Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity

Most think that Stonehenge was constructed by humans. This seems to be a logical conclusion. Recent re-enactments have shown that stone age technology would have been adequate for constructing Stonehenge. However, if this were in the biological realm Behe would claim that we do no know exactly how Stonehenge was built and therefore human construction is in serious doubt. On top of that, I could make the argument that it is improbable that humans of that age were capable of using stone age technology to construct Stonehenge. I call my theory "More Intelligent Design". Of course, staying with this argument, this leads us to only one conclusion: Aliens constructed Stonehenge. The evidence that aliens exist is quite apparent. The evidence is Stonehenge itself.I am not trying to defend the idea that aliens constructed Stonehenge. Rather, I am showing the holes in Behe's argument. As has been shown by experiments and in theory, evolution is capable of producing IC systems. In order to counter this argument Behe claims that such a route is improbable, but not entirely impossible. Behe claims that it is then MORE probable that IC systems are due an intelligent designer. What is the evidence that the intelligent designer exists? Behe tells us that we need to look no farther than the IC systems themselves.So in comparing Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity (IC) the argument is shown for what it is. By arbitrarily deciding that a mechanisms, be it human construction or evolution, is improbable it leads to the conclusion that was already agreed upon, the presence of an intelligent designer other than humans. I say that pulleys and hemp rope are not enough to lift those huge stones. Behe claims that random mutations and natural selection can not result in IC systems. I say that there is no record of humans ever building Stonehenge. Behe claims that there is no record of the observed IC systems coming about due to evolution.Let's look a little closer. As I stated earlier, stone age technology COULD have been adequate. In fact, given enough time to transport the stones it might have only taken a group of 50 or so men. This is the same with evolution, it also has the tools necessary for constructing IC systems. So what exactly does evolution require to construct an IC system? It needs the capability to create novel proteins, get rid of proteins when they are no longer needed, and the ability to increase or decrease protein specificity. All of these have been observed to happen. Just as humans COULD have constructed Stonehenge, evolution COULD have resulted in IC systems.So why the jump to an intelligent designer, or in the case of Stonehenge a more intelligent designer? In my opinion, no such jump is warranted. At times Behe says things like "IC systems allow us to suspect intelligent design" which is well within the limits of science. However, jumping to a conclusion that ONLY an intelligent designer is responsible is going beyond the limits of logic.

Patiently waiting for Admin approval.

quote:

---

er. i'm not following.
i don't think your metaphors line up.

---

Stonhenge = IC systemThe mechanism proposed for the construction of stonehenge is stone age human construction. If I deem that stone age technology is insufficient to lift those huge stones into place, then I must conclude that another force (ie aliens) did it. This is the same logic that Behe uses, that biological IC systems can not be explained by evolutionary mechanisms, and therefore it HAS TO BE something else. Behe is incorrect, just as the alien hypothesis is incorrect, in the very first step. It is possible for stone age technology, no matter how improbable, to lift large stones. It is also possible for evolution to construct IC systems.Is that clearer?

quote:

---

Perhaps it is my limited ability to understand, but I don't see how these attributes allow for an IC system. I'll revert to Behe's use of a mouse trap. For it to work all parts are needed from the beginning.

---

For a mousetrap to function as a mousetrap all of the parts need to be present. However, not all of the parts have to be present for there to be function. If all we have is a wooden plank, it can serve as a door stop. If we add a spring, it is now a tie clip. If we add a trigger, it is now a mousetrap.Such is the same with IC systems found in biology. The bacterial flaggelum, for example, can be broken down into the type III secretory system. Just as the mousetrap, not all of the pieces need to be there in order for the system to have a function. Behe merely looks at the final product and assumes that the structure has always had the same function, something that is obviously not a guarantee.On top of that, Behe shies away from systems that fossilize. One of the more popular IC systems that can be seen developing in the fossil record is the mammalian middle ear, which I have covered in another thread (look here). As it turns out, the bones that make up the IC system in the mammalian middle ear first started out in the reptillian lower jaw. Functionality was preserved throughout the evolution of this system, both in the jaw and in the middle ear. This one example shows that evolution is capable of producing IC systems.The problem is that Behe calls such pathways "improbable" even though evolution has been shown to be capable of evolving such systems. Relating this back to my thesis at the beginning, stone age technology has been shown to be capable of producing Stonehenge. Now, if I claim that it is "improbable" that people were able to figure out how to build Stonehenge with what technology they had available, is it then fair to claim that it must have been aliens? Of course not. There is a viable mechanism for producing Stonehenge without invoking the unknown, and in the case of ID vs Evolution the same applies.

quote:

---

While I understand your argument against Behe for assuming only an intelligent designer, I don't see a method from Darwinian evolution that can suit for IC systems.

---

If you look at the thread explaining the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, you will see exactly how evolution is able to costruct IC systems. The bones that became the mammalian ear bones were once jaw bones. At one point, these bones served as a joint for the jaw and as sound carriers. The jaw then developed two hinges. One of those hinges was then eliminated allowing two bones to move into the middle ear. It is the addition and removal of functionality that allows IC systems to develop through evolution. Being that we do not have the evolutionary history of the flagellum or other molecular systems we can't definitively give a list of prior functionalities like we can in systems that fossilize. Behe uses this lack of knowledge to insert his intelligent designer, a move that is often called a "God of the Gaps" theory.

quote:

---

Since he cannot see evolution accounting for IC systems, he assumes design from the lack of another suitable method.

---

That is the problem. Behe's whole argument is based on what he thinks is possible, an fallacious argument from incredulity. Theories are not based on what an individual thinks is possible or impossible, theories are based on positive evidence. Behe has no positive evidence that the flagellum or any other IC system has always had the same function, has always been made of the same parts, etc. Behe has zero evidence of these IC systems coming about in "one fell swoop" as he likes to assert.

quote:

---

Whether humans or aliens were responsible for constructing Stonehenge - it implies that intelligence was involved either way, so your analogy has nothing to do with what Behe is saying about IC systems.

---

That is a weakness in the way I constructed my argument, I freely admit that. What I am trying to do is relate observed mechanisms to unobserved mechanisms. We directly know what tools and technology were available to stone age man. However, we don't know exactly how they built Stonehenge. In the same vein, we have observed evolution and what it is capable of at the molecular level but we do not have a direct record of this happening in the past through the fossil record. So, I decide that Stonehenge is beyond the capabilities of certain observations, in this case the capabilities of stone age man (and women too). Instead of relying on other observations, I jump straight to the unobserved influences of an alien race. Behe makes the same jumps in his argument. Even when evolution is shown to be capable of producing IC systems, Behe claims that these pathways are either "improbable" or "just so stories". He then jumps to the unobsered, an intelligent designer that worked outside of human influence. When asked for evidence of a designer, Behe points to the design. I do the same thing for aliens; aliens exist because Stonehenge exists. I have used Behe's logic to "prove" that aliens exist.

quote:

---

Why do we assume that Stonehenge was constructed by intelligent beings?

---

Because we can observe humans building monuments. It is not assumed, it is supported by observations. I might ask you why you think humans designed Stonehenge. If you stick with ID, it might well be aliens or a deity that built Stonehenge, not men.

quote:

---

Why do we assume intelligence to be involved whenever we see letters painted on a wall or carved into a cave thousands of years ago? Because the random forces of nature very seldom (if ever) produce anything with a high information content.

---

Exactly, because natural phenomena can not make cave drawings. We do know that nature can produce sculptures out of condensed water (faces in clouds) or make faces in rock (the face on Mars or other naturally produced faces) but these lack the refinement of observed human design. Applying this to biology, we have a naturally occuring mechanism that can and does result in biological design. This mechanism is evolution. At a molecular level, mutations cause changes in protein activity, specificity, and structure. Mutations also can remove proteins that are no longer needed, just like scaffolding that may have been needed to construct Stonehenge. Mutations, and subsequent natural selection, can result in IC systems. Now, we don't know for sure if evolution did or didn't result in the designs we see, but just like stone age man and Stonehenge, evolution is capable of constructing these systems.

quote:

---

Behe focusses on IC systems, but there are numerous other signs of design in the universe - from the exactness of the physical constants in the universe and the priviledged location of the earth in our universe to the complexity of molecular machines and the existence of biological information to Cambrian explosion and our own consciousness itself.

---

Behe is asking the wrong question. He is, in a way, showing how perfectly the coffee fits the coffee mug. He is arguing that if the coffee had to be designed in order to fit the inside of the coffee mug when in fact natural laws force the coffee to fit the mug. In the same way, evolution forces life to specifically adapt to the conditions it finds itself in. Life adapted to the Earth, not the other way around.

quote:

---

If you make a propper study of any one of these fields you will run into great difficulties trying to explain it in evolutionary terms, so my question is this: Why is evolution accepted so widely if there are no concrete evidence to support it all the way from the Big Bang to the universe as we see it today?

---

Evolution didn't start with the Big Bang. Evolution starts with the first reproducing life. This is why Darwin called his book Origin of Species instead of Origin of Life and the Cosmos. Evolution is a theory that describes how life changed, not how life came about.

quote:

---

Evolutionists have to make excuses for everything from the lack of evidence in the fossil record to the massive odds against the unaided development of one single living cell, saying that more research will give the answers.

---

So should we throw our hands up in the air and say "Goddidit" and stop all research?As to fossils, we may be lacking important fossils, but the ones we have now all point to evolution. In a previous post I linked to another thread that dealt with the development of the IC system of the mammalian middle ear. The fossil record supports the evolution of mammals from reptiles quite well, with nothing contradicting this interpretation. We may not have all the answers, but we have a ton of answers so far and they all point to evolution.

quote:

---

But that is what Darwin said about the fossil record - that later findings might support his theory. And today we DO have a lot more fossils to our disposal, but it still lacks what Darwin was hoping for...

---

Actually, quite the obvious. We have a lot of fossils now and they all point to evolution. Darwin himself said that the fossil record is not complete and that we will never have a fossil history of every species that ever lived. This is expected since fossilization is a rare event, fossils are being destroyed through subduction, and some fossils can not be reached for examination because they are buried under miles of water or dirt. All of the positive evidence, the actual fossils we do have, all fit into the theory of evolution. This is what Darwin expected and it has stayed true for 150 years.

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.

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