Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

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.

---

My guess is that Behe very much would accept the relatedness of those species. My understanding is that he is very much in the evolution camp, with the exception of his "intelligent design" quirk.Miller cites another of his Behe encounters in "Finding Darwins's God". I don't recall the exact context, but Miller brought up the common ancestor of man and the great apes. Behe apparently surprised Miller, by promptly conceding that the common ancestor concept was acceptable to him.Behe, even in his own mind, has very little real arguement against evolution.Moose

Actually I was just kidding around with my comment, and sticking it to the inconsistency of the ID movement.It's true that Behe allows much for if not all of evolution. Even in Darwin's Blackbox he all but directly states that ID may only be applicable to abiogenesis and not evolution.I was struck by Behe's absurd recanting of his own position and logic in general (in MrH's link), to use the ridiculous "but you used intelligence to do that" argument against Miller.That's why I decided to lampoon him as a TRUE ID BELIEVER, who picks and chooses from each author despite their complete inconsistencies... if only to hold on to one more argument against evolution.My words may ring prophetic given a few more years, and a few more public spankings.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What makes your evidence IC ?Why don't you explain how exactly IC systems evolve ?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)Why do evolutionists arbitrarily deem IC with randomness ?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.

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.

LOUDMOUTH :Concerning the book "Unintelligent Design" you can go here :http://EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolutionand see the origin of how I used this source.I do want to clarify that even though the post was a response to a reply of yours, I did not direct the "frickin liar" accusation against you. It is directed against a small battery of debaters who refused to acknowledge the obvious even when cornered. 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.Maybe I should allow you ample time to acquaint yourself with this material/book before I unsheath my ax into this topic of yours.Pertaining to your evidence :Remove one of the parts/ceases to function, then it is not IC.Are you saying IC, is in fact, non-existent the way Behe describes it ?You remain humble concerning blood clotting systems, yet the title of this topic declares Behe refuted - what gives ?You claim the evolution of an IC system is not random, that selection is responsible. What drives selection ?[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-19-2004]

quote:

---

Remove one of the parts/ceases to function, then it is not IC.

​

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

​

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

​

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

---

Sorry to butt in, but...I think the contention is that IC has been defined to be
a system where should one part be removed, the system can
no longer provide its function (or primary function).This, as I understand it, is the starting point for arguments
against evolution which use IC.The refutation is that, given a biological IC system (any one),
if an evolutionarily feasible route can be found then the claim
that IC cannot evolve must be false -- even if that's NOT the
way it happened, the existence of an evolutionarily feasible
route refutes the 'IC cannot result from evolutionary processes'
statement.You ask what drives selection -- the answer is 'utility'.If a feature is useful (in some sense) and heritable, then
the chances of it being represented in future generations is
increased.

Correction :remove a part and still able to function THEN it is not IC ?

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.

Type the link into a separate address bar - it should work.Or go to the topic that has my name in the title - #276

You didn't test your own link, did you ?http://EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolutionis the correct link - you need a '/' between "Forum5" and "HTML"It is a good idea to use the Preview option to check your links - especially if you are typing them rather than using cut-and-paste. And if you didn't check your link the first time then you definitely should if someone says that it didn't work.

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?

I am not a christian fundementalist. I realize those morons have worn you down with their incessant rigid dogma. They also are successful in stigmatizing the rest of christianity. For what it is worth - fundies are the only persons not allowed to attend the church that I belong to.Believe it or not, the only thing I have argued to the death is that God is the Creator - period.A deistic belief is the only requirement that disqualifies a person from the wrath of God declared in Romans 1.To exclude God as a possibility qualifies the violator to have their God sense removed.Persons suffering this penalty will conclude anything and everything but God. This means non-belief/dis-belief is a penalty from God for denying /excluding Him. This was my one and only crusade - to inform this board that anyone who may interpret scientific evidence to also mean God is not the Creator - is doing so contrary to the evidence which is collected under the claim of Divine neutrality.Scientific evidence cannot prove or disprove God UNLESS your worldview is intruding.I agree with Perakh, that randomness carries the dual message that a Creator is not involved. However, I believe that atheists who observe the animal kingdom to evolve via a mindless and random and purposeless process are observing and reporting what they see accurately, where we depart is the ultimate origin of this process. I credit God to have created and programmed the process to operate exactly the way "the atheists" say, on the other hand, the atheists are defective in the dual meanings of the words they use to describe the process due to the wrath of God/sense/insight removal.Like Perakh has said, anyone who does what I just did renders the entire debate meaningless. This is why worldview/philosophy is king and not science. The entire EvC debate boils down to worldview which cleary supercedes the scientific.You can claim evolution is the correct theory as long as whatever interpretation of the scientific does not explicitly or implicitly exclude the God of the Bible. If you say evolution challenges Genesis then I agree. How does the actual scientific evidence disprove the God of Genesis ? There are eons and eons of time between 1:1 and 1:2.If you say evolution is a fact, are you also saying the God of the Bible is not the Creator ? Yes you are. Once again how does the evidence disprove God ? I realize I am going round and round.I personally do not give the other theories a free ride. God only wants a seat at the possibility table, if they deny Him, then He will remove their capacity to see Him also.I can prove in the Bible that God's m.o. is fluke randomness, that this is the way He operates while driving home the message that He is in control.Loudmouth, you are a quality debater, and even though we disagree you have my utmost respect, unlike the dishonest small core who infected the other topic with their intelligence insulting denials.

Thank You.

quote:

---

Scientific evidence cannot prove or disprove God UNLESS your worldview is intruding.

---

I'm not sure that any of the other posters here disagree
with this -- even us pesky athiests ... and I'm not sure
that there are that many here anyhow ... quite a few
agnostics though.

quote:

---

I agree with Perakh, that randomness carries the dual message that a Creator is not involved. However, I believe that atheists who observe the animal kingdom to evolve via a mindless and random and purposeless process are observing and reporting what they see accurately, where we depart is the ultimate origin of this process. I credit God to have created and programmed the process to operate exactly the way "the atheists" say, on the other hand, the atheists are defective in the dual meanings of the words they use to describe the process due to the wrath of God/sense/insight removal.

---

If you are talking about any kind of 'God started it and let it
run.' concept, then I, even as an athiest, admit that that
possibility cannot be discounted. I just don't beleive that.You have to remember that you have no more evidence for your
side of THAT question than I do ... we all come to our beliefs
via the same processes, we just reach different conclusions.

quote:

---

Like Perakh has said, anyone who does what I just did renders the entire debate meaningless. This is why worldview/philosophy is king and not science. The entire EvC debate boils down to worldview which cleary supercedes the scientific.

---

The EvC debate is not Evolution Vs. a Creator, it's Evolution
Vs Creationism, where creationism is taken to mean a belief that
the world and all that's in it was created 'whole and intact'
in a single creation event (possibly lasting 7 days, possibly lasting
millions of years) and that evolution played NO part.And the arguments forwarded against ID, for example, are not
saying 'Thus there is no god.' they are saying 'These
arguments are not evidence of an intelligent designer'.

quote:

---

You can claim evolution is the correct theory as long as whatever interpretation of the scientific does not explicitly or implicitly exclude the God of the Bible.

---

Evolutionary theory doesn't explicitly exclude god, and only
implicitly excludes him/her/it from the direct creation of
life FORMS.

quote:

---

If you say evolution challenges Genesis then I agree. How does the actual scientific evidence disprove the God of Genesis ? There are eons and eons of time between 1:1 and 1:2.

---

It doesn't disprove any god (or anything for that matter), it
simply makes god an unessecary addition to the explanation.That doesn't mean he/she/it is absent, only that the current
state of the universe can be explained without mentioning god(s).

quote:

---

If you say evolution is a fact, are you also saying the God of the Bible is not the Creator ? Yes you are. Once again how does the evidence disprove God ? I realize I am going round and round.

---

No. One is saying that the diversity of life of earth appears to
have come about via natural processes, and that a god is not
required.That does not mean there is no god, only that it is not a
necessity for the diversity that we see.If god set the universe up, and it runs by the rules
he/she/it set, then that's fine and completely compatible
with ToE ... if you are saying that god created life as
we see it, whole and intact, evolutionary theory (or rather
the evidence that supports it) seems to say otherwise. NOT
because we are all atheists and unwilling/unable to see
the 'truth of god', but because the evidence is not in favour
of a 'creationist' concept.[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-03-2004]

Where is the evidence that shows this alleged "evolution" of the mammalian ear (please remember that the ear is only part of the hearing system) came about via random mutations culled by natural selection? That is what is needed. You just can't post fossils and assert IC is refuted. Further to use hearing to refute IC you would have to show how the hearing system got started. IOW what was the origins of hearing? With the vision system evolutionists point to a light sensitive spot, so what is it they point to for hearing?