Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

The fossils below show a transition between reptiles and mammals. These fossils deal with the lower jaw bone (search TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy for more info). In this series you can see jaw bones move up into the mammalian middle ear, which is evidence for the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. On top of this, mammalian fetal development follows the same path, jaw bones move up into the middle ear. Dr. Behe argues that such a system can not evolve, in that if one piece of an irreducibly complex system is removed then the whole system stops working. This can be seen in the mammalian middle ear, where if just one of the middle ear bones is removed then the organism is deaf. Also, removal of jawbones should make it impossible for the jaw to articulate correctly. However, throughout the evolutionary process their is adequate articulation of the jaw joint for catching and eating prey.Overall, Behe's argument that irreducibly complex (IC) systems can not evolve is refuted by this one example. He then has to admit that IC systems can evolve and must create criteria to separate out non evolved and evolved IC systems. Until he does this his theory is refuted.

quote:

---

Actually, the beauty of the whole IC argument is that all you've proven is that this one example isn't irreducibly complex. ICers can keep making new lists of IC systems, and you'll have to shoot them all down one by one...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

---

Actually, the beauty of Behe's argument is that NO irreducibly complex system could have evolved. As soon as you show one system did evolve, his theory is shot. According to Behe's theory, a transition between three jaw bones and one middle ear bone to one jaw bone and three middle ear bones should be impossible since both are irreducibly complex. As it turns out, the IC systems can evolve. If one IC system can evolve, then he has to admit that all IC systems COULD HAVE evolved. Since he offers no evidence other than the IC systems themselves, his theory is left with zero support.

quote:

---

I'm not an ICer, and I haven't studied it that much. I was sort of playing with that post. What's the definition of an IC system to Behe. If it had been me, I would have left the definition to "those systems that couldn't have evolved," and it would have been self-perpetuating.

---

An IC system is such that if you remove one of the parts the system no longer works. With the middle ear, if you remove one of the middle ear bones the result is deafness. Hence, the mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex. That is, it can not be reduced or it stops functioning. As his conclusion, Behe claims that these systems can not come about unless every piece evolved at the same time. He ignores the possibility of scaffolding and co-option of function. An excellent laymens analogy is the stone arch. If you remove any piece of a stone arch the whole thing will collapse, therefore it is an IC system. However, a stone arch was made in the presence of a scaffold, so that the stones were not always supported by each other. Behe ignores this and distorts the possibilities of how evoltuion could produce IC systems by claiming all pieces had to be present in their current form at the same time.Behe usually sticks with biochemical systems, proteins systems, or soft tissue systems. My criticism is that these things do not leave a fossil record, or in the case of soft tissue, incomplete fossil records. However, when looking at skeletal IC systems, evolution is very apparent. In other words, Behe is being very selective with his evidence.But my favorite Behe-ism is calling hypothesized evolutionary pathways "just so stories". As if his theory is anything but a "just so story". He has started to back off of this claim, and now says that no evolutionary pathway has been seen, but can be hypothesized. I find that to be one HUGE hand wave. Behe's theory boils down to an ad hoc rationalization whose only real purpose is to further his agenda of getting creationism taught in high school classes. Somehow he thinks that an ad hoc theory backed up with zero evidence deserves the same recognition as theory supported by mountains of physical evidence.

quote:

---

During a debate at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Behe took his lumps in front of a live audience. In an exchange that has adopted legendary proportions, Kenneth Miller noted that dolphins lack the Hagemann factor (one of the 'essential components' in the mammalian blood clotting system). In an effort to save face, Behe offered condolences to the dolphins. "It's the theory of irreducible complexity that needs condolences at this point," Miller responded.

---

Oh my!!! Never heard about this, thanks for bringing it to my attention. If I was in that audience my face would have turned bright red from trying to hold back the laughter. As "ThingsChange" pointed out earlier in this thread, creationists like to lock onto theories that take about 2 sentences to state. And maybe one sentence to explain the entirety of the evidence. I think I heard someone state it is like arguing with bumperstickers. Short and to the point but lacking logic. Hehe, still giggling about the Miller quote.Added in edit: The whole transcript was great. Behe proponents should read this as well (html in MrHambre's post) to see how his theory holds up under peer review, if only in a debate. This is why science depends on peer review, to get rid of pseudo-scientists whose theories can not stand on their own.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

All Behe must do is appeal to the Wellsian argument that there is no way to know that any of those species were related and that those bones had those functions. After all the only thing we know is that we found bones which MAY have such relationships. What were we there or something?

---

Quite true, holmes. But then that wouldn't be science, but it wasn't science to begin with anyway. It still shows a pathway that is possible, and is SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, not proved 100%. As soon as Behe put his butt on the line and said that there was not any conceivable evolutionary pathway for IC's, he dug his own grave. Here is the possible pathway, case closed.

quote:

---

What makes your evidence IC ?

---

If you remove one of the parts, the system ceases to function.

quote:

---

Why don't you explain how exactly IC systems evolve ?

---

Scaffolding, subtraction of parts, cooption of parts, and improvements that become necessities. There are quite a few ways that an IC can evolve. For an overview of evolutionary pathways for IC systems, look here.

quote:

---

Why don't you also include an explanation of how a system continues to function while evolving step by step. (like an eye or blood clotting systems)

---

The continue to function because they are functional in their past states. This can be seen with the middle ear IC system, which is able to pass soundwaves to the inner ear at every step and the jaw is also functional at the same time. Even the simplest eyes still work. As to the blood clotting system, there is no fossil record for such a system so the evolutionary pathway is not directly known. Behe seems to think that it came about in one fell swoop. I am wondering where he has evidence of this.

quote:

---

I read the book "Uninteligent Design" and all the author could do was redifine IC and then subjectively say it is a quality of randomness.

---

I have no read this book, perhaps you could supply the author/s name? Also, the evolution of an IC system is not random. Rather, each part has been subjected to natural selection (selection is the opposite of random). The part that may be looked at as random is the non-goal orientation of IC systems. While some parts may have evolved for different systems, these parts can come together later to form an IC system. While this was not planned for, the melding, or cooption, of parts is still selected for within the population if it confers increased fitness.

quote:

---

Concerning the book "Unintelligent Design" you can go here :

​

EvC Forum: Webpage not found!

---

Link isn't working, may be temporary, don't know.

quote:

---

Mark Perakh, a staunch evolutionist, he even acknowledges that IF someone were to say that random mutation is the deliberate design of a Designer, then the entire debate is meaningless. Perakh equates RM to be evidence against ID.

---

This goes to the roots of evolutionary theory. Random mutations occur, and the mutations that confer increased fitness are selected for by nature. Increased fitness is measured by the number of "grandchildren" that the organism produces. Random mutations supply variation, and out of that variation the best fit organisms prosper. This has been observed. Natural selection causing IC can happen, as improvements will be selected for. Natural selection and random mutation are evidence against ID.

quote:

---

Are you saying IC, is in fact, non-existent the way Behe describes it ?

---

It does exist, but is a consequence of design. Design by natural selection and random mutation.

quote:

---

You remain humble concerning blood clotting systems, yet the title of this topic declares Behe refuted - what gives ?

---

Behe is not humble about claiming that the clotting cascade came about in one fell swoop without citing any evidence other than the cascade itself. Saying that design or IC is self-evident doesn't work, it begs the question. Ask him for his evidence that the clotting cascade has always been exactly as it is now, and see how humble Behe becomes.

quote:

---

You claim the evolution of an IC system is not random, that selection is responsible. What drives selection ?

---

Covered above. Just to summarize a tad: Whenever there is limited resources, those variants in the population that are better able to take advantage of the resource will have more offspring. The selection is due to the environment, the variation is due to random mutations.

Willowtree,Addressing your quote from "Unintelligent Design" as it appears in the other thread.

quote:

---

Perakh Quote :

​

"Of course, the proponets of ID theory may insist that the alleged intelligent Creator is not constrained in His choice of design and can, if He wishes so, create systems which appear random despite having been designed. This argument would essentially make the entire dispute meaningless by erasing any discernable difference between objects or events that are designed and those that are not." END

​

I interpret this statement to say "randomness" also means a Creator/Designer was not involved.

​

Once again, how does the scientific evidence of random (mutation) suggest no Creator ?
  —Willowtree

---

Perakh is addressing the lack of explanatory power within ad hoc hypotheses. If you claim that God could make his design look random, and exactly like evolution occurred, then how are we to differentiate between the two. If God's design method mimics evolution down to the smallest detail, then why can't we claim that evolution is the correct theory? Why can't we claim that God designed physical laws that are repeatible and observable, just like evolutionary mechanisms, so that they cease to be supernatural and are in fact natural phenomena?The other problem you have is that you are picking on one scientific theory while giving other scientific theories a free pass. Gravitational theories, quantum theory, germ theory, etc. do not postulate that a supernatural entity is required for them to function. Do you think that these theories are anti-God, or lacking because they do not insert a supernatural diety anywhere in their model? Why should evolutionary theories be discounted because they do not insert a supernatural entity when the rest of these theories do not and get a free pass by christian fundamentalists?

quote:

---

Excuse me but the title of this thread, started by Loudmouth, is "Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted". Yet he didn't produce any evidence to substantiate that claim.

---

Yes it did. The middle ear ossicles in reptiles and mammals are an IC system. If any of those bones are removed the system ceases to function. By Behe's own definition, it is IC. In reptiles, there is one single middle ear bone, the stapes, that connects the outer tympanum (ear drum) to the inner ear. In the mammal, there are three ear bones. It would seem, by looking at extant species, that the system would have to cease functioning while these extra two bones are inserted between the eardrum and the middle ear. This is how Behe argues for biomolecular IC systems in Darwin's Black Box. He argues that such systems had to come about in one fell swoop, not in stages since the system would have to cease functioning in order for the system to be altered, therefore removing positive selection. He also claims that no evolutionary mechanism or pathway is able to produce such IC systems. In the case of the reptilian to mammalian middle ear, this is shown to be false. Over millions of years, the system is slightly altered at each stage so as to preserve function in not only the hearing system but the jaw as well. Therefore, IC systems can be shown to arise from gradual changes by positive selection and co-aptation, or the merging of parts from two different systems (jaw and ear). Behe seems to duck examples of IC evolution in the fossil record and instead tries to keep the discussion about molecules that do not leave a record. I find this to be dishonest, for the obvious reasons.

quote:

---

Phylogeny works on some molecules but not others. In order to assume any ancestral relationships with phylogeny the ToE must be assumed.

---

Correct, since it is the only assumption that can correlate the age of fossils and morphological changes, as well as genetic relationships. Creationist fossil sorting assumptions fall on their face when these tests are applied. Phylogeny constructed by morphology alone can be compared to independently measured stratigraphy (age) and independently measured genetic relationships. If the evolution assumption is wrong none of these independently measured metrics should match up. It is evidence for the accuracy of the evolutionary assumption that they do match up. So yes, you are correct, evolution is the only assumption that makes sense when looking at the fossil record.Added in edit: Go here for more info on cladistics (phylogenic trees) and stratigraphy correlations. Many thanks to mark24 for digging all this information up.

quote:

---

I don't want an eyewitness account. However without something that is observable, or objectively testable and repeatable all there is would be speculation that can lead to an inference. An inference greatly biased by one's worldview. I can't believe you are that out of touch to realize that plain and simple fact.

---

See above. Three INDEPENDENTLY measured metrics (morphology, genetics, and age) that all converge on one conclusion: evolution. None of these measurements can be biased since they are independently measured. The only worldview being inserted is that processes at work today are the same processes that were in effect since the formation of the earth. Current processes can be measured, and those measurements are intrapolated into the past and give use accurate and predictable results. What measurable metrics has the ID crowd given us, besides a poorly constructed and misapplied explanatory filter.

quote:

---

Mutation-selection has NEVER been observed to do anything near what evolutionists claim it did.

---

Incorrect. Selection preserves and spreads beneficial mutations while selecting out harmful mutations. Neutral mutations are not selected for or against and allow us to construct phylogenic trees according to accretion of neutral mutations. A good example is sickle cell anemia. It is selected against in areas without endemic malaria, but is selected for in areas with endemic malaria. Heterozygous sickle cell anemia does no harm, but it confers resistance to plasmodium infections. Homozygous positive sickle cell anemia is often fatal, but often a person is able to reproduce before they actually die due to sickle cell anemia. The death due to homozygosity is actually less than death due to malaria, therefore heterozygosity and resistance outweighs homozygous fatalities. This means that sickle cell anemia should be selected for in areas with endemic malaria, and it is. Guess what, mutation-selection works.

quote:

---

One more thing- it is clear your hypothesis hasn't found any support in biology or genetics. If it had that support we wouldn't be having this little chat.

---

Actually, if creationists understood even a portion of the evidence from genetics and biology that supports the theory of evolution, we wouldn't be having this chat. Your continuing effort to ignore evidence against creationism and ID and for evolution is your own fault, not science's.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-04-2004]

quote:

---

IF you would have read Darwin's Black Box you would know what Behe actually says about IC.

---

Then please give me a reason why the middle ear is not an IC system.

quote:

---

One more time- neither you nor any other person has shown that any evolutionary processes were responsible for the alleged evolution of the mammalian ear.

---

Each step confers a more effecient hearing system for air borne vibrations as compared to ground born vibrations. Each step would then be selected for. If you are asking for specific mutations, then no we can not supply those. However, Behe can not supply evidence that biomolecular IC systems, such as the blood clotting system, have always been exactly like they are now. Can you show me the mechanism that resulted in the blood clotting system in one fell swoop? Has it ever been observed? Has anyone ever observed an IC system being created by an intelligent supernatural designer in the lab? I think not. What we have observed is accretion of beneficial mutations and the weeding out of harmful mutations. So which should we go with, the observed and testable or the unobserved and untestable? Science goes with the former.

quote:

---

All you have done was to re-produce some alleged sequence. A re-production that says nada of the mechanism.

---

Maybe to the uninitiated, but the the well versed biological scientist the sequence says a lot. This is strong evidence for a reptillian ancestor for all mammals, in case you haven't noticed. The mechanism is gene-pool isolation, or speciation. And again, it is the phylogenetic trees constructed from genetics and morphology that supply the evidence. If mutations and subsequent selection were not the cause, then genetic trees should not correlate with morphological trees. They do correlate. Please show the ID mechanism that results in common ancestry between reptiles and mammals if you think that was the mechanism instead of RM and NS.

quote:

---

Actually it is not a case of ignoring evidence. It is a case of evolutionists saying evidence exists when in fact it doesn't.

---

Please show the evidence that only creationism can explain, as compared to evolution.

quote:

---

Please point me to ONE peer-reviewed article that shows mutations culled by NS can do what you say it can do to biological organisms.

---

Are you looking for every singl mutation that was selected for over millions of years of evolution among fossils that no longer carry DNA? Or do you want info on how beneficial mutations are selected for and spread through a population?How about this. Look out a window and find a tree. Watch that tree for 1 minute. Did you see it grow? No? Then trees don't grow. You have just proved it. Of course, you will never see a tree grow in one minute, but you will also not see huge changes in morphology in 100 years. You are asking for the impossible, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence for the GENETIC relatedness of species that has occured over much longer periods of time.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-04-2004]

quote:

---

Loudmouth my point is, and it should be obvious, that you can't refute IC without the biological / genetic evidence that demonstrates random mutations culled by NS led to those alleged changes.

---

Let us use the nylon bug as an example (reference here). I am assuming that you are familiar with this flavobacterium and will continue accordingly. This flavobacterium has three different enzymes that cleave nylon derivatives. The first two are nylA and nylB. However, these two enzymes are not enough to allow the flavobacterium to survive on nylon derivatives as its sole source of carbon. A third nylonase gene is nylC. This gene came about due to a frameshift mutation, an insertion of a nucleotide in the DNA that caused a shift in the codon reading frames. Once this gene was present, the flavobacterium could metabolize nylon as its sole source of carbon. What makes this interesting when compared to IC systems is that the bacterium no longer has the ability to live off of glucose. This metabolic pathway is no longer functional and the bacterium relies solely on nylon derivatives for energy. If anyone of those enzymes is removed, this species of flavobacterium will no longer exist. Such is characteristic of Behe's IC blood clotting system, if it is removed the organism is extremely compromised. So I can show, through RM and NS that systems can arise that the organism then becomes dependent on for life itself, a characteristic that Behe pins on many IC systems (blood clotting).I can not show that the IC systems that arose in the past (again, blood clotting) were due to the same process. However, I can show that intelligent design is not necessary for such systems to arise. Evolutionary pathways that create redundant systems (nylonase and glycolytic pathways for metabolism) may delete one of the systems so that the newly evolved pathway appears to be necessary from the very start. For intelligent design, no such force has ever been shown at work on biological systems in nature. It would seem to me that the logical path is to assume observed mechanisms instead of unobserved mechanisms (ID). BTW, I am using Behe's own definition of irreducible complexity: You seem to take the definition as so: "Anything that is complex that can not be shown to evolve beyond any doubt". This isn't the definition that Behe uses.

quote:

---

Or are you saying that these organisms that were lucky enough to get a random mutation in the right locus as to add to some other random mutation's phenotypical change, also got the right random mutations that brought about reproductive changes, hair/ fur, warm bloodednessairy, etc.? Talk about believing in fairy tales.

---

You seem to not understand how beneficial mutations accrete in populations, both before and after speciation. One beneficial mutation will spread through the population due to the fact that the mutation confers improved fitness to the carrier. Over time the mutation will become common place due to the fact that more offspring are produced with that mutation. Each subsequent mutation will go through the same thing. This is not limited to one population either. If a population speciates, that beneficial mutation may be common between two different populations.Now, imagine this process happening over and over, not all at once. This is how scientists look at the theory of evolution, not your distorted "all at once by chance" scenario. This is also supported by the span of time such changes in phenotype are observed. The fossils in the OP are found millions of years apart, more than enough time for slow accretion of multiple beneficial mutations. Your version of evolution is the only fairy tale I see.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-05-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-05-2004]

quote:

---

Loudmouth why don't you just stick to the IC systems that Behe discusses?

---

Because you asked how RM and NS could cause the desired effect. I gave you a well observed example of how redundancies can come about and be eliminated which then leads towards an IC system.

quote:

---

Just because YOU say something is IC doesn't make it so.

---

I use Behe's definition. If he doesn't like how it is applied, maybe he should redefine it.

quote:

---

Also with the bateria that could digest nylon- how do we know those mutations were random and not the result of an adaptive mutation- a mutation brought on by the organisms' sensing the environmental change and reacting to it....

---

Can you show me the intelligently designed mechanism that caused this mutation? Can you show me how this process was non-random? Just saying there is an intelligent design mechanism is far from observing one. How do you know that this mutation was not caused by a Flatulent Pink Unicorn who happened to fart in the nucleotide. Can you show me how this is not possible?You must show me positive evidence that this is due to non-random mechanisms before I will accept intelligent design. One piece of evidence against you is this: If there is a mechanism that will create the same mutation time after time, then this should be observable. All you have to do is put this bacterium in nylon derivatives and show how this same, exact mutation happens in 100% of the cases. Feel up to the task?

quote:

---

You haven't shown this to be random mutation. Where is YOUR positive evidence?

---

That this mutation was not and could not be predicited. If you can not predict something, it is a random event. If you think this is non-random, you must show how you could predict that precise mutation and the activity of the resulting enzyme in response to an environmental cue.One study created a model that incorporated random mutations into a genome at rates comparable to that found in the laboratory. What they found is that their model matched what they found in 10,000 generations in the lab. If randomness is assumed, the facts match up. This is positive evidence that mutations are random.

quote:

---

BTW MrH, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Galileo et al. also saw the universe and life as the product of a Creator. I guess their science was incorrect....

---

Their science was correct because they used methodological naturalism. They did not insert the need for an unobserved designer anywhere in their theories. While they may have believed in God, their findings and theories did not require the existence of God.

quote:

---

Nope, doesn't even touch Behe's argument since the ossicles don't form an IC system.

---

Yes it does. Remove one part and the whole system (hearing in this case) stops working.

quote:

---

If someone is going to refute Behe, they need to stick to systems that meet Behe's criteria.

---

The middle ear meets his criteria. What Behe really needs is an IC system with a fossil record showing how it did not change over time. With biomolecular systems, he needs to show how these systems came together in one fell swoop. Since he nor anyone else can do this, it makes more sense to look at IC systems that have a record going back millions of years, that is skeletal IC systems. However, these systems show slight modification over millions of years, a far cry from Behe's hypothesized "one fell swoop" or a quick jump up Mt. Improbable.