Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

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]

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. As for "rational observer", I would really hesitate to put any evolutionist in that category.Phylogeny works on some molecules but not others. In order to assume any ancestral relationships with phylogeny the ToE must be assumed.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.Mutation-selection has NEVER been observed to do anything near what evolutionists claim it did. BTW it isn't years as much as generations. IOW you want us to believe that what bacteria hasn't been able to do in billions of observed generations (evolve into something other than bacteria), you have sexually reproducing organisms doing in far fewer generations. Yet with sexual reproduction any given beneficial mutation has lesser chance of being passed on.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.

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

Tell you what- point me to ONE peer-reviewed article that shows RM & NS can lead to the scope of biological changes evolutionists insist occured. Please point to ONE biology textbook that shows the same. Yes anyone can print/ type anything. This is how the ToE first gained prominence and how it has maintained its dogma.How much evidence from genetics? You mean the field that was fathered by a Creationist? The field that was bastardized by evolutionists to fit their world-view? Just the evidence that mutations culled by NS can do what you say they did. I am sure if it existed there wouldn't be any geneticists that are Creationists. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Professor of Genetics Says 'No!' to Evolution | Answers in Genesis

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]

IF you would have read Darwin's Black Box you would know what Behe actually says about IC. 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. All you have done was to re-produce some alleged sequence. A re-production that says nada of the mechanism.Sickle-celled anemia? A human evolving into a human does not help your case at all. NO ONE says mutations don't occur.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 point me to ONE peer-reviewed article that shows mutations culled by NS can do what you say it can do to biological organisms.

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]

Isn't that a bit like saying, "in order to assume the results of any experiment looking for evidence of the existence of electrons as being indicative of reality, the existence of electrons must first be assumed, & therefore elecrons cannot be inferred"?In other words it's a meaningless statement.Mark

Indeed we have not. And we don't need to in order to refute Behe. IC is a claim that something cannot evolve; all that is necessary to refute that is to show that it could evolve, not that it did evolve.If Behe had claimed that the ear did not evolve, that would be a different story; but that's not what he claimed (perhaps because then his argument-from-ignorance would be painfully obvious instead of slightly concealed).

JF:
IC is a claim that something cannot evolve; all that is necessary to refute that is to show that it could evolve, not that it did evolve.John Paul:
Incorrect. 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.Argument from ignorance? That is what the ToE is! At first it gained prominence due to our ignorance of the cell. Darwin ands his contemps thought it easy to get the changes the theory required. However now we should know better.BTW you need to do more than an explanation to refute IC. If explanations were all that is required I would have 5 PhDs by now...

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. Also, as anyone should be aware, it takes much more than hearing to be considered a mammal. 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.

John Paul!Nice to see you again!Perhaps we can continue our discussion of how Noah could have stored enough food and fresh water to feed a pair of small horses on the Ark.I know it's been a while, but I have since obtained my very own copy of Woodmoreappe's book, so you can feel free to reference it as much as you like.See you there!

So, JohnPaul, how can I tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system and a natural one that we do not currently understand, and may not have the intelligence to ever understand?

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

If you have the book (Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study) you don't need me.