|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: The cilium is IC when one is being reasonable and trying to understand the other person’s position.
quote: Okay, here’s something from my personal notes. The full document on the cilium is 40 pages long: this is only part of the counters to the refutations of Behe along these lines. I still may have to split this into multiple posts. ******************** A common misconception, which seems to be the source of much confusion about Behe’s concept of irreducibly complex systems, needs to be addressed. Behe’s IC System != Whole System Behe’s IC System = System’s IC Core One mistake many people — Ken Miller, Lucasps, and other anti-Behe’ians — make is to incorrectly assume that when Behe says a system is IC that he means all parts of the system constitute the IC system. That is incorrect: for many or most systems, some parts of the complete system are simply add-on/accessory/auxiliary parts and are not counted among the required parts that comprise the IC system itself (the IC core, as IDists have come to call it). And anyone who actually bothered to read Behe’s book and tried to understand Behe’s position would know this. For example, consider what Behe states about a watch.
quote: DNAunion: So Behe has explicitly classified a watch as being an irreducibly complex system. If we accepted what many of Behe’s detractors claim, then Behe would be saying that every single part of a watch is required for it to function. But this is clearly not what Behe holds. In fact, on page 216 he points out that Paley should not have discussed the watch cover when arguing design because a watch cover is not part of the (core) IC system itself, but merely a convenience added onto it.
quote: DNAunion: Note that Behe — after stating that a watch is an irreducibly complex system — explicitly says that a watch cover, though surely part of the watch, is not part of the irreducibly complex system. A watch cover (or a wristband, or a nightlight) is a part that is added onto the IC watch system itself — an auxiliary part appended to the core. Thus, there is a core system within the watch that is IC, onto which accessory/auxiliary parts — such as a watch cover, or a wristband or nightlight, etc. - can be added. This is an important point. Contrary to what we would be led to believe by Behe’s detractors, we see that the whole system (the whole watch) is not what Behe claims is IC, just a subdivision of it — the core. And only the subset of parts that comprise the core are the required parts: the other parts, while surely parts of the system as a whole, are not parts of the IC system itself. So removing such auxiliary/accessory parts and retaining system function does nothing to refute the concept of IC. We can see Behe’s implicit statements of an IC core in other places in his book. For example, Behe states that swimming systems — such as the cilium and prokaryotic flagellum — are irreducibly complex. He introduces his readers to the subject by discussing a person swimming at a local pool and noting that that person’s swimming system has the same basic parts’ requirements as that of a cilium: a paddle (legs and hands/microtubules), a motor (skeletal muscles/dynein), and connectors (bones/nexin). However, he also points out that for humans, vision, though beneficial to swimming, is not part of the swimming system itself: vision is an auxiliary system that merely improves the swimming system (the former is not required for the latter to function).
quote: DNAunion: As Behe continues his introduction to swimming systems, he again notes that parts that are not required for function can be found in a system as a whole.
quote: DNAunion: Thus one must test to see if any extra parts (those other than the ones included in the theoretically minimal set of parts) are required for the system to function: if they aren’t, then they aren’t part of the IC system itself. Even when Behe is discussing non-IC systems, he still indicates that parts that are not required for the system to function can be found in the system as a whole.
quote: DNAunion: So the other 5 parts of the bombadier beetle’s defensive system are auxiliary parts — add-ons that merely enhance or improve the core of the system. And again, when discussing the vertebrate eye, an integrated system of systems, Behe indicates that one should not confuse everything present as being a single system — there are accessory parts tacked on to the core.
quote: DNAunion: Thus, the retina would be the closest thing to the core system here, onto which the other auxiliary parts — a lens, muscles to alter the shape of the lens, etc. — are added. The auxiliary parts would not be required for the core system to perform its function. Another system that Behe lists only a subset of parts as being the core of the IC system is the cilium. Although the answer is obvious to anyone who actually tried to understand Behe, the following question is at the heart of the controversy: when Behe says that the cilium is irreducibly complex, does he claim that the whole cilium is IC, making all parts present in a typical cilium required for function? Absolutely not. Behe’s statement about the cilium being irreducibly complex is just like his statement that a watch is irreducibly complex. In both, what he is addressing is the IC core itself. Any auxiliary/accessory parts that may be present are not included as parts of the irreducibly complex system itself (the IC core), and removing even all of them while retaining function would not refute Behe in the least. One might wonder, Does Behe actually limit his statements about the cilium to just a few parts that comprise an IC ‘core’? Yes. Behe explicitly creates a subset consisting of just three required parts that together form the IC system itself: the microtubule paddles, the dynein motors, and the nexin linkers. A fuller quote can be found in a previous post in this thread — this is a condensed one.
quote: DNAunion: The other parts of a cilium — such as the central pair, central spokes, etc. - are shown in a diagram of a cilium on page 60 of Behe’s book, but they are not listed as being parts of the IC system when Behe creates his explicit list of required parts: the central pair and central spokes aren’t parts of the IC core. When Behe briefly returns to the cilium in a later chapter, he again lists just the three parts mentioned above.
quote: DNAunion: So twice Behe restricts his list of required parts for a cilium to those three (microtubule paddles, dynein motors, and nexin linkers). They form the IC core. Let’s go back and take another, slightly different, look at what Behe stated on page 57 of his book. Keep in mind the three required parts of the cilium Behe lists in two separate locations, as well as his saying that the cilium is a member of the class of swimming systems.
quote: DNAunion: Here we have two more indications that Behe does not consider the parts that Miller removed to be parts of the IC cilium system itself. Already mentioned:(1) Behe lists only three parts of the cilium as being part of the IC system itself (microtubule paddles, dynein motors, and nexin linkers) Two new ones:(2) Let’s ask ourselves, What parts are common to all cilia, even the most ‘primitive’? Microtubule paddles? Yes.Dynein motors? Yes. Nexin linkers? Yes. Central pair? No. Central spokes? No. So in addition to Behe’s explicitly stated subset consisting of just three parts, we have another indication that only the first three parts listed comprise the IC system itself (the core) with the other parts being accessory/auxiliary add-ons (and therefore, not parts of the IC system itself). (3) Let’s ask ourselves, What parts constitute the theoretical minimum subset of parts required for ciliary function? Behe already answered this on pages 63-65, listing each of the three required parts and what role each one serves in completing the system function: that minimal theoretical subset consists of just the first three listed above (those with the answer, Yes). Since the central pair and central spokes are not included in the theoretically minimal set of parts required for ciliary action, one would need to test to see if they are required for the system to work. Are they required? No, there are multiple known examples of functional cilia that lack them. So are the central pair and central spokes part of the actual IC system itself? Nope. Thus, another — a third - indication that the central pair and central spokes are not to be considered parts of the IC system. In summary, the parts of a cilium that Miller removed were ones that Behe never, in any way, claimed were required for ciliary function. In addition, at least three lines of evidence indicate that Behe considers those parts that Miller removed to not be part of the IC core (the dynein outer arms come close, but no cigar, since the dynein inner arms remained). What Miller removed were auxiliary/accessory parts added onto the core IC system itself. As such, Kenneth Miller’s eel-sperm-flagellum counterexample and accompanying refutation are to be rejected as invalid misrepresentations of Behe’s position. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: You’re just being silly now...right? At least I hope you aren't being serious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Because the level of organs and organ systems simply doesn’t provide a fully satisfactory explanation of the system function. Take a skeletal muscle for example. How does the system function? Unlike a mechanical mousetrap, where that question can be answered by referencing only the 5 mechanical parts that exert simple physical forces upon each other, that question can’t be answered for a muscle by looking just at the next lower level: tissues. There is still a whole slew of stuff occurring at lower levels that is needed to provide a satisfactory explanation of what is going on in the tissues, in order to explain what is going on in the muscle. The tissue level is also not sufficient to give a fully satisfactory explanation: we have to look at the cellular level. And even then, we have to look farther down, to the molecular level. We need to know what a sarcomere is, how the myosin heads cyclically cock, attach, pull, and release, thereby sliding the filaments past each other; we need to know that release of calcium from the sarcoplasmic reticulum causes contraction by calcium’s binding to certain proteins, causing a change in shape that exposes binding sites for the myosin heads; we need to know that it is the arrival of an action potential at the sarcoplasmic reticulum that triggers the release of calcium; and so on. And of course we have to explain the muscle cell itself: how it performs the normal housekeeping functions, such as making ATP (which powers contraction, as well as other processes), transcribing DNA and translating RNA into proteins (such as the contractile proteins, as well as others), and so on. Note how when we get down to the biochemical level we are satisfied with the explanation: generally speaking, we could always go lower than chemistry, no matter what we are examining, but in most cases that is not required (you don't need to know quantum mechanics to understand a mousetrap). There is a whole world of activity, functionality, and systems that lies down beneath the level of a skeletal muscle and an understanding of those systems is needed in order to provide a fully satisfactory explanation of skeletal muscle function. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-12-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: It's not like you to be so unreasonable...is it? Well, to make the point, let’s continue in your unreasonable footsteps, employing your logic. On what grounds do you state that we can stop at the level of atoms? After all, how can you understand your atomic parts friction if you don’t understand how the parts of atoms work? So, obviously we have to drill down even deeper, to the level of protons, neutrons, and electrons. But on what grounds could you state that we could stop there? After all, how can you understand protons and neutrons if you don’t understand how their parts work? So we'd have to drill down to the quark level. But on what grounds could you state that we could stop there? After all, do you really know how quarks work? I doubt it. So we would have to drill down to the level of strings in an attempt to understand quarks. But waitit gets worse. You are trying to pawn off friction as a part — when it clearly isn’t, it’s a force — and also say we must know how the lower level parts interact. So to understand quarks and strings and such we also have to understand the related math and physics, such as the vector algebra, calculus, the Balmer series, pair production and mutual annihilation, wave-particle duality, symmetry breaking, electroweak and color forces, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, wave functions, superposition, entanglement, vacuum fluctuations, Calabi-Yau representations of spacetime, and so on. So I guess you’d require us all to have a Ph. D. in order to understand how a simple mechanical mousetrap works! LOL! Come on NosyNedbe realisticbe reasonable. We should have to drill down only as far as is needed — only far enough to be able to give a fully satisfactory, detailed explanation of how the system works. And except when actually dealing with quarks (or strings), drilling down farther is always possible, but hardly ever necessary. As far as for a mechanical mousetrap, it’s macroscopic parts (hammer, spring, holding bar, etc.) are the lowest level one needs to drill down to in order to give a fully satisfactory and detailed explanation for the system’s function. A Ph.D. in physics is not required: a simple mechanical view such as this spring pushes on that bar, causing it to 'crush' the mouse is fully sufficient. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-12-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Okay, you’re cynical.
quote: Exactly which definition of acolyte are you using, you cynical person you. The only one from my dictionary that fits deals with one person merely assisting another. I defending Behe against people who have offered distortions of his actual argument.
quote: Not my position. At this site I’ve not committed to how information got into DNA because HOW has not been my point...just that there IS information in DNA. But now I’ll go ahead and state my position: purely natural processes, such as random mutation and natural selection, can increase the information content of DNA. The information needed to produce extant organisms, encoded in DNA base sequences, was produced from natural manipulations of the DNA information needed to produce yesterday’s organisms, which arose in a similar fashion, and so, back through time until reaching a single common ancestor (if we are going to get technical, possibly a single community in the Woese sense). In other words, common descent of all extant life from a universal common ancestor by means of undirected evolution, with the new information entering the collective genome by means of undirected mutation and natural selection. Why then am I defending Behe? Because the attacks against him are bogus. This isn’t defending Behe’s IC->ID argument, but rather defending truth (or as close to it as we can come). If someone is going to refute Behe, they need to refute Behe, not some distorted substitute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: As far as an actual example...although I stopped following the debates in detail a while ago and don't know what kind of counter the IDists might have come up with, the bacterial flagellum having evolved from the "type III export system" (can't remember the exact name) looks good to me. And it deals with one of Behe's own systems. **********************
quote: Another point I had trouble debating against. Niiic at Infidels argued this against me and I eventually realized he was right. But it takes many exchanges to show the point convincingly because the problem is sort of subtle. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-12-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Yep
quote: Yeah, I just tried several searches in the Evolution/Creation and the Science/Skepticism sections and couldn't find it either. I tried "Venus" and "venus fly trap" because I seem to remember you claiming that it's prey-capture system was IC in that thread. No luck. I also tried "ossicles" with no success.
quote: I've credited you at several sites for other things related to helping me change my overall views. That said, however, I still don't agree with your take on Behe's excluding macroscopic biological systems. But, right now I am having to spend a lot of time studying up on things completely unrelated to biology (ASP.NET, IIS, XML Web services, securing web servers, etc.) so have basically no time to post. Maybe I'll come back to this thread when I get sufficient free time again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024