things.Look at post #115 again. Notice that I pose two problems with Behe's proposition for IC via ID. If he claims that the bacflag came about through steps that are contrary to observed evolutionary mechanisms, then HE MUST SHOW HOW THOSE STEPS OCCURRED BY OBSERVATION. With the lack of observation, why should we posit a mechanism (ID, large and quick steps) which has not been observed for one that has been observed (co-aptation, slow and step by step). He still hasn't made a case, so there really isn't anything to refute as of yet. In other words, the need for an outside designer other than natural selection is not warranted, nor is it needed to understand the development these structures over time.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-10-2004]

quote:

---

So are we all in agreement yet that the ossicles don't refute Behe because they don't form an IC system?

---

I will agree to that. But I wouldn't be me if I didn't fully agree.You do not have to show the evolution of a biochemical IC system in order to refute Behe's hypothesis. He claims that IC systems, whose existence is not in doubt, came about through developmental steps that can not be ascribed to natural, evolutionary mechanisms. He claims that intelligent design is responsible for these IC systems. To refute Behe, I have cited an evolutionary pathway that could result in IC systems. I think the example of the middle ear illustrates this well. When looking at extant reptillian middle ears, the stapes alone is responsible for sound transmission to the inner ear from the jaw and outer tympanum. In mammals, two bones seem to have been inserted between the outer tympanum and the stapes. Behe argues that, in biochemistry, these type of insertions would result in a period of non-functionality for the biochemical system. Such a period would not allow the natural selection to act upon the now non-functional protein agreggate.However, using the example of the middle ear ossicles, there may be reasons to believe that the period of non-functionality is unnecessary. The biochemical IC systems may have been functional throughout their development to the systems we see today. Behe's contention that natural selection was not able to act upon these IC systems is not evidenced and argued from ignorance. To refute Behe's idea, one must put forth evolutionary pathways that could result in these IC systems, and I think that the co-aptational pathway seen in the middle ear ossicles is a prime example of such a pathway. This knowledge of indirect pathways trumps Behe's argument from ignorance.I argue that this is not an argument from analogy, but rather indirect evidence. I will concede that the middle ear ossicles do not qualify as an IC system as set out by Behe. However, the development of middle ear ossicles does refute Behe's contention that evolutionary mechanisms lack the ability to create biochemical IC systems, and ultimiately refutes the contention that ID has to be involved for IC systems to arise.

quote:

---

Most developmental biologists would attribute ear-bone evolution to developmental regulatory changes. That is, no new material was/is employed.

---

I will disagree with the second part. New DNA sequences are responsible for developmental changes, and changes in DNA sequence are responsible for changes in protein "morphology" as well. Changes in protein shape can result in different specificity and enzymatic function. Changes in morphology can result in better hearing or faster locomotion. All of this is due to changes in DNA sequence.

quote:

---

And this could occur because of changes in the timing of expression of certain genes.

---

Which is under the control of the environment, DNA sequence of cis/trans acting regulator proteins, and promoter sequences. Other than the environment, changes in DNA sequence can and does effect temporal gene expression.

quote:

---

To create a molecular IC system, we need to account for the various parts without the help of a developmental program. Thus, unlike the ear-bones, evolution of the cellular systems involve changing the material and coming up with new material.

---

I could also similarly reduce the parts of a cellular system to the levle of being the same material. All cellular parts are made up of long polypeptides or the products of these polypeptides. Therefore, to make a cellular IC system you do not need new material.

quote:

---

I happen to think molecular machines are well-situated for IC considerations. For any machine is a conglomeration of parts. The parts can exist separately in a non-functional state and are then assembled into a system in which function emerges somewhat like a phase transition.

---

Behe has never shown that the parts making up cellular IC systems were at all times non-functional. He must show how these parts have not evolved or changed overtime. As I have said in previous posts, Behe needs to show the actual development of these cellular IC systems, and how that development can not be attributed to the observed mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. Simply pointing to extant systems and claiming that evolution was impossible falls short of evidence. Evolution of co-dependence and subsequenct mutation/selection is a very possible, and Behe seems to miss this fact.

quote:

---

And this is why middle ear bones are irrelevant. During embryological development, how are middle ear bones formed? Is there a "bone-synthesizer" that manufactures 200-or-so different human bones separately and then they are all assembled into a functioning skeleton? The answer is NO. If bones were formed like this, then yes, I think their IC state would pose a problem for non-teleological explanations.

---

Is there a separate system that forms each and every protein? No. Then proteins are irrelevant too.

quote:

---

Yet molecular machines are built like this. Here, the "parts" correspond to specific gene products (polypeptide chains). The parts are individually brought together by the ribosome and then assembled (often with the help of chaperones) through their complementary conformations. Upon assembly, function emerges (in fact, one way cells use to turn off function is to disassemble the machine partially or completely).

---

The individual parts are made by the ribosome. The combination of these parts occurs away from the ribosomes. Assembly can happen by just bringing these parts together in a fluid environment without any outside help. However, some systems do need a certain sequence of events to happen in a certain order, just as we see in fetal development. I still don't see how these two entities are qualitatively different.

DNAUnion,Behe argues that no part of the mousetrap can be removed without it losing its function. I agree. However, if you remove parts of the mousetrap it can still be functional in other ways. Kenneth Miller has worn a tie clip made out of a mousetrap. He removed the trigger mechanism, one of Behe's essential parts. It no longer works as a mousetrap, but works well as a tie clip. Again, Behe ignores possible other roles that his incomplete IC systems could have filled other than being completely non-functional. I think he carries this bias into his work with cellular systems. He ignores all but the most direct evolutionary pathways, and assumes that these direct pathways are the only legitimate pathways that evolution takes.Also, if you have time could you respond to message #130. It is actually nice to carry on an informed and well debated topic for once. Hope to hear from you soon.Loudmouth

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.

quote:

---

Behe says IC systems defy the step by tiny step evolutionary process of improvement. He also claims that IC systems evidence ID.

---

Claims so in the absence of evidence.

quote:

---

My point is that worldview settles the issue, which makes philosophy king.

---

If worldview decides the accuracy and legitimacy of scientific theories, then I have some snake oil to sell you. Philosophy deals with abstractions that are either out science's reach or the underpinnings thereof (ie methodological naturalism).