Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

First, a note, I've been away and any responses to me that went unanswered please refer them to me and I'll take a look.John Paul, I hate to tell you this but no one says a mousetrap evolved. Perhaps you could discuss an actual biological system. The problem is that Behe uses the gaps of our knowledge (and sometimes he doens't even realize there isn't much of a gap) to claim goddidit. That is nice, but it isn't science skippy.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
John Paul, I hate to tell you this but no one says a mousetrap evolved.

​

John Paul:
Aren't you the observant one. The point was if one could evolve, how would it in Darwinian step-by-step fashion?

---

Clearly you aren't very observant. The point is that since it didn't evolve it wouldn't need to be able to occur through evolution. You see, the point was that you are comparing a complex object that is clearly not the result of evolution to complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution.

quote:

---

Larry:
Perhaps you could discuss an actual biological system.

​

John Paul:
If you can't tackle something as basic as a 5 part (with staples) mousetrap what makes you think you can handle something as complex as a biological system?

---

Because the mouse trap isn't a biological organism and most importantly because it can't reproduce. You might think about such questions before asking.

quote:

---

Larry:
The problem is that Behe uses the gaps of our knowledge (and sometimes he doens't even realize there isn't much of a gap) to claim goddidit.

​

John Paul:
I don't think Behe cares whodonedidit. He just knows all materialistic naturalism scenarios have been found wanting. As a matter of fact he discusses them in the article I linked to. Do you think you can do what others have tried and failed to do? I'm listening.

---

Actually he hasn't. He has shown that our knowledge isn't perfect and claimed this lack of perfection points towards intelligent design. His challenge is to show there is no way for such systems to evolve. He has not shown that, he has shown that we don't fully understand those processes. Nothing in his work is a falsification of evolution even though he claims so. Also, does this mean you now accept common descent as Behe does?

quote:

---

Larry:
That is nice, but it isn't science skippy.

​

John Paul:
But declaring something did evolve via Darwinian step-by-step fashion, without substantiating evidence, is scientific- princess? Nice typical double standard.

---

No, I claim that these systems could evolve, we just don't fully understand them. I do however wonder when you will substantively respond to the evidence for macroevolution with more than a link. Especially a link using specious reasoning. It is based on that evidence that I conclude common descent occurs. All the evidence points toward evolution and so it is the scientific conclusion. So until you can actually respond substantively to something with more than a link, I'd be more circumspect about your claims. Being pithy is nice, but you can't back it up. And even funnier is you don't understand the argument you are claiming is true.You don't seem to grasp the incredibly difficult job Behe set out for himself. His claim of evidence for design rests upon the inability of evolution to produce such outcomes. He hasn't shown that at all. His claims rest upon our ignorance of the specific processes and not upon some positive evidence for ID. IOW, he is using a god of the gaps argument instead of using the scientific process.Cheers,
Larry

I think there is some room for John Paul here. If he could show that Behe is correct in terms of evolution not being able to provide IC systems, this would be a falsification of evolution. Not necessarily support for ID, but a falsification of the current theory at least.Now, once this was done he would then have to have a rather long argument with old earthers and Behe in regards to common descent, but it would falsify the current theory.The problem is that IC doesn't appear to be a falsification AFAICT...It does make the discussion much messier, and John Paul should be expected to explain why he feels Behe is correct in regards to IC, but feels the evidence for common descent that Behe also accepts wrong.Just some thoughts,
Larry
And thanks for the welcome back...

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
I think there is some room for John Paul here. If he could show that Behe is correct in terms of evolution not being able to provide IC systems, this would be a falsification of evolution. Not necessarily support for ID, but a falsification of the current theory at least.

​

John Paul:
Behe is doing fine on his own. Further I don't care what anyone "accepts". I care what is the evidence. For all I know Behe "accepts" common descent because he wants to keep his job.

---

My understanding is he accepts it because he is a molecular biologist and finds the biomolecular evidence quite strong. I will also not, you refuse to address such evidence other than wishing it away.

quote:

---

Larry:
The point is that since it didn't evolve it wouldn't need to be able to occur through evolution. You see, the point was that you are comparing a complex object that is clearly not the result of evolution to complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution.

​

John Paul:
We could simulate evolution with our imagination, that is one thing evolutionists have plenty of so I don't understand the difficulty. Also I you assertion that "...complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution", is what is under debate and far from a foregone conclusion.

---

Not really. You think there is a question, and Behe asserts there is a question. Which IC system do you think is impossible by evolution? And why?Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.

quote:

---

Larry:
Because the mouse trap isn't a biological organism and most importantly because it can't reproduce. You might think about such questions before asking.

​

John Paul:
Maybe they don't reproduce themselves but on an assembly line they are reproduced. Add a little imagination, ie a variation due to mechanical wear of the assembly mechanisms (similar to what was presented in Darwin's Ghost) a 'mutated' version of the original was produced. Then you take it from there.

---

Cute, but really irrelevant since you are making an argument from analogy where the two items--complex biological systems and a mousetrap--aren't comparable on how they are produced. Complex biological systems are passed on by heredity and mousetraps are manufactured. How complex systems originally came about is open to some debate, but no one posits they were produced on an assembly line.

quote:

---

Larry:
No, I claim that these systems could evolve, we just don't fully understand them.

​

John Paul:
And others, including myself, claim they cannot and did not.

---

Why not? What is the barrier? Please be specific.

quote:

---

Furtermore there is no evidence that shows they can never mind did. If you want to believe they can and did, fine. But understand it is a belief and therefore just as religious as the Creation PoV.

---

Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.

​

John Paul:
Hypotheticals are not a substitute for real empirical evidence.

---

ROTFL--consistency isn't a strong point of yours. The "power" of Behe's argument rests upon the supposed impossibility of such systems evolving. If a plausible pathway is found that is consistent with evolution, Behe doesn't have an argument. IOW, his argument rests upon the claim of impossibility. Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument.And indeed, Doolittle has done specific work to support this in the Sea Cucumber, vertebrates and lobsters with perfectly consistent results to there is real work supporting the argument.

quote:

---

Larry:
Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.

​

John Paul:
Behe's paper, which I linked to in my thread opening post, discusses Doolittle's work. Why should I re-do what has been done?

---

Because it wasn't in response to what I referred you to? How is that?Behe's response consists of:
1)_Evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection.Meaning that in your twisted defense you claim that a defense by Behe that accepts the work by Doolittle as evidence of common descent is an argument against common descent. You are contradicting yourself. I suggest you read what you cite from now on.2) that it is a just so story. Of course, this isn't an argument, but a complaint that Behe is wrong. A just so story that is consistent with the evidence and with the theory is what we should find.Above all, you haven't been reading anything cited to you or by you. The evidence of this is in claiming that Behe answers Doolittle's work you cite the rebuttal to a specific article by Doolittle that I didn't cite. You might notice that what I did cite was an article by Miller that expands on Doolittle's larger work and Behe has not answered:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.htmlPerhaps you would like to address this article that Behe hasn't addressed that goes into more detail.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

John Paul:
What is a 'plausible pathway'? One someone can think of? Or once it is thought of, also demonstrated to be so? As an engineer I can testify that what works on paper does not always work in real life. Also you are correct by stating "Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument." That of course is how to falsify ID. Show that one isn't needed.

---

One that is consistent with the mechanisms of evolution and fits the available evidence. Either you can show that the pathway Miller presents or Doolittle in his original work wouldn’t work, or Behe doesn’t have an argument. You don’t seem to grasp Behe’s argument at all. His argument is based on it being impossible. If it isn’t impossible he doesn’t have an argument. Understand?

quote:

---

John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?

---

For one there is no theory regarding a common creator so it is impossible to tell what would be consistent. Your position seems to be that anything is consistent with a common creator. Perhaps you could identify some clear falsifications of such a theory if it were to exist so that one could tell what is consistent and what is not? It should be a breeze if such a theory exists.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Behe has kicked butt so far. Seeing that this is his field, I will wait to see what he says.

---

Ummmit is also Doolittle’s field and Doolittle is much better respected. So your argument from authority is invalid. How do you know if he is kicking butt if you can’t understand the argument. AGAIN, I will ask you how you can reconcile your contention that evolution is impossible because of evidence that BEHE states is evidence of common descent? If you had read what you cited, you would know that Behe agrees that Doolittle has evidence of common descent, but argues a special mechanism is needed in there. DO YOU GRASP THAT WHAT YOU ARE CITING IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?

quote:

---

You are correct though, I didn't read Doolittle's new stuff. After being body slammed I thought he would just stay down and just rolled my eyes when I saw your link. And know that Miller has added his 2 cents worth I am sure it is even more exciting.
BTW, Behe did read Miller & Doolittle:

---

And if you are going to continue to refuse to pay attention this is going to be a long discussion of circles. Behe is replying to an earlier article by Doolittle and to Miller’s book. Miller provides a much more detailed analysis of xenon shuffling in the link that the publisher removed for brevity. IOW, it isn’t what Behe is responding to in your link. If you read what you linked you would know this.Cheers and Happy Reading,
Larry

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:Understand that a pathway has been demonstrated by Doolittle? It has been done. Either address a mistake in the Miller expanded section or stop whining that this hasn't been done. THIS IS NOT THE ONE THAT BEHE ADDRESSES IN YOUR LINK--YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU WERE READING ANYTHING!My goodness, do you understand that the piece by Behe that you cite accepts Doolittle's evidence as common descent? Do you read what you cite?

quote:

---

There is a theory regarding Creation- you just choose to ignore it. Huge difference. The link to the true origins provided falsifications for it.

---

Identify it.

Yes, Percy, in general. More than that in this case though. The specific source that he cites as evidence that deals with Doolittle's work doesn't refute it in relation to common descent--indeed Behe embraces the Doolittle work as evidence of common descent, but attempts to rebut it in relation to natural selection.Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the cited source of Miller's expanded piece that deals with a more thorough description of Doolittle's work that Behe never addresses.Why Behe is wrong in relation to it being evidence for common descent would be minimally necessary to clear up. This should have been done when he first cited it.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Miller assumes the ToE is indicative of reality in order to reach his conclusions. Hardly objective.

---

He has tested his hypothesis. He shouldn’t be objective, he should be supportive of the evidence which supported his hypothesis. And his assumption is fully reasonable given that his assumption has been repeatedly tested.

quote:

---

John Paul:
LOL! Where was the demonstration? Just because someone can put a hypothetical down on paper doesn't mean it has been demonstrated.

---

Let’s review. First, Behe makes the inference of ID based on IC systems. He does so by saying it is impossible for natural selection to account for specific systems including the vertebrate blood clotting system and makes an extraordinary claim that there is no way for such a system to evolve in a system of random mutation and natural selection. Now, that means if one can find a specific pathway that is not impossible by means of random mutation and natural selection, the inference by Behe is incorrect.You have not substantively challenged the Miller piece as cited to you. Please do so.Now, in relation to whether it occurred in the specific manner that Miller discusses based on Doolittle’s work, it could be wrong, but the genetic evidence is perfectly consistent with it. However, the existence of such a pathway falsifies Behe’s claim.

quote:

---

John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.

---

Yes, but a possibly pathway is all that is required to falsify Behe’s inference. Do you understand this? His argument is based upon the impossibility of such an occurrence. If it isn’t impossible, Behe doesn’t have an argument anymore.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Yes I read what I cite and I like I said before I don't care what Behe accepts. He has shown there isn't any substantiating evidence for the step-by-step Darwinian process and that is the point.

---

You have two recurring problems here.1) To accept IC as a valid inference, you must provide an impossible system in regards to evolution. Behe claims blood clotting is impossible. His ‘theory’ is based on there being no possible route and a falsification of his theory is providing a potential pathway. A potential pathway is made clear by Miller, and you haven’t addressed that pathway. You keep referring to Behe who doesn’t address the particular pathway in the cited article. So either you can address that detailed pathway based on Doolittle’s work or Behe’s argument in relation to vertebrate blood clotting is falsified. Additionally, Doolittle’s work does support the specific path, though somewhat weakly. Being the best evidence it would be the default explanation.2) You are claiming that Behe is wrong in relation to common descent, but you are attempting to use him to provide a falsification of evolution. But the very evidence that you claim can be used to falsify evolution, is used by Behe to support common descent. You need to identify why he is wrong and falsify the evidence. Here you are disagreeing with Behe and Doolittle, but offer no substantive response. How is Behe wrong? Based on what evidence is he wrong? What alternative theories fit?

quote:

---

John Paul:
Been there, done that. All you are going to do & continue to do is to handwave it away.

​

Let's see we have Variation under Domestication; Variation under Nature; Struggle for Existence; Natural Selection; etc. Sound familiar? It should. The Creation model of biological evolution is very similar to what Darwin wrote without his faulty conclusion based on un-substatiated extrapolation.

---

So operationalize it. You claim there is a hypothesis in there. Identify the specific hypothesis, what confirming evidence is available and what a potential falsification is. This should not already be falsified.

quote:

---

Why is that? Why do I have to address what Behe believes? What he accepts or believes flies in the face of what he presents. Why shouldn't Behe be the one to address those issues?

---

Behe does address those issues. He argues that the evidence Doolittle (in the Doolittle argument you cited, not me) presents is evidence of common descent, but not of natural selection. He accepts the evidence as consistent and clear evidence of common descent.Now, you are trying to claim it isn't evidence of evolution in any way and that isn't evidence of common descent. But this contradicts what you cited. So either you can identify why Behe and Doolittle's arguments are wrong, or the arguments stand.

quote:

---

John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.

---

Fine, we’ll do this the hard way.What is it about Behe’s argument you don’t understand? Behe makes an argument based on the impossibility of evolution accounting for blood clotting. Agreed? If not, explain how you would characterize Behe’s argument.If so, a possible pathway invalidates his argument and IC is irrelevant to any discussion of ID.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Just because something looks 'possible' on paper doesn't make it so.

---

Just because something looks impossible on paper doesn’t make it so. You don’t seem to grasp a very elemental part of Behe’s argument. He claims, on paperwith no lab work to support himthat evolution couldn’t provide a pathway. A pathway is possible and has been cited to you. This falsifies Behe’s contention. You havent’ taken issue with anything in the Miller piece regarding blood clotting except to reference an article that doesn’t address it either.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Yes. Do you understand what I just said?

---

Yes, but you haven’t provided anything to critique the Doolittle scenario so I’m not sure what you are claiming besides you don’t like it because it contradicts what you want to believe.

quote:

---

John Paul:
True. So all that is needed is to take the idea off of the paper and into the lab where it can be demonstrated. Lacking that element (demonstration- as in observe, test, repeat & verify), all are left with are 'cuddas'. As in "It cudda happened this way". To me that is not very scientific.

---

Science doesn’t rely solely on fully controlled experiments. Indeed, you are invalidating entire fields of science including hydrology, geology, astronomy, etc with your claims it does. It requires five steps:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000Experiments are nice when possible because they reduce the number of variables and allow one to easily manipulate those variables. Quasi-experimental methods and good research design are fine though in other cases. You should have me teaching you the scientific method because you would understand it much better than whomever attempted it the first time. To you that may not be very scientific, but that is irrelevant since science never makes the requirement you are trying to impose.

quote:

---

The problem, as I see it, is not only was the blood cascade changing, so was the organism. Where is the evidence that mutations can occur in such a way to accomplish this? (we can save that for another thread, which would be best. Just something for you to keep in the back of your mind)

---

It has already been provided to you. Would you care to read it or not? I’m growing tired of repeating myself.

John Paul,What experiment did Behe run to determine it was impossible? Please cite the journal article it appeared in.Thanks,
Larry