Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 223 (91378)
03-09-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by DNAunion
03-08-2004 9:07 PM


quote:
So your "Refutation" of Behe is that a PART of an (alleged) IC system can evolve? How does that refute Behe?
The sole function of the entire middle ear system is sound wave transfer. The parts of the mammalian middle ear are the malleus, stapes, and incus. This refutes Behe because this IC system was gradually formed via evolutionary mechanisms over millions of years. Behe must now show how his IC systems formed by an intelligent designer came about in one fell swoop. Saying evolutionary pathways are lacking with respect to IC systems is now in doubt with the evidence of an IC system forming through evolutionary mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by DNAunion, posted 03-08-2004 9:07 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by DNAunion, posted 03-09-2004 7:00 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 102 by DNAunion, posted 03-09-2004 7:04 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 223 (91380)
03-09-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DNAunion
03-08-2004 9:23 PM


quote:
Therefore I feel quite confident in proclaiming Miller to be wrong: it is quite clear that actin is in fact not a major component of cilia. Chalk up another biological boo-boo for Miller.
Hagemann factor (in blood clotting) is listed as an irreducible part of the clotting cascade by Behe. It is not found in dolphins or porpoises and yet their blood clots just fine. A boo-boo for Behe.
From here:
KM = Kenneth Miller, MB = Michael Behe
KM:. . .Let's look at the clotting pathway, this is the way in which blood clots, you call this the Rube Goldberg in the blood, great stuff, and the clotting pathway is extremely complex. It produces a clot around the red blood cell, and what you wrote is, in your book is that none of the cascade proteins, these proteins, are used for anything except controlling the formation of clots, that's very clear. Yet, in the absence of any of the components blood does not clot and the system fails. Now here's the, the hard part for me. Remember you said, in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that you've talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, uh, lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, I've crossed them off up there, and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises, they don't have, um, I assume that statement therefore is incorrect and has to be changed?
MB:
Well, first of all let me express my condolences for the dolphins. Umm...[laughter]
KM:
You don't have to have to do condolences they do fine. That's my point. It's the theory of irreducible complexity that needs condolences at this point, [laughter/ applause] because that's what's happening.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DNAunion, posted 03-08-2004 9:23 PM DNAunion has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 223 (91382)
03-09-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by DNAunion
03-08-2004 9:53 PM


quote:
But by switching to gross anatomy you are demoting your counter down to an argument from analogy.
Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems. It is not analogy, it is direct evidence. Instead of dodging this IC system, why don't you confront it. Show me how removing one of the parts of the middle ear will not result in the loss of sound wave transmission from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by DNAunion, posted 03-08-2004 9:53 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-09-2004 12:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 104 by DNAunion, posted 03-09-2004 7:12 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 223 (91383)
03-09-2004 12:06 PM


Just so we all are clear on what we are arguing about, here are some pictures of both the reptilian and mammalian middle ear configurations.
Reptilian:
The stapes alone is responsible for the transfer of sound from the outer tympanum to the oval window. The quadrate and articular are part of the jaw. Sound is also transfered through these jaw bones, but independent of the outer tympanum.
Mammalian:
The quadrate and articular have now become the incus and the quadrate has become the malleus. These two bones have disassociated from the jaw and inserted themselves between the stapes and the outer tympanum. These three bones form an IC systems whose function is to transfer sound waves from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear. Similar co-aptation is considered possible but inadequate for evolutionary pathways, according to Behe. This example shows how co-aptation CAN AND IS used as an evolutionary pathway.
Also, even though the lower jaw is losing both the articular and the quadrate, the jaw never loses function and is adequate both for prey capture and mastication.

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 223 (91385)
03-09-2004 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:53 AM


quote:
Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems. It is not analogy, it is direct evidence. Instead of dodging this IC system, why don't you confront it. Show me how removing one of the parts of the middle ear will not result in the loss of sound wave transmission from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.
Furthermore, can any ID theorist show me any direct evidence of a designer's "mark", so to speak, on any mechanism, process, or organism? A simple, "Made From God" sticker will do, thanks.
Seriously, I just can't understand the logic (or lack thereof) of the ID theorists. How can any ID supporter claim their argument is NOT an appeal to ignorance/god of the gaps? The burden of proof has always rested upon the IDers to show the existence and possible mechanism of ID, which to the present is still wishful thinking. Why do they continue to believe that since not all evolutionary events can explain the existence of every living organism, it therefore gives credence to ID? If not "X", then "Y" has not and will never be a logical scenario unless evidence supports "Y" in the first place.
Give me positive, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence that godidit to the bacterial flagella ("Y"), and I'll give it a thought. As it stands, it simply can't get past the hypothetical stage. So honestly, why waste any more time with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:53 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 96 of 223 (91387)
03-09-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:35 AM


Re: Defining the Problem
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:35 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 223 (91390)
03-09-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by DNAunion
03-08-2004 10:14 PM


quote:
Michael Behe: So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations."
Easy. First, the customer likes the addition of a battery powered headlight. The customer then likes the improvement of a front wheeled powered magneto for supplying power to the headlight. Larger and larger magnetos supply larger and larger headlights. Then it is discovered that by applying power to the magneto, it can run in the opposite direction and power the bicycle. However, the magneto is very poor at this. Better and better mangetos, and eventually electrical engines are created to power the bicycle. Then it is found that instead of charging the battery every night, why not use a small gas powered generator to supply the battery. Then it is found that large gas powered generators are able to power the bicycle all by themselves.
In this analogy, the movement towards a power system starts with a front wheel powered headlight bicycle and ends with a gas powered motorcycle. Therefore, we can go from a bicycle to a motorcycle. of course this analogy lacks one thing. It is irrelevant how machines are designed since they are not subject to natural selection mechanisms BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REPRODUCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by DNAunion, posted 03-08-2004 10:14 PM DNAunion has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 223 (91452)
03-09-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:35 AM


Re: Defining the Problem
quote:
loudmouth: The system is the middle ear ossicles.
Well now we have disagreement among the anti-Behe crowd. NosyNed says the system under consideration is the whole hearing system, but you are limiting it to just the middle ear ossicles.
Again, before any claims about what is and isn't IC can be made and supported/rejected we must agree on what the system is. Only makes sense, doesn't it?
quote:
Behe himself does not rule out macroscopic IC systems, therefore macroscopic IC systems can be used as direct evidence.
Behe does rule out macroscopic biological systems from being IC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:35 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 223 (91453)
03-09-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NosyNed
03-09-2004 11:05 AM


Re: Analogy?
quote:
NosyNed: What is being shown is that a system which meets Behe's definition of IC can and did evolve.
No. What is being CLAIMED is that a system which SUPPOSEDLY meets Behe's definition of IC can and did evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2004 11:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 223 (91459)
03-09-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:35 AM


Re: Defining the Problem
quote:
DNAunion: The burden of proof is upon those who claim it is IC. Now, for them to assert that system X is IC, they must be able to identify the function of the system...they also need to be able to identify the system under consideration.
quote:
loudmouth: Burden of proof has been met.
No, it hasn't been. There's more to demonstrating that a system is IC according to Behe than just identifying the system (which still hasn't been nailed down by the anti-Behe crowd) and identifying its function (which also has not been nailed down - even you listed multiple functions for the ossicles).
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:35 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 223 (91460)
03-09-2004 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:39 AM


quote:
loudmouth: The sole function of the entire middle ear system is sound wave transfer.
But you also said:
quote:
loudmouth: Yes, there function is the transfer, amplification, and attenuation of sound vibrations. This is the function we will focus on.
So what exactly are you claiming to be the function of the middle ear?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:39 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 223 (91461)
03-09-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:39 AM


quote:
DNAunion: So your "Refutation" of Behe is that a PART of an (alleged) IC system can evolve? How does that refute Behe?
quote:
loudmouth: The sole function of the entire middle ear system is sound wave transfer. The parts of the mammalian middle ear are the malleus, stapes, and incus. This refutes Behe because this IC system was gradually formed via evolutionary mechanisms over millions of years.
No, it doesn't refute Behe unless you can show that the system is actually IC according to Behe. Your simply stating over and over that it's IC doesn't make it IC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:39 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2004 7:05 PM DNAunion has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 103 of 223 (91462)
03-09-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by DNAunion
03-09-2004 7:04 PM


No, it doesn't refute Behe unless you can show that the system is actually IC according to Behe. Your simply stating over and over that it's IC doesn't make it IC.
Are you saying that if one part of the middle ear is missing it still functions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by DNAunion, posted 03-09-2004 7:04 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by DNAunion, posted 03-09-2004 7:15 PM NosyNed has replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 223 (91465)
03-09-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 11:53 AM


quote:
DNAunion: But by switching to gross anatomy you are demoting your counter down to an argument from analogy.
quote:
loudmouth: Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems.
Behe does exclude macroscopic biological systems — such as organs and organ systems - from being IC.
quote:
loudmouth: It is not analogy
Yes, it is.
quote:
loudmouth: Instead of dodging this IC system, why don't you confront it.
Why don’t you? Why don’t you lay out your argument that shows that the ossicles form an IC system according to Behe’s statements?
If you get all of the anti-Behe crowd here to agree on what the system under consideration actually is, and what its function actually is, then we can proceed with the analysis.
quote:
loudmouth: Show me how removing one of the parts of the middle ear will not result in the loss of sound wave transmission from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.
I don’t need to. I’m not claiming that such would not happen. My claim is that the middle ear is not IC according to Behe, so it is irrelevant whether removing parts causes loss of function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 11:53 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 223 (91466)
03-09-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NosyNed
03-09-2004 7:05 PM


quote:
DNAunion: No, it doesn't refute Behe unless you can show that the system is actually IC according to Behe. Your simply stating over and over that it's IC doesn't make it IC.
quote:
NosyNed: Are you saying that if one part of the middle ear is missing it still functions?
No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that it is IRRELEVANT whether or not loss of function occurs when one of the ossicles is removed because the system is not IC according to Behe's statements.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2004 7:05 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2004 9:41 PM DNAunion has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024