Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

Loudmouth,Excellent work. Holmes will get a kick out of this too, we're both Behe-bashers from way back.A lot of us have discussed the philosophical pitfalls of Behe's God-of-the-gaps mentality. He looks extremely hard to find systems about which there is precious little analysis in the professional literature, then declares that the ominous silence speaks volumes. You're right that he tends to ignore systems that fossilize; he'd be likely to respond to your criticism by stating that the biochemistry of hearing is the real IC issue.It's such rich comedy to see this kind of thinking take it on the chin: when Thewissen & Co.'s brass band marched through the formerly ominous silence that Behe had described in the cetacean fossil record, he must have felt like a complete choad. 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.That's intelligent design creationism for you: dead in the water.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Mammuthus,Yeah, that would have been one to attend. I'm sure you heard about the controversy generated later on: during the dance number Phillip Johnson ripped the pink hooped skirt off William Dembski and Bill wasn't wearing his customary spiked codpiece underneath. I guess the Discovery Institute is notorious for this sort of racy behavior during conferences. I called and asked Dan whether he had taped it but he was watching Tomb Raider 2 again.regards,
Esteban "Eel Sperm" Hambre

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

John Paul,Welcome back.You've always ranted against the 'lack of evidence' for the mutation-selection process, as if all evidence has to be empirical before we can consider a hypothesis valid. You forget that most of what we know about science (from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun to the existence of subatomic particles) comes not from direct observation but through inference from a wide array of observations.The mutation-selection process has been observed in the lab and field, and creationists are right to say that it's impossible to observe evolutionary change over billions of years. However, we observe the mechanisms and methods of evolutionary change and we can hypothesize what we'd expect if this sort of change were operating over billions of years.It's clear that our hypotheses have not been refuted by analyzing the differences we observe in organisms alive today. We see the same structures and functions, often in widely different organisms, controlled by the same genes. We see mutations that cause genes not to function, inherited by distantly related descendants of the same ancestor. We see vestiges of long-lost former structures that testify to a long history of design work with no recognizable aim except winning the next round of natural selection's age-old tournament. Finally, we see how ancestral family trees constructed on the basis of various molecular phylogenies all correlate to a degree that is absurd to dismiss as wishful thinking.You're wrong that Loudmouth 'refuted' IC. He was just reclaiming it as the vestige of the mutation-selection process that it is, as should be clear to any rational observer. It's unfortunate that you're out of touch with empirical evidential inquiry, and can't accept the inference that is at the heart of historical science. It's amusing that you want eyewitness evidence of a process that has taken billions of years to arrive at the stunning complexity and diversity we see today.regards,
Esteban "Kid Heliocentric" Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-04-2004]

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.

---

Any support? You're evidently of the opinion that the mere act of typing a statement such as this makes it a legitimate scientific claim. In the interest of showing you how mistaken you are, may I direct you to literally every biology textbook published in the world today? Would the testimony of millions of biologists who accept the validity of the TOE come close to refuting your claim? How much evidence from the literature of genetics would I need to demonstrate that the TOE is quite overwhelmingly supported by that discipline?regards,
Esteban "Rational" Hambre

quote:

---

IC is the claim that something couldn't evolve via purely natural processes. However if something IC were designed to evolve that is another story altogether.

---

No kidding. It's actually a just-so story, since we have no way of knowing whether not-natural processes exist or how they would operate.Over two years ago, mark24 asked you to tell him how molecular phylogenies could be considered proof of a common creator. You never answered him, and I'm not surprised. It's typical of the creationist tactic of moving the goalposts wherever it's convenient. You're fond of shouting that there's 'no evidence' of evolution and that we all believe 'fairy tales,' but I don't hear much evidence coming from your direction either. If we cite articles or textbooks that support our position, you claim it doesn't prove the entire evolutionary history of humans. And I already told you, the evidence comes from the empirical support for the mechanisms and methods of our theory, and the observations from Nature of exactly what we'd expect to see if these mechanisms operated over the billions of years we assert that evolution has taken place. What would you accept as evidence, then??regards,
Esteban Hambre

John Paul,I understand that you don't expect to see the billions of years of evolution with your own eyes, just that you demand to see an experiment that replicates those billions of years of evolution. That typifies the rational, realistic basis that creationists have for their personal incredulity.And the non-natural processes that created your car can be traced to an existing, verifiable agent. However, perhaps you could show me one instance where similar non-natural processes ever created a tree, or a baby, or a bacterial flagellum. In your design inference, wouldn't the first question be "to what conceivable agent could we attribute the formation of the first biomolecules?" In other words, it's convenient that you get to disqualify verifiable natural processes because you can't believe they operated billions of years ago; however, we're not supposed to disqualify some unverifiable intelligent designer from the process.I've asked and asked and asked "what sort of evidence would you consider acceptable?" We could present fossils or molecular evidence, and the cumulative weight of all the successful research that has operated under the assumptions of the validity of Darwinism and methodological naturalism. However, people like you don't think such evidence exists, and if they're shown it, they claim it's not evidence because it exists.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data. IOW there isn't any reason to believe that life originated via purely natural processes.

---

Aside from the fact that purely natural processes are the only ones that have ever created a living organism or a structure thereof. You infer a designer because that's what you want to infer. Are we talking about the origin of life now, or are we still arguing that every species that exists or has ever existed is a product of a design event? It's so difficult to tell when the goalposts keep moving.Just because your car was designed, you think you have the right to assume that order in Nature only arises through intelligent agency? I could just as easily assert that snowflakes and rainbows only arise through intelligent agency, since any evidence to the contrary makes the unwarranted assumption that natural processes are capable of creating order.The "billions of years fallacy" is one that has been independently confirmed by various methods, and has been of immense worth in a vast amount of scientific research. Are you arguing that the Earth is not billions of years old, the entire universe, or just that organic life originated suddenly last Thursday?John Paul, for someone who thinks his car is proof of the supernatural origin of life, you should be careful about whom you accuse of presenting nada, okay?regards,
Esteban "Nada Ms" Hambre

John Paul,If 'all of knowledge shows us' that IC only arises through design, why is it that an IC system like the mammalian middle ear seems to derive in quite a striking fashion from a precursor system in our reptilian ancestors? Are you arguing that the system is not really IC, that it didn't evolve from any precursors, or that modern mammals themselves did not evolve from earlier species?You've allowed yourself to assume (excuse me, infer) that certain phenomena in nature (CSI or IC or whatever) can only arise by design, only because you assume that anything displaying these phenomena are the products of design. Circular reasoning may be irreducibly complex as well, but that doesn't make it valid. I'd say proving your car was designed is a lot easier than proving that the mammalian inner ear was designed, but you don't seem to have to offer proof when your assumption will suffice.The difference between Newton (et. al.) and Behe is that none of Newton's physics depended on supernatural intervention or the existence of a designer. I don't want to turn this into a debate about the religious beliefs of famous scientists: I just want to point out that whether or not one believes in God, physics is equally comprehensible. Not so with intelligent design creationism, which assumes that a 'designer' is a more plausible explanation for biological complexity than currently verifiable natural processes.Thanks for telling us how gullible we are for trusting in verifiable, testable mechanisms instead of pretend designers and unverifiable agents.regards,
Esteban "Deus ex Machina" Hambre

For the benefit of all of us frickin' retards, this is Michael Behe's original definition of 'irreducible complexity':

quote:

---

A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)

---

This mere description certainly applies to the mammalian inner ear, and the human heart, and various other biological systems big and small. His words wouldn't have generated any controversy if Behe had not claimed that such a system could not have evolved by "numerous, successive, slight modifications."

quote:

---

An irreducibly complex system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.(ibid.)

---

These are two completely different claims: the one that asserts that certain systems require all their parts to function, and the one that asserts that this requirement can't result from any Darwinian variation-selection process. His second claim would be much more plausible if in fact Behe could offer an example of any biological system (IC or otherwise) that developed by non-Darwinian means, but I think his reliance on the mousetrap tells us how realistic his assertion is.regards,
Esteban "Double Standard" Hambre

DNAunion quotes Michael Behe:

quote:

---

Intriguing as this scenario may sound, though, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of this indirect scenario is one for which many evolutionary biologists have little patience: but how exactly?

---

Since he's a biochemist, perhaps Behe should steal the glory from the evo bios and answer the question himself. I'd venture to say he'd be more likely to make his speech in Stockholm through clarifying this developmental pathway than through declaring it nonexistent. Of course, we're not allowed to subject intelligent design creationism to the same scrutiny he demands of Darwinism. If the best we can currently say of Darwinian pathways is that they are plausible, that's more than we'll ever be able to say of intelligent design creationism. Behe and his online acolytes expect us to believe that since the Darwinian mechanism is adequate at some biological levels but (according to him) not at others, we must recognize the relevance of a mechanism that has never produced anything in biology.These passages reminded me how disappointed I was when I read Behe. He formulated tantalizing challenges to biologists and biochemists, giving us glimpses of the solutions to these billion-year-old mysteries, then simply refused to meet the challenges. In one of the passages quoted by DNAunion, Behe is trying to make us believe that the admittedly miraculous world of the cell is just as prosaic and inert as your garage. With a straight face, he tells us that in the magic microworld, certain biological structures (and, after all, only certain ones) need a micromechanic to tinker them into working order. Everything about this approach is unscientific, lacking the thirst for meaningful discovery that motivates empirical evidential inquiry.His utter lack of initiative is truly self-defeating when he says, "An exhaustive consideration of all possible roles for a particular component can’t be done. We can, however, consider a few likely roles for some of the components of the transport system. Doing so shows it is extremely unlikely that components used for other purposes fortuitously adapted to new roles in a complex system. Maybe I'm wrong in taking the reptilian-jawbones-to-ossicles homology to be just the sort of key someone like Behe could use to unlock these closed doors, but unfortunately Behe has decided to make a career out of declaring them to be shut for good.regards,
Esteban "Design This" Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-09-2004]

Behe says:

quote:

---

(I)t is extremely unlikely that components used for other purposes fortuitously adapted to new roles in a complex system

---

I thought this was the entire 'irreducible complexity' issue here. Making assumptions about the developmental pathway (or lack thereof) involved in creating a current system can't rule out this type of co-aption. Why should it matter whether the resulting system ends up being 'IC' or not?Behe so much as admits this with his scoffing example of the pieces for a mousetrap lying around in your garage. Of course popsicle sticks and darning needles, etc., aren't going to assemble themselves into a mousetrap, but in the micro-garage, things seem to have the ability to do just that! Just because we can't easily determine what function these components served prior to being parts in the current system, that doesn't give us the right to assume that they couldn't have had any selectable function in a precursor system.Behe claims:

quote:

---

A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation — by numerous, successive, slight modifications — and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.

---

But, in the magic micro-factory, the mitochondria 'motors' evolved somewehere else and then mounted themselves on the bikes to create the eukaryotic motorbikes we see today. The entire eukaryotic cell itself might not meet Behe's 'IC' definition, and it doesn't have to. This sort of thing happens at the subcellular level. We can't ignore these types of processes when we're discussing developmental pathways, regardless of whether we're dealing with an 'IC' system or not.regards,
Esteban 'IC Loudmouth's Underpants' Hambre

Ned, it may fit the definition of 'irreducibly complex' but it doesn't suit Behe's purposes. That's what the problem is.What Behe and his acolytes are trying to say is that certain molecular machines are essentially different from others, on no other basis than this arguable (to say the least) notion of 'irreducible complexity.' Therefore the blood clotting cascade, say, is less like the (supposedly non-'IC') hemoglobin molecule and more like a mousetrap or a motorcycle. The bacterial flagellum is less like a type-III secretory system and more like an outboard motor. Darwinism basically denies this sort of nonsense, and declares that molecular machines are just like all biological structures: the product of billions of years of variation and selection.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Loudmouth states: Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems.

​

DNAunion responds: Behe does exclude macroscopic biological systems — such as organs and organ systems - from being IC.

​

Loudmouth asks: Why does Behe exclude macroscopic/skeletal IC systems?

---

Good question. After hitching the intelligent-design-creationism wagon to 'irreducible complexity' and defining it for all to see, he then denies that it applies to organs. I've already stated that the human heart sure seems 'IC': if you take away the pump or valves, you don't, well, catch mice, in Behe's words. However, there seem to be problems defining anything as 'IC,' even Behe's pet subject the BacFlag. Ian Musgrave, of the University of Adelaide, argues in his hypothetical scenario for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that certain parts of the BacFlag can be removed and the system still seems to function.So the concept of 'IC', then, isn't the crux of the debate. The biological structures themselves may or may not be 'IC' depending on how we define them (don't get me started on Dembski's notion of the BacFlag as a discrete combinatorial artifact) or their function. The argument itself concerns developmental pathways, and Behe realizes that it's much easier to make a convincing case for the evolution of the complex human heart than for the BacFlag.Behe, obviously, is not the first one to assert that property A is proof of design. It doesn't matter what the proposed litmus test is, what matters is that we're never told why property A is proof that natural law is not inviolable and that divine intervention has taken place in Nature. I don't consider 'irreducible complexity' any better than any other candidate for property A. We have no clear understanding of why natural processes could not conceivably account for an 'IC' system in biology, and certainly no evidence that intelligent agency accounts for the origin of any biological structure.regards,
Esteban "Cilia Thing" Hambre

Call me cynical, but I'd say Behe's use of the mousetrap analogy is aimed less at clarifying biochemistry for the layman, than obscuring the issue for people who don't know any better. Mousetraps, obviously, are manufactured by a designer for a reason. Intelligent design creationists want everyone to draw the same conclusion about molecular machines. Behe's acolyte here has been known to beat the 'information' drum for the exact same reason: if a book or computer doesn't have information unless someone puts it there, then the observation that DNA 'has' information is indistinguishable from the claim that someone put it there.The analogies are helpful in one sense, but the intelligent design creationists want them to serve functions for which they're unfit. This is why 'IC' is such an irrelevant point. Evolutionists are fascinated by biological structures (macro or otherwise) and consistently try to establish plausible developmental pathways. ID creationists are only interested in these structures if they can be used to advance some fantasy agenda, and these analogies can be used to mislead people who allow the IDC camp to set the terms of the debate.regards,
Esteban "Cat and Mouse" Hambre

But now I'll go ahead and state my own position: If all life descended from a common ancestor (or a few) by natural undirected processes, then the same sorts of natural undirected processes may have been how that common ancestor community got there. Behe is making the fact that our knowledge of abiogenesis may always be extremely tentative his a priori evidence that intelligent intervention was involved. He offers no example of a biological structure or organism arising solely through intelligent intervention, but he asserts that this is a scientific explanation. In fact it is neither.Intelligent design creationists cannot tell us why the universal application of natural law is an invalid assumption, but they accuse us of being overly credulous for accepting that assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Why 'IC' or 'specified complexity' or any other attribute should automatically signify the inadequacy of natural laws and processes has never been explained. Why the inadequacy of methodological naturalism doesn't invalidate empirical evidential inquiry as a whole has never been explained. ID creationism is based on stretching metaphors, arguments from analogy, and explanatory filters rigged to arrive at the IDC-ordained conclusion.The attacks on Behe shine a harsh light on the scientific, philosophical, and logical shortcomings of intelligent design creationism. They have been successful in relegating IDC and God-of-the-gaps methodology to the status of smart-sounding but ultimately irrelevant creationist nonsense.regards,
Esteban "Dukes" Hambre