Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Orr Tries to Critique Behe

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Julie Thomas

unread,

Jun 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/8/97

Evolutionary biologist, H. Allen Orr, wrote a review of Michael Behe's
book for the Boston Review entitled, "Darwin v. Intelligent Design
(Again)." While others have already replied to this article, I just came
across it on the web and wanted to add a few comments of my own
(especially since so many seem to refer to this article as if it was *the*
response to Behe).

Orr stated:

>As Behe tells it, the complexity of the cell came as a big surprise.
>But his display of shock is, I think, a bit disingenuous, an attempt
>to create a crisis atmosphere. To anyone paying attention over the
>last century, the revelation of complexity is no revelation at all.
>Geneticists, for instance, have known for sixty years that the
>modest fruitfly sports at least five thousand genes. So how could it
>not be complicated? You don't need a script to know that a play
>featuring five thousand speaking parts is going to be a tad
>complicated.

First of all, it's not merely the "complexity of the cell" that comes as a
big surprise, but the *type* of complexity that has been uncovered. As
Behe points out, there are scores of examples of *irreducible*
complexity. We are not talking about pathways and structures that
have a core that has been tinkered with at the periphery. We are
talking about machine-like complexity. For example, while the same
geneticists knew that bacteria had many genes, no one expected the
type of complexity that is seen with the bacterial flagella.

This is important because critics of irreducible complexity assumes the
arguments states nothing more than "things are so complex that we
can't imagine how they evolved in a neo-Darwinian fashion." But the
argument is actually this: the origin of the type of complexity seen at
the molecular level is best explained with reference to an intelligent
agent. Why? We know that intelligent agents can and have given rise
to this type of complexity (for example, making it possible for
an archaeologist to find an artefact among a bunch of different shaped
stones).

Furthermore, in spite of what Orr says, there has been a general
expectation, even hope, that life processes would turn out to be
relatively simple. When Monod determined the way in which bacteria
regulate their genes, he would later confidently pronounce that bacteria
are no different from elephants. Even though Monod must have
suspected (like the geneticists Orr alludes to) elephants contain many
more genes than bacteria, he suspected the increased complexity would
merely involve more gene products, not that the genes themselves
would be handled in a far more complicated manner.

This expectation for simplicity is still found in cell biology. For many
years, the cytoplasm was viewed as a homogenous soup [I suspect the
soup view of the cell derives much impetus from views about a
primordial soup. If cells originated as products of a soup, a Darwinist
might expect this soup-like existence to continue inside the
cell.] where organelles and macromolecules floated about randomly. But
now it is becoming quite evident that the cytoplasm is very structured.
For example, it is now known that cytoplasmic ribosomes do not float
about freely, but instead are bound to cytoskeletal fibers. There is also
evidence that suggests the enzymes of the glycolytic pathway are
attached to cytoskeletal fibers in an assembly-line fashion.

Just as the cytoplasm was once thought of as a soup, so too was the
nucleoplasm. Here, the genetic material floated about randomly. But
again it is becoming clear that the nucleus is highly organized as it is
built upon a nuclear matrix/skeleton (not to mention the highly organized
manner of packaging the DNA). For example, it turns out that the
processes of transcription and RNA processing do not occur randomly in
the nucleus, but instead occur at discrete domains.

Another way to see the expectation of simplicity is the way in which
evolutionists are quick to label new elements, whose functions are not
known, as vestigial. Instead of suspecting that such new elements may
add to the complexity of the story, they are initially judged
nonfunctional, thus keeping the story more simple. For example, this is
how introns were viewed when they were first discovered. But it is
now becoming clear that introns are important in a variety of processes.
For example, introns make alternative splicing possible, where one gene
can give rise to many gene products depending upon the exons that
are spliced together. Thus, the gene that codes for tropomyosin (a
protein that interacts with the contractile protein myosin) gives rise to
different versions of the protein in different tissues. Introns can also
play important roles in the expression of genes, as it is becoming clear
that the transport of processed mRNA (the finished product that codes
for proteins) to the cytoplasm is often coupled to the process of removing
those introns. This, in turn, provides yet one more place for cells to
control the expression levels of their genes.

Another more current finding is RNA editing. In this process, mRNA
molecules are edited (by protein/nucleic acid machinery) after
transcription so that new codons replace those coded for by the DNA
(this means that the DNA sequence does not entirely code for the mRNA
sequence of certain genes). Today, this process is viewed as vestigial.
Why? Because it was intitially found in protozoa who are thought to
reflect life deep in the tree-of-life (ie, trypanosomes) and because it fits
with the "RNA World" view that is in vogue (the editing supposedly
reflects an early RNA genome whose sloppiness had to be corrected by
such editing). But this interpretation is starting to come apart as RNA
editing is being found in mouse and human cells where it plays a
crucial, yet subtle role.

For example, we now know there are two brain receptors that undergo
RNA editing. The most recent example involves a subtype of the
serotonin receptor, 5-HT(2c). This receptor undergoes editing in three
codons that are part of the second intracellular loop (a region of the
receptor that emerges on the cytoplasmic side of the membrane). This
editing has functional significance as this is also the region of the
protein that interacts with certain cytoplasmic proteins (G proteins).
What happens is that edited receptors have less affinity for the G
proteins which leads to a reduction in signal strength. It turns out that
these serotonin receptors are found throughout the brain, however,
differential editing occurs (that is, in some regions of the brain, edited
versions exist while nonedited versions exists elsewhere). All of this
suggests that RNA editing may play subtle, yet significant roles in our
brain chemistry and may also be just one more way to regulate and
alter the expression of genes and their products.

The basic point is even though Orr is correct in noting that folks
expected a complicated story when they found thousands of genes in
fruit flies, no one expected the story to be as complicated as it is. The
world of split genes, alternative splicing, discrete organization in the
cytoplasm and nucleus, bacterial propellars, RNA editing, etc. was not
expected from the fact that fruit flies coded a few thousand genes.

This brings me to the last thing said by Orr:

>You don't need a script to know that a play featuring five thousand
>speaking parts is going to be a tad complicated.

Let's consider a script for a movie. If there were five thousand
speaking parts, indeed we would expect a complicated movie. But many
people fail to realize the complexity vastly exceeds the number of
speaking parts (or genes). With a movie, there is much more
information in that script. You also have a plot and the various scenes.
That is, the speaking parts must take place in certain contexts and all
must be integrated in a larger context. This, of course, is the same with
genes. They must be expressed in certain contexts and all are
integrated in a larger context.

But the complexity goes farther. In a movie, you also need information
not spelled out in the script - the director adds his/her touch, the actors
add their touch, the cinemotographers add their contribution and the
special effects people contribute likewise.

Is it possible that information necessary for life exists that is not
encoded by the nucleotide sequence of DNA? That is, just as a script is
necessary, but not sufficient, information for making a movie, might the
same hold true for DNA and life? I think so. One extra source of
information probably stems from the arrangements of protein fibers
that make up the cytoskeleton and nuclear skeleton. Don't forget that
when a cell divides, it passes on not only a copy of the genome, but also
part of itself - the organelles and cytoplasm. Thus, genetic material is
not the only thing that is inherited. A great example of cytoskeletal
inheritance comes from studies of Paramecium. These single-celled
creatures are covered by rows and rows of cilia that all aligned in
parallel to beat in a coodinated fashion. Scientists have previously
disturbed this pattern of beating so that some rows become inverted.
These inverted rows beat in the opposite direction as their neighboring
rows. Although this distrubance did not involve genetic manipulations,
the altered pattern of beating rows was inherited indefinitely in
successive generations.

At the very least, we can say that the information stored by DNA is far
more complex than a simple reading of the nucleotide sequences of
protein-coding genes and their regulatory elements. Take those
serotonin receptors. To make them, you need not only the protein
coding gene and its regulatory elements, but also the genes that code for
the editing machinery (and their regulatory elements) and the
templates used in editing. And if Darwinism causes us to yawn at all
this complexity (the impression that Orr conveys), maybe it is missing a
huge and important feature of the whole story.

Orr also said:

>Moreover, evolutionists all know that, from the time
>the earth formed, it took three billion years to evolve the first
>true cell but only half as long to get human beings from this cell.
>And we all interpret this the same way: it's harder to evolve a cell
>than a human given a cell.

Not quite. First of all, most recognize that procaryotes (which are true
cells) probably arose 3.5 billion years ago. More important, however, is
that Orr's appeal to time is too simplistic. He says it is harder to evolve
a cell than evolve a human given that cell. Really? If that was so, why
do so many evolutionists expect to find cellular life on other planents,
but not human life? Given these expectations, it seems like most think
it is easier to evolve a cell than to evolve a human from that cell.

>But, surprise or no, Behe's talk of complexity is utterly beside the point.
>As he well knows, Darwinism has no trouble explaining sheer
>complexity: four billion years is an unimaginably long time for things
>to get complicated.

Again, this appeal to time is too simplistic. If time is all we need for
things to get complicated, then why don't we find vertebrates with six,
eight, or a dozen appendages? We've had hundreds of millions of years
since they first appeared, by the their body plan have not become
*that* much more complicated.

Furthermore, while bacteria are the simplist of organisms, we are told
they are like this because of stream-lining, which in turn, means their
ancestors were more complicated (which means things were quite
complicated in a mere fraction of "four billion years"). In their lineages,
things have gotten less complicated after "four billion years." Of course,
there are the eucaryotes, which gave rise to multicellular creatures, but
if you think about it, their origin was very unlikely. Supposedly a
crucial step in eucaryotic evolution was the endosymbiotic events that
led to mitochondria and chloroplasts. No problem, right? Wrong. If we
accept the standard interpretation, it took about 2 billion years to pull
this off. What's more, genetic data indicate that chloroplasts and
mitochondria are monophyletic. That is, two single, independent
endosymbiotic events gave rise to eucaryotic cells. Thus, during 2
billion years of microbial evolution, only twice did something happen
that was of selective significance in generating increased compexity.

All of this tells me that evolving the type of eucaryotes that would
ultimately give rise to mutlicellular organisms is a hard thing to do.
This in turn makes it *very* easy to imagine planets that have been
evolving life for billions of years without anything more complicated
than a planet full of stream-lined bacteria. Thus Orr's appeal to time is
flawed. Time alone is not sufficient for things to "get complicated."

[snip]

>Reducible Complexity

>The first thing you need to understand about Behe's argument is that
>it's just plain wrong. It's not that he botched some stray fact
>about evolution, or that he doesn't know his biochemistry, but that
>his argument-as an argument-is fatally flawed. To see this we need
>to first get clear about what kinds of solutions to irreducible
>complexity are not open to Darwinism.

>First it will do no good to suggest that all the required parts of
>some biochemical pathway popped up simultaneously by mutation.
>Although this "solution" yields a functioning system in one fell
>swoop, it's so hopelessly unlikely that no Darwinian takes it
>seriously. As Behe rightly says, we gain nothing by replacing a
>problem with a miracle. Second, we might think that some of the
>parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some
>other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function.
>But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car's
>transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such
>things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer
>a general solution to irreducible complexity.

Not surprisingly, I agree with Orr on these points. However, critics of IC
do seem to rely often on the second mechanism where a process in one
pathway (or a feature of one structure) is supposedly duplicated and
transplanted.

>Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities,
>he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is
>this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding
>parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of
>later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A)
>initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part
>(B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't
>essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something
>else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable.
>This process continues as further parts get folded into the system.
>And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

While this "solution" is plausible, it suffers the same problem as the
"duplicate and transplant" solution, namely, (to quote Orr), " Such
things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer
a general solution to irreducible complexity." For example, does Orr
really think this solution explains the bacterial flagella or protein
transport?

How about another basic example, namely, good ol' procaryotic DNA
replication. In order to replicate DNA, we need various players that
interact in a way that is best interpreted as IC. Among the candidates
are the following:

1. A replication origin sequence with strongly conserved sequences.
[BTW, these conserved sequences represent IC all on their own. For
example, among the 240-bp oriC sequence, one finds a 13 bp sequence
in which 12 bp have been found in all bacteria. This conservation
translates as strong functional constraint, so that losing just one of the
bases means big trouble. But if a sequence that contains, say 6 or 7, of
the 13 bases among the conserved sequence is functionless, it's hard to
see how this conserved sequence was built one little nucleotide at a
time as Orr's A, then B speculations go].

2. A DNA-binding protein (DnaA) that recognizes OriC to initiate
replication. [This DNA-binding uses up ATP - a selective disadvantage if
it doesn't serve a useful purpose].

3. Okay, once DnaA binds to the conserved repeats of OriC, it creates a
little single-stranded bubble. This allows a helicase (DnaB) to bind,
*but* only with the help of a protein coded by DnaC. Once helicase
binds, it can then unwind the DNA, but in doing so, it uses up more
energy. And unwinding by itself would therefore be a deleterious activity.

4. Of course, once the DNA is unwound, it wants to zip back up given
the complementary interactions between the nitrogenous bases on each
strand. Thus, that helicase activity is all for naught unless there are
single-stranded binding proteins (Ssb protein) that bind to the DNA and
prevent it from reannealing.

5. Okay, we've used a lot of energy and involved several proteins (and
nucleic acid sequence) to create a stable single-stranded bubble in the
DNA. What's next? Well, another enzyme must now be recruited to lay
down primer sequence, given that DNA polymerase can only add
nucleotides to pre-existing polynucleotides. Thus, primase is required
(DnaG). But for primase to bind, it either needs to see a specific
sequence or (more commonly) it also interacts with DnaB (the helicase),
which in turn means our helicase had to do more than simply unwind; it
also has to have a domain that interacts with primase.

6. With our separated and stable strands loaded with primer, DNA
polymerase III(the enzyme that will now synthesize a new strand of
DNA by making a complementary sequence of the single-stranded
template) can now act. DNA polymerase III is itself another example of
IC, as it is composed of 10 difference polypeptides. Let's look at this
example of an IC molecule that is part of a larger IC system (DNA
replication).

a. Three subunits interact as whole to generate the active site of
nucleotide addition. This is called the core polymerase.

b. The core polymerase is only capable of replication of ca.10-20 bases. It
must therefore be converted a form that more stablely associates with
DNA. This is the role of the remaining subunits. First, there is the
amazing beta subunit which forms a dimer with itself that in turn forms
a donut-shaped clamp around the DNA. This clamp can move like a ring
on a string and carry the core polymerase along with it (thus, the stable
association).

c. Of course, getting the core polyermase to interact with the ring-like
beta-subunit is not an easy task, as it takes five more subunits to mediate
the interaction.

d. Finally, one more subunit is needed to dimerize the core polymerase
so it can replicate both strands of DNA.

7. Okay, even after DNA polymerase had done its job (don't forget that
it's replicating strands at about 500-1000 nucs per sec), we still need
one more enzyme to join together one of the newly synthesized strands
(the so-called lagging strand that is built in pieces because of the anti-
parallel nature of the double-stranded DNA). This enzyme is ligase.

While all of this makes for a complicated story, I would point out that I
haven't included the topisomerases, which too are essential in DNA
replication. But the story, as told, will suffice.

First, keep in mind that we're dealing with an cellular organism
that has been streamlined for billions of years. Thus, this system
may be as close to the simplest system possible for a cellular lineage
(Some viral systems may be somewhat simpler, but not much. Furthermore,
viral systems are usually more mutagenic and while a virus can tolerate
high mutation rates since it pirates so much cellular machinery, cells
may not be able to tolerate such high mutation rates).

Y'see, it looks to me that this is IC "plain and clear." DNA polymerase
doesn't bind to double-stranded DNA. Without ligase, you've merely
made a copy of the original rather than duplicate the DNA. Helicase
activity is an energy drain unless it is tied to a purpose. On and on I
could go.

Furthermore, the players themselves show IC. It's hard to see how OriC
was built up given the conserved blocks. DnaB must have both helicase
activity and a domain to interact with primase. And of course, the DNA
polymerase itself shows an active site built from three different
subunits and only effectively replicates DNA with the help of at least 6
other subunits. Any one or two of these subunits is useless by itself.

Does Orr's "A, then B" speculation solve this IC problem? Nope. Orr says:

"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding
parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of
later changes-essential."

Really? I suppose we'd have to start with a critter that has come to
possess DNA but doesn't replicate it(! - sounds awfully imaginary to
me). Then, er, we construct our system of DNA replication by "gradually
adding parts." Which ones? Hmm. Seems to be room for some healthy
skepticism if you ask me. ;)

>The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere
>improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones,
>there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become
>necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that
>allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just
>advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry
>land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers.

Come now. Orr's livin' in Just-So Land. Maybe we should critically
explore this air-bladder to lung transition to see exactly what would be
involved in traveling that advantageous landscape. Maybe it did
happen (after all, it sure looks plausible). But then again, maybe it
happened only inside someone's head. :)

>But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking,
>for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently,
>are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I
>think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we
>are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid
>there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the
>components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from
>the beginning" is dead wrong.

Er, it would be "dead wrong" if the air bladder-to-lung story was
undeniable fact. Orr dogmatically overstates his position.

But let's assume the story is valid. This doesn't mean IC is invalid. It
would only mean one candidate for IC has to be withdrawn. That is,
Behe's *interpretation* is justified unless one can come up with
evidence (not imaginary processes and things) that the system was (and
not "could have been") built according to Orr/Muller's notions of "A,
then B." The air bladder-to-lung transition (given superficial
consideration) is indeed plausible. After all, they're both essentially air
sacs! But even if this happened, it doesn't mean *all* candidates for IC
can be so easily explained away. After all, stories about air bladders
and lungs do *not* give us any reason to think DNA replication or the
bacterial flagellum could be built in this way. So once again, Orr's
"colossal mistake" is in thinking Muller's speculations are *the* general
solution. It may explain a few cases. It may explain many cases. But
all cases?

[snip computer program analogy]

[snip summary of Muller's interpretations]

>Although Muller's essay isn't as well known as it should be, the
>gist of his idea is common wisdom in evolutionary biology. Here's an
>important application: Molecular evolutionists have shown that some
>genes are duplications of others.

No. What they have shown are sequence similarities that are then
*interpreted* as duplications. And in many cases, I would agree.
However, IMO, neo-Darwinists often overplay this phenomena. For
example, when different gene products doing very different things
happen to share a similar domain or two, neo-Darwinists often jump to
the duplication conclusion. But a design theorist doesn't feel compelled
to reach this conclusion as similar and/or modular motifs may reflect a
principle of design.

>In other words, at some point in time an extra copy of a gene got made.
>The copy wasn't essential-the organism obviously got along fine
>without it.

Hold on. Gene duplications are one thing. Duplication, followed by
divergence that gives rise to an integrated new function is quite another
thing. If, as Orr claims, the copy is not essential, it most likely becomes
a pseudogene. That is, it aquires mutations in the coding sequence and
regulatory sequences that are deleterious and these are not weeded out
by selection. They accumulate.

>But through time this copy changed, picking up a new, and often
>related, function.

This is simply a molecular version of a just so story. Getting a copy to
"pick up" a "new, often related function" is is going in involve some
things. To move this out of the imaginary realm and into the scientific
realm, Orr would have to pick a real-life candidate and propose exactly
how many substitutions had to occur to generate this new function. It
would also have to steer clear of deleterious mutations (and not invoke
a deleterious substitution pathway towards that "new function"). It
would also have to escape gene conversion before the new
advantageous function appeared and then not be lost by drift (even
selectively advantageous mutations are easily lost in the initial stages).
And that's just for starters.

Of course, there are a couple of more problems. If gene dup/divergence
usually gives rise to "related functions," what about the myriad of
unrelated functions?

Furthermore, the evolutionary path that Orr envisions either stumbles
upon a series of unlikely advantageous mutations or simply involves
the redesigning of proteins by pure chance. That's an odd view.

All in all, the gene dup/div story may have very limited utility, but
again, if Orr thinks this is a "general solution," it's probably because it's
the only one he's got. ;)

>After further evolution, this duplicate gene will have become essential.
>(We're loaded with duplicate genes that are required: myoglobin, for
>instance, which carries oxygen in muscles, is related to hemoglobin,
>which carries oxygen in blood. Both are now necessary.)

Yes, we need to look into this classic example in more detail. But right
now, I have to ask, "Where did myoglobin come from?"

>The story of gene duplication-which can be found in every evolution
>text-is just a special case of Muller's theory. But it's an immensely
>important case: it explains how new genes arise and, thus, ultimately,
>how biochemical pathways get built.

Fine. Maybe sometimes this happens. But does it explain the bacterial
flagellum? DNA replication? Protein sorting? Recombination? Etc.
Nope.

>So how does Behe explain duplicate genes? He doesn't. He reluctantly
>admits that different genes often have similar sequences. He even
>admits that some genes in his favorite pathway-blood clotting-are
>similar.7 But he refuses to draw the obvious conclusion: some genes
>are copies of others.

Maybe. Maybe not. But if their similarity remains obvious since
diverging millions of years ago, those similar sequences are of obvious
functional importance. A design theorist need not conclude duplication
from similarity.

>Does Behe think their similarity is a coincidence-they just happen to
>look alike? It is, I think, clear why Behe fails to face up to duplicate
>genes: were he to admit that one gene is a copy of another, he'd have to
>admit that a copy was made at some point in time and thus that the
>organism once got along without it.

No, it's not this simple. First, the existence of duplicated, but different,
genes in a pathway is an *interpretation*. Is Behe supposed to be
committed to the notion that an IC system should only possess one
serine protease, for example? Secondly, maybe duplication and
divergence can explain the tweaking of *some* systems with similar
gene products, but *all* systems? In my initial reply to Robison (and
the follow-ups), I pointed out some of the problems with these
speculations. Furthermore, if a purported duplicate is nested in a
complex regulatory web, your goin' to need more than mere sequence
data to make the gene dup/div story convincing to us skeptics. Thirdly,
Orr's explanation doesn't touch the myriad of complex pathways,
processes, and structures built around very different proteins. All of
this means that Orr's proposed mechanism fails as a general reply to IC.

>Irreducible Confusion

>In truth, we're done. Behe's chief objection to Darwinism is flat
>wrong, and, bereft of this, he's got little to say.

In truth, Orr is flat wrong. He tells a vague just-so story without ever
attempting to deal with the *science* in Behe's book. No proteins. Only
A's and B's. Nothing about the bacterial flagellum, only air bladders.
Nothing about the synthesis of AMP, or protein sorting, or cilia, etc. Yet
he thinks he has found a general solution to IC that renders IC claims
false. Now, maybe he has stumbled into an explanation for a small
subset of IC candidates. Who knows? But so what? Does he actually
think the "case is closed" now? Yep. Behe is "flat wrong." End of story.
But *nothing* Orr has said justifies a belief that DNA replication,
recombination, protein sorting, the bacterial flagellum, etc. arose via
neo-darwinian mechanims. Nothing.

>But when you do look at what else he says, you find a bizarre string of
>confusions and contradictions.

People who actually believe in just-so stories should be careful in
making accusations about confusions and contradictions. :)

Anyway, let's see how it is H. Allen Orr who is the confused one here.....

>For instance, while Behe claims that evidence for design had to
>await the new science of biochemistry, he never really explains
>what's so special about biochemistry. It's true that molecules
>provide some nice examples of irreducible complexity, but why can't
>we find such complexity at other levels? The answer is we can.
>Here's one: the heart. The human heart is built of a pump and
>valves. Remove either one and you're dead. But Behe seems terribly
>unclear about whether such non-molecular examples are kosher. In
>one breath, he tells us that "one has to examine molecular systems for
>evidence of design," but in the next, he assures us that the
>theologian William Paley's description of the heart as irreducibly
>complex was right on the money. So which is it? If Paley's example
>is "exactly correct," why did we have to await biochemistry? The
>issue is not trivial. For if anatomy didn't topple Darwinism (and it
>seems not to have), why should biochemistry?

With this section, we now begin to question Orr's ability as a capable
reviewer (as was the case with Jerry Coyne). Orr makes it sound like
Behe was so confused that on one hand you need molecular data to
reach a design interpretation and then later he claims Paley's example
of the heart was "exactly correct," right? Er, one problem. Behe doesn't
make this claim about Paley. In one of his later chapters on the concept
of design, Behe explores the various arguments Paley used to
demonstrate design. He calls these arguments a "mixed bag." In doing
so, he draws attention to Paley's heart analogy and claims "Paley is at
his best when writing about mechanical systems." He doesn't assure us
Paley was "right on the money." And he clearly doesn't claim Paley's
heart example is "exactly correct." Y'see poor ol' Orr confuses his
confusion for Behe's purported confusion! [grin]. After talking about
the various arguments Paley uses, Behe writes:

"Despite many of his misguided examples, Paley's famous first
paragraph concerning the watch is exactly correct - no one would deny
that if you found a watch you would immediately, and with certainty,
conclude that it had been designed."

So Orr does the very thing that only creationists are supposedly guilty
of - quoting someone out of context.

Poor Orr. He doesn't seem to truly understand what Behe was saying.
The watch example was "exactly correct." The heart example was one
where Behe shows that Paley was on the right track in finding evidence
for design that is likewise hard to explain by gradual development.

>Last, in one of the stranger passages of his book, Behe speculates
>that the designer provided the Primal Cell with all the genes modern
>organisms might need (i.e., the first bacterium carried genes for
>human speech centers). If a lineage didn't need some genes, they got
>lost or silenced. This notion leaves so much of molecular evolution
>unexplained that it's hard to know where to start. Here's just one
>problem: Although some genes do get killed or silenced over time
>(producing non-functional "pseudogenes"), how come we only carry
>pseudogenes that are wrecked copies of our real genes? In other
>words, why don't I carry pseudogenes for chlorophyll or flower
>structure? Why don't azaleas carry pseudogenes for brain cells?
>Behe's it-was-all-there-from-day-one hypothesis is flatly falsified
>by this and every other known pattern in molecular evolution.

You would think an expert in evolution would not need to have this pointed
out to him, but alas, someone's gotta do the dirty work. If there was a
Primal Cell, would we expect to see pseudogenes for chorophyll in
humans cells and pseudogenes for brain cells in flowers? Orr
mistakenly thinks so, but he is wrong. Since plants and animals
diverged almost a billion years ago, those pseudogenes would have been
effectively erased a long time ago as they acquired more and more
mutations.

Orr then essentially concludes his review by complaining that only
evolutionary experts can critique evolution. He makes an interesting
observation. He claims:

>Second-and this has more to do with attacks from
>scientists such as Behe's-there's a striking asymmetry in molecular
>versus evolutionary education in American universities. Although
>many science, and all biology, students are required to endure
>molecular courses, evolution-even introductory evolution-is often an
>elective.

One gets the strange impression that Orr is venting here. Maybe
students don't sign up for his class and this is how he strikes back -
blame the system. Of course, given that molecular courses are loaded
with new, interesting and experimentally demonstrated scientific facts
rather than just-so stories and bean-counting, has nothing to do with it,
right? :)

>The reason is simple: biochemistry and cell biology get
>Junior into med school, evolution doesn't. Consequently, many
>professional scientists know surprisingly little about evolution.

Aha! He admits it. Most scientists do indeed know very little about
evolution. Most have an evolutionary understanding that is no more
sophisticated than a good college sophomore. Yet, they continue to
churn out gobs and gobs of GOOD SCIENCE. All of this thus effectively
falsifies the silly notion that "nothing makes sense in biology without
evolution." It's time to bury that old chant. ;)

>Now I don't pretend to know the details of Behe's education, but I
>do know this: he is not at home in the technical evolution
>literature. His book reveals that his grasp of evolution derives
>mostly from the pop literature (Gould, Dawkins-good stuff, but no
>stand-in for the real thing) and from computer searches of the
>scientific literature that he strangely makes a big deal of. While I
>have utter confidence in Behe's biochemistry, I am less confident
>that he can say what soft selection, or Muller's ratchet, or the
>Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection is-all bread and butter of
>evolutionary biology.

Yeah, yeah. So Orr is essentially claiming, "Hey, look at me, I'm the
expert on evolution here!." Well, okay. But the ol' expert could have
used his great technical know how to show all those ignorant
biochemists how protein sorting or the bacterial flagella arose. Yet he
didn't. He told the old "A, then A with advantageous B, then A with
essential B" story, but left it purely in the realm of the imagination and
merely assumed it was a general solution. And that's the bottom line.

Finally, in another exchange between evolutionist Daniel Dennett and
Robert Berwick, Dennett makes an interesting claim:

>Although Berwick and Orr have criticized Dawkins and me for making
>natural selection so central to our views of evolutionary theory,
>when Orr turns to Michael Behe's book and faces the task of
>responding to all of Behe's challenges, he helps himself at every
>turning to hypotheses about natural selection.

Hmm. It sounds to me like Orr recognizes the problems inherent in
neo-darwinism, which is essentially Behe's point (Behe doesn't argue
against evolution - he argues against a neo-darwinian view of
evolution). What's going on? Well, since Behe's thesis has strong
metaphysical implications, Orr relies on natural selection. However,
when dealing with views that carry no such implication, Orr recognizes
the severe problems that indeed exist with natural selection. Thus, the
problems exist in a debate with other atheistic evolutionists (like
Dawkins), but they magically vanish in a debate with theistic
evolutionists.(Behe). Why does Orr forget the problems with natural
selection? Well, maybe Orr's critique of Behe derived its strength from
a metaphysical agenda rather than a purely scientific one.

In the end, Orr's critique is somewhat better that Coyne's. In fact, Orr
talks more about science in the Boston Review than Coyne does in
Nature! But I since I think Coyne's critique is just plain lame, this
doesn't say much for Orr. ;)

Well, they're just my opinion anyways.

Dr Nancy's Sweetie

unread,

Jun 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/9/97

Julie Thomas wrote:
> As Behe points out, there are scores of examples of *irreducible*

> complexity. [...]

This is phrased incorrectly: Mr Behe does not "point out" that there are
examples of irreducible complexity. He CLAIMS it. The difference is
important.

If you said, for example, that the Bible never referred to Jesus crying,
I could _point out_ the verse "Jesus wept". That's "pointing out" because
it is a citation of an agreed-upon reference (in this case, the Bible)
which can settle the question.

But if my reply was "Yes it does", that would not be pointing anything out:
that would just be an unsupported claim. Michael Behe nowhere refers to
any agreed-upon definition of, or test for, irreducible complexity. There
is no reference; there is no standard; he cannot "point out" irreducible
complexity, because he has nothing to point TO.

You wrote:
> This is important because critics of irreducible complexity assumes the
> arguments states nothing more than "things are so complex that we
> can't imagine how they evolved in a neo-Darwinian fashion." But the
> argument is actually this: the origin of the type of complexity seen at
> the molecular level is best explained with reference to an intelligent
> agent.

Okay, that's the argument: but where is the JUSTIFICATION? The entire
justification is nothing more than "I can't figure out another answer."

Take, for example, Mr Behe's standard illustration of a mousetrap. He does
not SHOW that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex. He merely asserts it.
He goes through the pieces and says "If we remove this part, we can't make
it work", and then assumes he has made his case. But maybe a mousetrap
COULD be made to work with one fewer part. Just because he can't see how
to reassemble the pieces doesn't mean it can't be done.

There is no TEST for irreducible complexity. He does not say "To tell
whether a structure is irreducibly complex, perform this objective test
and you will know."

Here's my question for you: suppose I went into a hardware store tomorrow
and found a mousetrap with only four parts in it. What would that make of
Michael Behe's argument? His claim is that this can't be done, and the
only justification he gave is that he can't figure it out. But what if
somebody else could figure it out? What would you make of that?

Darren F Provine / kil...@copland.rowan.edu

James C. Harrison

unread,

Jun 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/9/97

A question for Behe and his defenders:

You claim that the "irreducible complexity" of living things is evidence
that they originated by some non-natural means analogous to engineering.
Are you thereby claiming that human engineering proceeds by non-natural
means? If so, where's your evidence? If not, where's your analogy?

The human engineering I'm aware of is not very much like creatio ex
nihilo. In a given case, of course, one can suppose that the designer has
a design in mind and then implements it; but in the real world the design
is a modification of a prexisting thing or design and the implementation
takes the form of guiding natural processes. ("We rule nature by obeying
her."--Bacon)

Now none of this would bother a theologian much since those folks claim
to have alternative ways of knowing about a very different sort of
designer who has eternal ideas to serve as blueprints and simply has to
will something to make it so. Such folks remind me of very, very feeble
mathematicians who are able to prove all sorts of exciting results by
adding another line to the hypothesis every time they have a problem in
the proof. For example, predicting the behavior of a benzene molecule
from first principles is pretty much as good as human science can
currently do because of the blow-up of computation time that occurs as
things get at all complicated or interesting. Why isn't this a problem
for God? Simple. We assert that it is not.

But it may be--this is a real question--folks like Ms Thomas or Behe are
not simply shilling for conventional theology. Maybe an intelligent
species seeded the Earth with life all those billions of years ago. That
wouldn't be an ultimate explanation of biogenesis, of course; but
ultimate explanations are not the only worthwhile kind of explanation.
It is certainly true that biogensis, as opposed to evolution, is a mighty
speculative subject. What bothers me, however, is how an intelligent but
natural species is supposed to be able to design living things since for
such finite beings all the strictures of computational complexity apply.

hexis

J.W. Tait

unread,

Jun 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/12/97

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:

>>Evolutionary biologist, H. Allen Orr, wrote a review of Michael Behe's
>>book for the Boston Review entitled, "Darwin v. Intelligent Design
>>(Again)." While others have already replied to this article, I just came
>>across it on the web and wanted to add a few comments of my own
>>(especially since so many seem to refer to this article as if it was *the*
>>response to Behe).

>>Orr stated:

>>First of all, it's not merely the "complexity of the cell" that comes as a

>>big surprise, but the *type* of complexity that has been uncovered. As
>>Behe points out, there are scores of examples of *irreducible*
>>complexity.

>IMO, you should say "Behe claims" rather than "Behe points out". This
>is an essential part of Behe's arguments. Many people are denying that
>identification of a system as Irreducibly Complex (IC) has any
>meaning.

Since it's Behe's term, I think he should get to define it the way he
wants. If someone asks him to point to some examples of what he's talking
about, that's what he points out.

It seems hard to believe that the term IC can be meaningless. Even if it
is fallacious, it has a meaning which is generally understood.

>> For example, while the same
>>geneticists knew that bacteria had many genes, no one expected the
>>type of complexity that is seen with the bacterial flagella.

>So?

So Behe's 'surprise' is not so disingenuous as was accused.

>>This is important because critics of irreducible complexity assumes the
>>arguments states nothing more than "things are so complex that we
>>can't imagine how they evolved in a neo-Darwinian fashion." But the
>>argument is actually this: the origin of the type of complexity seen at
>>the molecular level is best explained with reference to an intelligent
>>agent.

>Actually the argument that I read was that it was not possible (except
>when it was) for an IC system to evolve. Near as I can tell, we are
>not given any description of this supposed intelligent agent, so that
>explains nothing. All we know of it is that it did all the stuff we
>can't explain otherwise.

It points out (if true) an enormous problem in evolutionary theory. You
seem to have this 'objectivity' myth surrounding theories. If something
renders a prevailing theory less plausible, then competing theories become
more plausible in relation to the prevailing theory (eg phlogiston).

Your demand for a description of the intelligent agent is unfounded.
Those are details that can be worked out when it is agreed that there is
one. When QP was in its infancy, would yoiu have said "well, since yoiu
can't give the qualities of the nuclear forces, you're not explaining
anything?" No because you're explaining that gravity is insufficient to
explain the behaviour of subatomic particles.

>>But let's assume the story is valid. This doesn't mean IC is invalid. It
>>would only mean one candidate for IC has to be withdrawn.

>No, IC is a quality of the system that is independent of its history.
>All it takes is for one IC to be evolvable, and Behe's primary
>objection is eliminated.

Au contraire. All it takes is one of Behe's IC's to actually be ic, and
his objection stands. I don't even see where you're coming from on this.

>>>Although Berwick and Orr have criticized Dawkins and me for making
>>>natural selection so central to our views of evolutionary theory,
>>>when Orr turns to Michael Behe's book and faces the task of
>>>responding to all of Behe's challenges, he helps himself at every
>>>turning to hypotheses about natural selection.

>>Hmm. It sounds to me like Orr recognizes the problems inherent in
>>neo-darwinism, which is essentially Behe's point (Behe doesn't argue
>>against evolution - he argues against a neo-darwinian view of
>>evolution).

>???? Could you explain this. It looked to me that Behe was arguing
>that there are systems, in fact a definable set of systems, that are,
>at the least, unlikely to ever evolve. What aspect of neo-darwinism
>does that challenge that is distinct from evolution?

I could be wrong, but I think that his point was that they could not have
evolved *to the state they are presently in*, becuase the antecedent steps
would lack stability/selection advantage.

>>Thus, the
>>problems exist in a debate with other atheistic evolutionists (like
>>Dawkins), but they magically vanish in a debate with theistic
>>evolutionists.(Behe). Why does Orr forget the problems with natural
>>selection? Well, maybe Orr's critique of Behe derived its strength from
>>a metaphysical agenda rather than a purely scientific one.

>Or maybe you are reading your own metaphysical agenda into the issues.
>You have already implied that you are willing to abandon science
>(excuse me, naturalism) in support of Behe.

Please post her statement statement verbatim so that everyone can see the
misquote.

Cheers,

Chase

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/12/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,
tai...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA (J.W. Tait) wrote:

>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
>>>Evolutionary biologist, H. Allen Orr, wrote a review of Michael Behe's
>>>book for the Boston Review entitled, "Darwin v. Intelligent Design
>>>(Again)." While others have already replied to this article, I just came
>>>across it on the web and wanted to add a few comments of my own
>>>(especially since so many seem to refer to this article as if it was *the*
>>>response to Behe).
>
>>>Orr stated:
>
>>>First of all, it's not merely the "complexity of the cell" that comes as a
>>>big surprise, but the *type* of complexity that has been uncovered. As
>>>Behe points out, there are scores of examples of *irreducible*
>>>complexity.
>
>>IMO, you should say "Behe claims" rather than "Behe points out". This
>>is an essential part of Behe's arguments. Many people are denying that
>>identification of a system as Irreducibly Complex (IC) has any
>>meaning.
>
>Since it's Behe's term, I think he should get to define it the way he
>wants.

It is not the definition I was objecting to, it was the use. That Behe
applied the term does not mean that he is correct in the application.

>If someone asks him to point to some examples of what he's talking
>about, that's what he points out.
>

No, Behe gives a definition that is distinct from the examples. If
fact, he points out that the definition will still remain even if his
examples are refuted.

I have a different set of objections to the definition. An IC system
is, according to Behe, a system where the removal of one part will
eliminate the function of the system. The problem with this definition
is that identification of "system", "part", and "function" are all
arbitrary.

>It seems hard to believe that the term IC can be meaningless. Even if it
>is fallacious, it has a meaning which is generally understood.
>

Please read what I said. I did not say that IC was meaningless. I said
that identifying as system as IC was meaningless. So what if a system
is IC? It does not really tell us anything about that system. In
particular, it does not tell us anything about whether that system
evolved.

[snip]

>
>>>This is important because critics of irreducible complexity assumes the
>>>arguments states nothing more than "things are so complex that we
>>>can't imagine how they evolved in a neo-Darwinian fashion." But the
>>>argument is actually this: the origin of the type of complexity seen at
>>>the molecular level is best explained with reference to an intelligent
>>>agent.
>
>>Actually the argument that I read was that it was not possible (except
>>when it was) for an IC system to evolve. Near as I can tell, we are
>>not given any description of this supposed intelligent agent, so that
>>explains nothing. All we know of it is that it did all the stuff we
>>can't explain otherwise.
>
>It points out (if true) an enormous problem in evolutionary theory. You
>seem to have this 'objectivity' myth surrounding theories. If something
>renders a prevailing theory less plausible, then competing theories become
>more plausible in relation to the prevailing theory (eg phlogiston).

It points out no such problem. IC is only a comment on one particular
way of building, adding a piece, and assumes that a system has a
single function.

>Your demand for a description of the intelligent agent is unfounded.
>Those are details that can be worked out when it is agreed that there is
>one.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How can I agree that something exists
when I have no definition or description of what that thing is.

>When QP was in its infancy, would yoiu have said "well, since yoiu
>can't give the qualities of the nuclear forces, you're not explaining
>anything?" No because you're explaining that gravity is insufficient to
>explain the behaviour of subatomic particles.
>

Tell me what the Designer does. Tell me what effects I see. Give me
some kind of listing of the actions. All I have right now is that it
did all of the things that we can't currently understand.

>>>But let's assume the story is valid. This doesn't mean IC is invalid. It
>>>would only mean one candidate for IC has to be withdrawn.
>
>>No, IC is a quality of the system that is independent of its history.
>>All it takes is for one IC to be evolvable, and Behe's primary
>>objection is eliminated.
>
>Au contraire. All it takes is one of Behe's IC's to actually be ic, and
>his objection stands. I don't even see where you're coming from on this.

That a system is IC has no bearing on whether it evolved. All it means
is that you could not have gotten that system by adding a part to a
system with the same function. I have no problem with provisionally
accepting that some systems are IC. However, if any of those systems
could have evolved, then Behe's entire claim is refuted.

[snip]

>>>Thus, the
>>>problems exist in a debate with other atheistic evolutionists (like
>>>Dawkins), but they magically vanish in a debate with theistic
>>>evolutionists.(Behe). Why does Orr forget the problems with natural
>>>selection? Well, maybe Orr's critique of Behe derived its strength from
>>>a metaphysical agenda rather than a purely scientific one.
>
>>Or maybe you are reading your own metaphysical agenda into the issues.
>>You have already implied that you are willing to abandon science
>>(excuse me, naturalism) in support of Behe.
>
>Please post her statement statement verbatim so that everyone can see the
>misquote.
>

Sure. It is from her article _Coyne Tries to Critique Behe_ posted to
talk.origins on 6 Jun 97. Right around the middle of the post she
says:

[begin included text]

>There's nothing that causes an *evolutionist* to resist the idea of design.
>Such resistance stems from the metaphysics of naturalism. Behe is
>indeed free of this straight-jacket. Unlike the naturalist, Behe can
>weigh the evidence without a *need* to fit it into a "design" or "blind
>watchmaker" interpretation.

[end included text]

Sorry, but I don't think there is a misquote here.

Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------

Rossignol's curious, albeit simply titled book, 'The Origins of a
World War', spoke in terms of 'secret treaties', drawn up between the
Ambassadors from Plutonia and Desdinova the foreign minister. These
treaties founded a secret science from the stars. Astronomy. The
career of evil.

Dr Nancy's Sweetie

unread,

Jun 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/12/97

I had said that a major defect in Michael Behe's book is that he never
gives any objective test for irreducible complexity.

George Acton replied:
> He defines ab "irreducible complex system" as one with no unnecessary
> parts.

Yes, but this is just one of those content-free answers that an author
puts in a book when he can't justify what he's saying. The reason it is
content-free is that it just appears to be an answer while pushing the
problem back one level: how do we know if a system has any needless parts?

Consider the case of manufacturing: every extra part, and especially every
extra *different* part, adds to the cost of the finished product. To an
engineering team, a very important goal is to reduce the number of parts
without removing functionality or reliability. Engineers work on cars, and
airplanes, and boats, and engines, and computers, and many other products,
for long hours. And yet, they frequently find that something they did one
way, and which seemed optimal, can be improved and done another way with
fewer parts and at lower cost.

Or consider programming: lots of programs have needless code in them,
redundant code which could be completely eliminated, simplifying and
improving the project.

These things aren't made intentionally slower and bigger than they need to
be: it's just that the designers learn things while they're working which
they couldn't see when they began. At some point during the process, they
would say "This can't be made simpler", only to reverse themselves some
time later when they find it CAN be made simpler.

So Michael Behe says blood clotting is irreducibly complex: what if someone
figures out a way it could work without all the parts? Does that destroy
Behe's entire argument, or does he say "Well, that's a bad example, but it
doesn't harm my overall argument"?

George Acton

unread,

Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97

J.W. Tait wrote:
>
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>

...

>
> Since it's Behe's term, I think he should get to define it the way

> he wants. If someone asks him to point to some examples of what

> he's talking about, that's what he points out.
>

> It seems hard to believe that the term IC can be meaningless. Even
> if it is fallacious, it has a meaning which is generally understood.
>

It has a meaning, sort of. Behe says explicitly in the book that
"irreducible complexity" is a property of a _system_ such that
every _part_ is necessary, and if only one part is removed,
the system fails or at least lacks _minimal_function_. In
principle this is a definition of Euclidian clarity and subject
to a robotically easy test: for each gene in the system, make
a strain of knockout mice and observe them for disease.
It's a quibble, but i.c. a terrible term. What it means
is non-reduntant simplicity. Most people who have discussed
Behe take it to mean "so complicated it can't have happened
by accident". Read this way, the term is just a tautology for
subjective disbelief, but Behe defines something more specific.
However, Behe himself appears to be using the latter meanng for
long stretches in his book. He spends pages discussing the
clotting system as a Rube Goldberg apparatus, emphasizing the
complexity and the many articulated parts, when with his
explicit definition all he has to do is give a parts list and
a cite to the literature on genetic diseases of coagulation.
A further set of problems with his definition is that he
doesn't define "system", "part" or "minimal function".
Somewhere I've already written a symmary of how lamely
arbitrary the definition is in connection with clotting.
The same problems arise in connection with complement and
the immune system, and according to the biochemists here with
his other systems. Behe is totally noncommital, except to
write cmapters in which he says they're i.c. But he has
no discussion of the fact that there's no general agreemnt
about the components of the system or the criteria for
"minimal function".
Moreover, he uses a different definition of i.c. in at
least one other place. In the Boston Review, or an interview
quoted there, he says that each factor of the clotting system
is i.c in and of itself. This is like Euclid stating that
every point on a line is also itself a line. Hello?

> >> For example, while the same geneticists
> >> knew that bacteria had many genes, no one expected the
> >> type of complexity that is seen with the bacterial flagella.
>
> >So?
>

> So Behe's 'surprise' is not so disingenuous as was accused.
>
How is anybody's suprise relevant. Is the quantum theory
more or less true because people were surprised by it?

> >Actually the argument that I read was that it was not possible
> >(except when it was) for an IC system to evolve. Near as I can
> >tell, we are not given any description of this supposed intelligent
> >agent, so that explains nothing. All we know of it is that it did
> >all the stuff we can't explain otherwise.
>
> It points out (if true) an enormous problem in evolutionary theory.
> You seem to have this 'objectivity' myth surrounding theories. If
> something renders a prevailing theory less plausible, then competing
> theories become more plausible in relation to the prevailing theory
> (eg phlogiston).

You're not really looking at the complaint. In theological terms,
the conclusion that naturalistic mechanisms can't explain the
origin of life and speciation tells us of the designer's existence
but nothing about its essence (or is the term here "accidence"?)
It could be a naturalistic ET, a belevolent God, the Evil One
for the Manichaens out there, or a demented angel.
The "something" that is supposed to render evolution less
plausible isn't new data, since there's none in Behe's book,
and it isn't a new interpretation of the data, since he
doesn't have one. It just appears to be the political climate.
In itself, this doesn't change nature or in the long run the
general understanding of it.

> Your demand for a description of the intelligent agent is unfounded.
> Those are details that can be worked out when it is agreed that
> there is one.

To play hypothetical games, they can't. Why are there 5 major
proteases in the main sequence of the clotting system? Because
they're necessary from a design perspective, or because God
is sending us a message about the number five? Is their
similarity an expression of divine harmony and order. Or is
the system an unwieldy, Rube Goldbergish hodgpodge, as Behe
impiously suggests?
In the absence of any system that looks designed, this
is bootless speculation. But there is a legitimate point
that Matt Silberstein has brought up. The pattern in scientific
progress has been that the experiments demolishing an old
theory usually carry positive indications of the better
theory. The speed-of-light experiments didn't just say that
the value for the velocity of the ether came out wrong. The
correct interpretation, that there's no ether, led straight
to Special Relativity. I really can't think of a totally
nihlistic experiment that overturned a previous theory but
offered not a clue about a replacement. When I've tried to
read Behe in good faith as science, I start trying to think
of experiments or data to resolve how many Design Events there
were and when they happened. Big zero. This is one reason
I wonder if Behe was writing in good faith.

> When QP was in its infancy, would yoiu have said "well, since yoiu
> can't give the qualities of the nuclear forces, you're not
> explaining anything?" No because you're explaining that gravity
> is insufficient to explain the behaviour of subatomic particles.

There was always a lot of phenomenologic data about the nuclear
forces, from the beginning of the theory. And it suggested a
lot of obvious experiments. All Behe's theory suggests is
knockout experiments, which people have been doing for a decade
anyway.

> >>But let's assume the story is valid. This doesn't mean IC is
> >>invalid. It would only mean one candidate for IC has to be
> >>withdrawn.
>
> >No, IC is a quality of the system that is independent of its
> >history. All it takes is for one IC to be evolvable, and Behe's
> >primary objection is eliminated.
>
> Au contraire. All it takes is one of Behe's IC's to actually be ic,
> and his objection stands. I don't even see where you're coming from
> on this.

My impression is that you're correct about the logic of this. But
as an operational matter, we shift the burden of proof somewhere.
I can proclaim that some species don't use a DNA genetic code and
run on silican. Since we have looked at only a fracton of species
locally, much less the teeming richness of the Amazon, and all it
would take is one species to prove my theory, nobody can prove
me wrong. What is wrong with this picture?
It's been pointed out to Behe that he could do this, and he
vehemently denied it. He said that "at some point" (one of his
favorite locutions) if enough of his i.c. systems turned out to
have good evolutionary explanations, his theory would fail.
However, he still maintains that the clotting system is i.c.

>
> I could be wrong, but I think that his point was that they could not
> have evolved *to the state they are presently in*, becuase the
> antecedent steps would lack stability/selection advantage.
>

This is a reasonable argument, but it's way more sophisticated than
Behe. The strongest evidence for the evolution of the clotting
system is DNA homology sequences. He just shrugs and says he
doesn't accept the data. The kindest explanaton is that he
just doesn't "get it". The unkind one is that he had to keep
clotting for a popular book, since it's the only system the
average reader has some tangible evidence of. If he admitted
that part of it evolved, he'd alienate his Creationist readers,
or at least book-buyers.
--George Acton

George Acton

unread,

Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97

PZ Myers

unread,

Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97

In article <5npki8$n...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>, tai...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA
(J.W. Tait) wrote:

Actually, the evidence from this newsgroup alone suggests that its meaning
is NOT that clear. Look up some of Nyikos' old posts, where he says that
calling a system i.c. does NOT mean that it cannot have evolved, whereas
it's clear from Behe's words (at least to me) that the unevolvability of
i.c. systems is crucial to his argument. Look at Behe's analogy of the
mousetrap--nails are a critical part of the system, but does that mean that
it is so irreducible that you can't remove one nail, or does he mean that
all nails together represent one component?

I know that he has a seemingly clear one sentence definition of the term,
but he uses two terms ("system" and "component") that can be interpreted
any way you want, and the implications of the definition are very murky.

>
>>> For example, while the same
>>>geneticists knew that bacteria had many genes, no one expected the
>>>type of complexity that is seen with the bacterial flagella.
>
>>So?
>
>So Behe's 'surprise' is not so disingenuous as was accused.

Oh yes it is. The details of complexity in biology can't be predicted, but
the one thing we've generally learned is that it is always much messier than
we expected.

I agree with you here. Whether it is gods, space aliens, or pixies doesn't
matter at this point, and I think the only grounds I've seen for demanding
a description of the intervener is to use that as a weapon against the
person defending the theory. That was also a point that Julie brought up
in her critique of Coyne's review: Coyne brought up Behe's Catholicism,
which was clearly an attempt to imply that Behe wasn't being objective.

One minor nitpick, though: when you say that it was an "intelligent agent"
that "designed" the complexity, you are also making an implication about
the nature of the thing. What if there were some natural, earthly, impersonal
mechanism that imposed greater complexity on biological systems that was
outside the context of Darwinian mechanisms, but wasn't the product of an
external intelligence, either? Wouldn't that fit Behe's model just as well?

>
>>>But let's assume the story is valid. This doesn't mean IC is invalid. It
>>>would only mean one candidate for IC has to be withdrawn.
>
>>No, IC is a quality of the system that is independent of its history.
>>All it takes is for one IC to be evolvable, and Behe's primary
>>objection is eliminated.
>
>Au contraire. All it takes is one of Behe's IC's to actually be ic, and
>his objection stands. I don't even see where you're coming from on this.

Right. All Behe needs is one incontrovertable i.c. system that stands
the test of time, and he will be vindicated. We can squash every system
he does bring up, and there will still always be the possibility that
lurking somewhere out there is the one true i.c. system. Of course, this
kind of makes the theory rather useless. What if, for example, we find
that every single attribute of all earthly organisms was reasonably a
consequence of boring old neo-Darwinian evolution, EXCEPT the prokaryotic
flagellum? Or, except for something even more ubiquitous, like enzymes of
the electron transport chain? What is the more likely interpretation: that
just this one piece of the puzzle was subject to an extraordinary
modification, or that we're simply lacking some little bit of information
that would allow it to fit into the spectrum of the other explanations?

>
>>>>Although Berwick and Orr have criticized Dawkins and me for making
>>>>natural selection so central to our views of evolutionary theory,
>>>>when Orr turns to Michael Behe's book and faces the task of
>>>>responding to all of Behe's challenges, he helps himself at every
>>>>turning to hypotheses about natural selection.
>
>>>Hmm. It sounds to me like Orr recognizes the problems inherent in
>>>neo-darwinism, which is essentially Behe's point (Behe doesn't argue
>>>against evolution - he argues against a neo-darwinian view of
>>>evolution).
>
>>???? Could you explain this. It looked to me that Behe was arguing
>>that there are systems, in fact a definable set of systems, that are,
>>at the least, unlikely to ever evolve. What aspect of neo-darwinism
>>does that challenge that is distinct from evolution?
>
>I could be wrong, but I think that his point was that they could not have
>evolved *to the state they are presently in*, becuase the antecedent steps
>would lack stability/selection advantage.

That's how I've interpreted it...but apparently others see it differently
(Nyikos, for example).

Still, I see this as a flaw in Behe's idea. He hasn't shown any examples
of systems that evolved despite the lack of a selective advantage -- all
he can do is point to a gap in our knowledge and say that we haven't yet
shown an advantage. That's simply an absence of evidence one way or the
other, and we can interpret it any way we want. Evolutionists predict that
we will find functional intermediates. Behe predicts we won't. Evolutionists
have observations of other systems that at least give them a good track
record for making successful predictions. Behe doesn't. Evolutionists have
a mechanism (random variation and natural selection) that provides a basis
for prediction. Behe doesn't -- design by fiat means that anything goes.
This doesn't mean that he is definitely wrong, it just means that he hasn't
given any good reason to expect that he might be right.

--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_, George
Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:

I just wanted to add one more thing. IC has nothing to do, per se,
with complexity. Think for a moment about a wooden peg. It has only a
single "part", itself. As such it is as simple as can be. It is also
IC in any sense of the word. Remove the peg and it ceases to function.

[snip]

> >No, IC is a quality of the system that is independent of its
> >history. All it takes is for one IC to be evolvable, and Behe's
> >primary objection is eliminated.
>
> Au contraire. All it takes is one of Behe's IC's to actually be ic,
> and his objection stands. I don't even see where you're coming from
> on this.

My impression is that you're correct about the logic of this.

No he is not and even Behe disagrees. Behe is willing to admit that
some IC systems can evolve, they just don't do it "directly". Behe
explicitly states that being IC only makes it more difficult to
evolve. Of course, he seems to drop this conditional elsewhere.

George Acton

unread,

Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97

Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_, George
> Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:
>
> >J.W. Tait wrote:

> >
> > Au contraire. All it takes is one of Behe's IC's to actually be
> > ic, and his objection stands. I don't even see where you're
> > coming from on this.
>
> My impression is that you're correct about the logic of this.
>
> No he is not and even Behe disagrees. Behe is willing to admit that
> some IC systems can evolve, they just don't do it "directly". Behe
> explicitly states that being IC only makes it more difficult to
> evolve. Of course, he seems to drop this conditional elsewhere.
>

You are correct, and I went for the bait that IC=has no naturalistic
explanation. Which was the sense that JW Tait used. And the
one that Behe appears to use most of the time.
--George Acton

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,

my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) wrote:

>In article <5npki8$n...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>, tai...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA
>(J.W. Tait) wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>
>>Your demand for a description of the intelligent agent is unfounded.
>>Those are details that can be worked out when it is agreed that there is
>>one. When QP was in its infancy, would yoiu have said "well, since yoiu
>>can't give the qualities of the nuclear forces, you're not explaining
>>anything?" No because you're explaining that gravity is insufficient to
>>explain the behaviour of subatomic particles.
>
>I agree with you here. Whether it is gods, space aliens, or pixies doesn't
>matter at this point, and I think the only grounds I've seen for demanding
>a description of the intervener is to use that as a weapon against the
>person defending the theory.

I strongly disagree. I am not looking for a weapon, Certainly many of
the details are not important at this time. But we need more than
assignment of a name. For instance, it is a being or a force that is
proposed? Does it act at all times or episodically? What is this
intensional force or Intelligent Designer? How can acknowledge it
exists if I have no idea what it is? I am looking for a claim. As it
stands, the IF or ID is not just unfalsifiable, it is completely
undefined.

>That was also a point that Julie brought up
>in her critique of Coyne's review: Coyne brought up Behe's Catholicism,
>which was clearly an attempt to imply that Behe wasn't being objective.
>
>One minor nitpick, though: when you say that it was an "intelligent agent"
>that "designed" the complexity, you are also making an implication about
>the nature of the thing. What if there were some natural, earthly, impersonal
>mechanism that imposed greater complexity on biological systems that was
>outside the context of Darwinian mechanisms, but wasn't the product of an
>external intelligence, either? Wouldn't that fit Behe's model just as well?
>

This is not just a nitpick, it is a major point. Other than applying a
name to this unknown, Behe et. al. have done nothing to describe what
they are talking about. Behe (and Peter) takes a stab and assigned it
the human quality of intelligence, but even that is not very clear.

[snip]

PZ Myers

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

In article <33a2032...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Silberstein) wrote:

> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,
> my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) wrote:
>

> >In article <5npki8$n...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>, tai...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA
> >(J.W. Tait) wrote:
> >
> >>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
> >>

> [snip]

> >>
> >>Your demand for a description of the intelligent agent is unfounded.
> >>Those are details that can be worked out when it is agreed that there is
> >>one. When QP was in its infancy, would yoiu have said "well, since yoiu
> >>can't give the qualities of the nuclear forces, you're not explaining
> >>anything?" No because you're explaining that gravity is insufficient to
> >>explain the behaviour of subatomic particles.
> >
> >I agree with you here. Whether it is gods, space aliens, or pixies doesn't
> >matter at this point, and I think the only grounds I've seen for demanding
> >a description of the intervener is to use that as a weapon against the
> >person defending the theory.
>

> I strongly disagree. I am not looking for a weapon, Certainly many of
> the details are not important at this time. But we need more than
> assignment of a name. For instance, it is a being or a force that is
> proposed? Does it act at all times or episodically? What is this
> intensional force or Intelligent Designer? How can acknowledge it
> exists if I have no idea what it is? I am looking for a claim. As it
> stands, the IF or ID is not just unfalsifiable, it is completely
> undefined.

I didn't mean to imply that you personally were trying to use this technique
to knock Behe. That is the impression I got from Coyne's review, though --
he was using Roman Catholicism as an insult.

>
> >That was also a point that Julie brought up
> >in her critique of Coyne's review: Coyne brought up Behe's Catholicism,
> >which was clearly an attempt to imply that Behe wasn't being objective.
> >
> >One minor nitpick, though: when you say that it was an "intelligent agent"
> >that "designed" the complexity, you are also making an implication about
> >the nature of the thing. What if there were some natural, earthly, impersonal
> >mechanism that imposed greater complexity on biological systems that was
> >outside the context of Darwinian mechanisms, but wasn't the product of an
> >external intelligence, either? Wouldn't that fit Behe's model just as well?
> >

> This is not just a nitpick, it is a major point. Other than applying a
> name to this unknown, Behe et. al. have done nothing to describe what
> they are talking about. Behe (and Peter) takes a stab and assigned it
> the human quality of intelligence, but even that is not very clear.
>

This is a hard one. Are there other kinds of evidence that Behe could
provide to support the existence of a designer, other than naming the guy?
I mean, so far the only argument we've heard is that there are aspects of
biology that haven't been adequately described by the neo-Darwinian model,
an approach that is clearly inadequate. But is it too limiting to try and
say that the only good evidence for the hypothesis would be a direct
portrayal of the designer itself?

George Acton

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

PZ Myers wrote:
>
> I didn't mean to imply that you personally were trying to use this
> technique to knock Behe. That is the impression I got from Coyne's
> review, though -- he was using Roman Catholicism as an insult.

I don't recall how Coyne used it, but Behe has brought it up
many times in interviewes, and I think he mentions it in the
book. This is somewhat unusual in science books, at least
in the past few centuries. But he never says what the connection
is between his religion and the "design theory".
One possibility is that he knows that the main buyers for
his book will be fundamentalists and he wants to establish that
he's a member of a church with definite theological teachings.

>
> This is a hard one. Are there other kinds of evidence that Behe
> could provide to support the existence of a designer, other than
> naming the guy? I mean, so far the only argument we've heard is
> that there are aspects of biology that haven't been adequately
> described by the neo-Darwinian model, an approach that is clearly
> inadequate. But is it too limiting to try and say that the only good
> evidence for the hypothesis would be a direct portrayal of the
> designer itself?

I don't understand what you're saying about the "neo-Darwinian
model". It may be inadequate, but the complete ahd satisfactory
theory doesn't necessarilyhave to include the supernatural, and
that is what Behe is saying.
Behe doesn't have to say anything about the "designer", but
it's unusual in science to develop a new theory and not say
what the implications and unanswered questions are.
There are several reasons why he might want to be vague.
One is that by talking about "design" and carefully avoiding the
word "creation", he has made the book an exhibit in a future
trial to enforce the teaching of "design theory" in public
schools. Another is that vagueness allows the book to be read by
people with a wide range of views -- Star Trek fans, religious
fundamentalists, New Agers, etc. Sells more books.
--George Acton

George Acton

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> This is not just a nitpick, it is a major point. Other than applying
> a name to this unknown, Behe et. al. have done nothing to describe
> what they are talking about. Behe (and Peter) takes a stab and
> assigned it the human quality of intelligence, but even that is not
> very clear.
>

The usual practice in science in describing an unexplained
phenomenon is to pick a non-commital name like "novel
telological organization" or "D effect". It is also standard to
list possible explanatory theories (ET or Deity in this case),
and to suggest further studies to distinguish between them.
Behe doesn't do this, because he's not writing science. He's
just going through the motions of scholarship.
--George Acton

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,

my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) wrote:

>In article <33a2032...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt
>Silberstein) wrote:
>

[snip]

>> This is not just a nitpick, it is a major point. Other than applying a
>> name to this unknown, Behe et. al. have done nothing to describe what
>> they are talking about. Behe (and Peter) takes a stab and assigned it
>> the human quality of intelligence, but even that is not very clear.
>>
>

>This is a hard one. Are there other kinds of evidence that Behe could
>provide to support the existence of a designer, other than naming the guy?
>I mean, so far the only argument we've heard is that there are aspects of
>biology that haven't been adequately described by the neo-Darwinian model,
>an approach that is clearly inadequate. But is it too limiting to try and
>say that the only good evidence for the hypothesis would be a direct
>portrayal of the designer itself?
>

I don't seem to be doing a good job of conveying my objection, so I
will try again. Imagine it is the time of Newton and the problem is
the motion of the planets. Suppose that we have the laws of motion,
but none of gravity. Someone declares that the planets travel as they
do because of Snerble. At that point all we have is a name, no more.
If we then says that Snerble is a proportional mutual attraction
between masses then, with the application of sufficient math, we can
explain/predict the orbits. Now "proportional mutual attraction" is
not all there is to know about Snerble. It does not really say
anything about what Snerble is, only how it acts. I want a similar
level of description of the Intelligent Designer.

Similarly, with this IC "problem" Behe, et. al. propose an Intelligent
Designer. Without any description of what this designer does, it is
just a Snerble. I don't require detailed information about the ID, I
don't care, at this point, whether it is aliens or the Great Sky God
or whatever. But I do want to know what is the set of actions this ID
has done to achieve the proposed effects. As it stands, this is a
completely ad hoc explanation. I can apply ID to anything that I don't
personally understand.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_, "Dr

Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@copland.rowan.edu> wrote:

>
>I had said that a major defect in Michael Behe's book is that he never
>gives any objective test for irreducible complexity.
>
>George Acton replied:
>> He defines ab "irreducible complex system" as one with no unnecessary
>> parts.
>
>Yes, but this is just one of those content-free answers that an author
>puts in a book when he can't justify what he's saying. The reason it is
>content-free is that it just appears to be an answer while pushing the
>problem back one level: how do we know if a system has any needless parts?
>

He takes one baby step from that position, but then stops cold. His
definition is that an IC system is a system such that no part can be
removed without loss of function. (I don't remember, but he may have
put a qualifier in from of "loss".) One problem is that we have three
term that have an arbitrary application. "System", "part", and
"function" are arbitrarily applied by people. Different people can
easily apply the terms in different ways.

[snip]

PZ Myers

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

In article <33a5c335...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
(Matt Silberstein) wrote:

> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,

OK, I can go with this. For instance, if Julie or Behe want to claim
there is a designer, there ought to be certain properties they could
define without committing to this designer being the god of the Roman
Catholics or an invisible pink unicorn or whatever. One thing I'd like
to know is whether they think this designer has been continually
tinkering, prodding each genus or family or whatever into existence,
or whether it was a one-time introduction of novelty a half-billion
years ago.

Richard Harter

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) wrote:

Perhaps "intervener" would be a better term than "designer". I like
the picture of life as a long-running real time computer program. The
programmers don't really understand how it all works anymore (if they
ever did) but they keep tinkering with it. They introduce genetic
novelties here and there from time to time. Said novelties are not
simple changes in the genome (point mutations, duplications, et
cetera) but rather packages of new genes to get new functionality.
They have to work within a lot of constraints that aren't fully
understood so they often fail miserably but sometimes they succeed
brilliantly.

Sex was one of their major screwups.

Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
If a thing is worth doing it is worth doing well.
If a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly.

Laurence Gene Battin

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

In article <33A0DC...@softdisk.com>,
George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:

> Moreover, he uses a different definition of i.c. in at
>least one other place. In the Boston Review, or an interview
>quoted there, he says that each factor of the clotting system
>is i.c in and of itself. This is like Euclid stating that
>every point on a line is also itself a line. Hello?

Hello.

Not Quite a Pedant Point:
In the Dover reprint of "The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual
Development" (I don't have it handy, so I ferget the author) I believe
you will find somewhere that considering every point (infintesimal) of a line
to be a line has been done. This is not, after all, so clearly erroneous
as it might seem. However, Euclid probably didn't think so, and your
idea is also probably not exactly what I'm talking about, either. I just
wanted to mention this as an aside. Nowadays, we got moocho bettero
definitions of line and point than these tied-to-immediate-sense-impression
definitions that every one intuitively uses, anyway.

[snip rest of post to make a further comment.]

My own personal take on why, even if you can elaborate i.c. to be somehow
falsifiable and useful toward new experiments, it doesn't really work, is that
it seems to assume without justification that i.c.-ness is backwardsly
inheritable in time, in this sense: Removing (or damaging) a "part" of a
"system-1" renders it un-"function-1"-al, but does not guarantee that the new
(or for uses of i.c. that attack evolution, old) "system-2" (which, by the way,
is now a completely different "thing") might have a perfectly acceptable new
(or old) "function-2", that just doesn't happen to be the same one as the
original "function-1" of the unchanged "system-1". Deep breath.
Evolution doesn't seem to me to require (always, at least) conservation of
functionality (in the i.c. sense) over time that Behe appears to be assuming,
but, what do I know? Exhales.

Goodbye.

--
----
Gene Live- Keep all precepts.
bat...@iucf.indiana.edu Learn- Practise all good Dharma.
lba...@indiana.edu Love- Save the many beings.

Larry Kurka

unread,

Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97

J.W. Tait <tai...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> wrote in article
<5npki8$n...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>...
>
<snip>

>
> If something
> renders a prevailing theory less plausible, then competing theories
become
> more plausible in relation to the prevailing theory (eg phlogiston).
>

I beg your pardon!

The famous von Daniken school of argument.

TJBroder@tezcat>nospamoreno

unread,

Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97

In article <5nuqvv$o...@news-central.tiac.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) wrote:

Sorry to intrude on the more scientific side of this, but it strikes me
this is still a lot like trying to find shapes in the clouds. We're
talking about applying human motivations and meanings to something that
hasn't yet been proven to be the work of a "designer." One might as well
try and read the entrails of a sacrificial goat to predict the future.

Of course, I certainly have no objection if someone wants to investigate
the possible existence of a designer, much the same way police might
investigate a crime scene to find information about the perpetrator. But
before we go running off and saying "what if," we need to realize that
even this example is flawed. For one thing, when police walk into a crime
scene, they go there with the prior knowledge that usually when someone
has been killed, say with a knife, another person did the deed. In other
words, we again have prior knowledge of a creator. They've seen scenes
like this before, some have even witnessed it.

I'm probably going to display my science ignorance here, but if Julie and
Behe don't want to accept the (quite plausible IMHO) current natural
explanations for their "IC" systems, one recent discovery, the knowledge
that Earth is being continually bombarded by ice balls that have added to
the water content of the planet, brings up some very interesting "what if"
threads. But even there, we're able to remove an INTENTIONAL designer from
the equation, while adding information to the mix.

I don't mean to say that I personally believe this, but I here I've just
suggested a possible pathway to explain "IC" systems that is just as
plausible as introducing a designer. Actually, more so, since we have
proof that these ice balls are hitting the earth. (Is this enough for an
honorary degree from the University of Ediacara?)

>
>
> Perhaps "intervener" would be a better term than "designer". I like
> the picture of life as a long-running real time computer program. The
> programmers don't really understand how it all works anymore (if they
> ever did) but they keep tinkering with it. They introduce genetic
> novelties here and there from time to time. Said novelties are not
> simple changes in the genome (point mutations, duplications, et
> cetera) but rather packages of new genes to get new functionality.
> They have to work within a lot of constraints that aren't fully
> understood so they often fail miserably but sometimes they succeed
> brilliantly.
>
> Sex was one of their major screwups.

You SEE what happens when people start messing around with "designers" and
"interveners!"

--
Regards, Tim
TJBr...@tezcat.com

\ /\
><DARWIN//>
/ /\ /\

Julie Thomas

unread,

Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97

Matt said:

> Similarly, with this IC "problem" Behe, et. al. propose an Intelligent
> Designer. Without any description of what this designer does, it is
> just a Snerble. I don't require detailed information about the ID, I
> don't care, at this point, whether it is aliens or the Great Sky God
> or whatever. But I do want to know what is the set of actions this ID
> has done to achieve the proposed effects. As it stands, this is a
> completely ad hoc explanation. I can apply ID to anything that I don't
> personally understand.

In my opinion, Matt is being far too impatient. Attempts to answer his
questions about the designer, at this stage, would be nothing more that
philosophical musings. To answer what the designer does we must first
determine what indeed was designed. Behe's IC thesis will go a long
way in solving this problem (IMHO). Once we begin to determine what
has been designed, we can begin to look for patterns. Does the ID
design features only? Whole organisms? Both? And where?
When did design take place? Was the design beyond our comprehension
(analogous to the singularity of the Big Bang) or did it involve guided
evolution? Matt's questions can be answered in this way. And such
explanations would be analogous to explanations that purport to describe
common ancestors (none of which can be detected).

Paul added:

>OK, I can go with this. For instance, if Julie or Behe want to claim
>there is a designer, there ought to be certain properties they could
>define without committing to this designer being the god of the Roman
>Catholics or an invisible pink unicorn or whatever. One thing I'd like
>to know is whether they think this designer has been continually
>tinkering, prodding each genus or family or whatever into existence,
>or whether it was a one-time introduction of novelty a half-billion
>years ago.

Paul is right. These would be legit questions because we can use
science to answer them. My answer to Paul is simply that I do
not know for the data is not in. Investigations guided by IC
should uncover the answers to these questions. For example, if
IC systems score only at the base of the tree of life, the one-time
intervention is likely. But the preliminary data indicate a
tinkerer. This is because IC systems are found in procaryotes that
are not found in eucaryotes and visa versa. Thus, I do at this point
(and because of the data) suspect the ID at work in the origin of
life itself and the origin of at least two of the kingdoms.
This conclusion can be strengthened by consideration of more IC
candidates that are lineage-specific.

Look, as i said before, you guys go your way, I'll go my way.
Does that bother you?

Julie Thomas

unread,

Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97

My, my. I seem to have generated quite a flurry of responses with
my critiques of Behe's critics. Yet with all that has been said,
I note no one has offered a darwinian explanation for the systems
I have recently proposed (DNA replication and the microtubule
organizing center) nor has anyone (that I can tell) showed where
my critiques of Coyne, Orr, and Pomiankowski are seriously flawed.
Thus, as far as I can tell, a serious and truly damaging critique
of Behe's book has yet to be written.

Anyway, as I said a month or so ago, I simply don't have the time
to respond to all the various points and questions that a dozen or
so people have brought up. So I have no choice but to pick and
choose. In fact, I think I'll end my contributions to this thread by
responding to Matt Silberstein, who wrote a eye-catching reply to some
of my points.

Paul Myers claimed there was no evidence of design. This is an awfully
strong statement in my opinion. So I said:

>Well, from my perspective, there is very good evidence that several
>biological processes/structures were designed. Thus, that's
>evidence of some kind of designer. :)

>Could you explain what that evidence is?

I already have (DNA recomibination, DNA replication, MTOCs). I've also
just posted another example - the bacterial flagellum.

>Is it just that it could not have occurred by evolution?

First of all, I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about
Darwinism.

But even if you could come up with a possible Darwinian explanation, I
wouldn't be convinced (unless the explanation was very rigorous and
supported by experimental evidence). Y'see, these systems have the
attributes of a designed system. We're back to Paley's watch.

But I will add that the failure of a Darwinian explanation does indeed
serve to reinforce one's convictions about design.

>And given that you postulate a designer, can you tell me something
>about this designer?

You mean step beyond the data?

>For instance, is it a being? Is it subject to physical laws? Do you agree
>with Behe that this designer(s) shares the human qualify of
>intelligence? Please be as specific as you can, or at least point me to
>where and how I can answer these questions.

At this point, it does look like the designers(s) share the quality of
intelligence. That's why we, as intelligent beings, can recognize them as
something that has been designed. But I won't go much further than
this. First things first. Once we better describe the designed elements
of natural world, a pattern might develop that might give us clues about
the designer(s).

In a reply to Paul, I said:

>Wow. Maybe Kuhn was right about how paradigms shape the way we
>see the data. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that
>I could list example after example after example after example
>after example after example after example (etc.) of elegant
>biological systems that defy a Darwinian explanation (to date)
>and you would reply, "So what?" So what? Y'know, maybe Darwinism
>is a bogus explanation when it comes to these systems. May that's
>the basis of the enigma. After all, they are not an enigma from
>my perspective.

Matt replied:

>It all depends. Can you give us a way of identifying this class of
>systems?

As Behe notes:

"A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of
the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

You may complain that the definition is too fuzzy, but hey, it works.
It has successfully identified DNA replication and the bacterial
flagellum, for example. And it is certainly no more fuzzy than a
definition used to identify a "common ancestor."

>Can you show that there is some other way of building them?

Can you describe another way of building a watch other than design?

>If so, you may have a point. If all you can say about these "elegant"
>systems is that we don't know how they came about, I am not too
>impressed. At that point it would sound like "design" is just a
>synonym for "I don't know".

You confuse the questions "How was it designed?" with "Was it
designed?" You don't need to know how things were designed before
you can infer things were designed. Otherwise, we would, in principle,
only be able to detect extraterrestial intelligence by direct contact.
And I wouldn't agree with it. We could detect ETI be receiving a message
without knowing how it was sent.

>>If all you have is "I don't know" after "I don't know" in
>>response to literally hundreds of examples uncovered by biochemists,
>>then it seems from where I sit that it's primarily *faith* that
>>allows you think such systems developed according to Darwinian
>>principles.

>No. If we hundred and hundreds of "systems" where we can explain,
>then it is not faith. But applying a meaningless character string and
>saying by naming something you have explained it is just giving up.

But Darwinism doesn't explain hundreds and hundreds of systems. As
Behe showed in his book, almost all of these systems are unexplainable
in terms of Darwinism.

Paul said:

>>At best, right now we have a reasonable hypothesis, that the MTOC
>>evolved from simpler structures with less complex and less tightly
>>integrated functions,with a reasonable research program

I replied:

>And what are the observations that lead you to make this hypothesis?
>Y'see, from what we know about the yeast MTOC, it's not clear that
>things could get that much simpler. It's already the simplest one that
>has been described, yet even it is incredibly and irreducible complex.
>All the players I listed in my previous posting are needed.

Matt replied:

>In identifying these systems as IC how were you able to determine the
>*the* function of the system was?

Are you suggesting it is hard to determine the function of DNA
replication machinery or the bacterial flagellum?

>I mean, I assume that the action of the system led to multiple outputs
>along the way. How did you know that the one output you were looking
>at was the one and only function?

Are you suggesting that DNA replication also acts to hydrolyze glucose
and the bacterial flagellum also packages DNA? Your point is nothing
but a minor caveat. If evidence does come in showing dual functions
for a system, the IC hypothesis can be modified or rejected. Also,
don't forget that IC can exist a different levels.

>>Look at it this way. Mutagenesis results have uncovered several
>>genes whose products are essential to disjunction. They all
>>contribute essential elements so that loss of one results in
>>failed mitosis. That, in my opinion, is not the mutagenic
>>pattern we would expect to see if Darwinism was correct.
>>If Darwinism was the valid explanation, we would expect mutagenesis
>>results to peel away the factors that increase efficiency until
>>we get to a very simple core that allows for sloppy mitosis. That is,
>>if we started with something very simple and sloppy, and simply
>>added to it in a manner that increased its efficiency/fidelity, these
>>"luxury" factors should predominate.

>But we don't just simply add. We add, change, and remove.

Sure. But the change and loss hypothesis is undetectable. At least the
addition hypothesis is detectable. Thus, *where* Darwinism can be
detected and validated it fails.

>Evolution does not claim that removing a part should lead to a simpler
>but still functioning system.

But if you did find this, I suspect you would be citing this as evidence of
a Darwinian transformation! It makes for quite an interesting contrast.
My views of IC can be either supported or damaged by experimental
mutagenesis. Your views of Darwinism can only be supported.

>It just says that, previous to the most recent change, the system was
>able to survive in its environment.

Then it says nothing of scientific utility. Of course the system was able
to survive! Otherwise, it couldn't have changed. So you admit that this
Darwinian notion means nothing more than something existed?

>>Thus, in my opinion, IC and Darwinism predict different mutagenesis
>>results. IC predicts a more holistic pattern, where several
>>independent factors contribute to the process as a whole.

>Now, all of a sudden, IC is a predictive mechanism? How so? I thought
>IC was just a class of systems. How are you using it to make
>predictions?

As I explained, when it comes to the pattern of mutagenesis results, IC
predicts multiple, noncomplementing severe loss-of-function mutations.
The notion of Darwinian addition predicts a gradient of partial loss-of-
function mutations. Darwinian additions that also incorporate change,
loss, etc. are undetectable by mutagenesis studies and thus remain in
the imaginary realm.

>>Darwinism predicts the stucture was gradually improved by adding
>>things sequentially in time.

>No he did not. And you certainly know better. I mean you biology and
>biochem is far better than mine, you should know right off this is
>wrong. Evolution uses addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
>change. IC only deals with addition.

You're right. I admit I was thinking in terms of what could be
experimentally detected. I realize that evidence of this type of
Darwinian transformation is essentially undetectable by experiment.

Paul said:

>>At least that is a feasible approach to the problem -- but hey, maybe
>>it will prove totally fruitless and _then_ we'll have to more seriously
>>consider some other possibilities!

So I added:

>>Fine. But my lifespan doesn't afford me the luxury of waiting. :)

Matt said:

>So you would do what? Give up and declare that our knowledge is
>complete? Do you just object that others after you will know more?

Nope. But I have no need to place faith in future discoveries that will
support one explanation when I can presently employ an alterative to
explore the same world.

Paul said:

>>But he has! Pursuing the hypothesis that it evolved by natural means
>>is a better explanation.

So I replied:

>That depends entirely on one's metaphysics. The "natural explanation
>at all costs" is not something I agree with. I'm more interested
>in the explanation that most likely reflects truth.

Matt replies:

>If you wish to reject naturalism, as you seem to do, then you should
>deal with that issue separately. But I have one question, would you
>reject it only for this small area of biology? All of biology? Or all
>of science?

I reject any metaphysics that proclaims the data *must* "be this way."
That's a potential blinder. Other than saying this, I have no interest
in debating metaphysics. I'm far to focused on determining when and
where design exists. Remember, Darwin didn't have to convince the world
before setting down his ideas. He only had to convince himself.

wf...@enter.netxx

unread,

Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97

On 15 Jun 1997 21:50:27 -0400, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
Thomas) wrote:

>
>
>Thus, as far as I can tell, a serious and truly damaging critique
>of Behe's book has yet to be written.

i think thats because in the few reviews written, scientists dont take
it seriously. Scientific American carried a short review several
months ago pointing out that, for behe, complexity seems to be related
to the unknown...where science has no answers he comes up with
complexity...

the ultimate problem with his thesis, and with design in general is
that it is unneeded. biology has done a pretty good job of explaining
the diversity of life w/o invoking a deux ex machina. and this is true
of science in general. thats why ID is a leap in the dark...it is, at
its root, unscientific.

delete the xx from my email address to reply

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,

"TJBroder@tezcat>nospamoreno" <.c...@news3.ais.net (Tim Broderick)>
wrote:

[snip]

>
>Sorry to intrude on the more scientific side of this, but it strikes me
>this is still a lot like trying to find shapes in the clouds. We're
>talking about applying human motivations and meanings to something that
>hasn't yet been proven to be the work of a "designer." One might as well
>try and read the entrails of a sacrificial goat to predict the future.

Yes and no. Until the design people give some kind of description of
what they are talking about, we have not even gotten that far. Once
they do, we may just be looking at clouds, we may have a wonderful new
insight. My money is on Aristophones.

PZ Myers

unread,

Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97

In article <5o258r$j...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Julie Thomas) wrote:

[deletions]

>
> Look, as i said before, you guys go your way, I'll go my way.
> Does that bother you?

Of course it does. Unlike most of the anti-evolutionist crowd on this
newsgroup, you actually express novel ideas in a literate fashion, and
take the time to look up real data from the biological literature. It's
a shame to see a mind like that wasted on a vaguely defined dead-end like
design theory.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,

iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:

>
>In my opinion, Matt is being far too impatient. Attempts to answer his
>questions about the designer, at this stage, would be nothing more that
>philosophical musings. To answer what the designer does we must first
>determine what indeed was designed.

I disagree, it is you who is jumping ahead. You have decided, on the
basis that some systems are hard to evolve, that there is an active
being with some human qualities that somehow did the work. If instead
of using (deliberately) loaded terms like "Intelligent Designer", you
have Behe proposed that there was some other force which influenced
these systems, then you would still be doing science.

>Behe's IC thesis will go a long
>way in solving this problem (IMHO). Once we begin to determine what
>has been designed, we can begin to look for patterns. Does the ID
>design features only? Whole organisms? Both? And where?
>When did design take place? Was the design beyond our comprehension
>(analogous to the singularity of the Big Bang) or did it involve guided
>evolution? Matt's questions can be answered in this way. And such
>explanations would be analogous to explanations that purport to describe
>common ancestors (none of which can be detected).

Shouldn't you gather this information first, then start to propose the
solution? Instead you have categorized the answer as a being with
human qualities, then you stop. Obviously the next step is to say that
this ID is "GOD", but then you would be clearly abandoning science.

>
>Paul added:
>
>>OK, I can go with this. For instance, if Julie or Behe want to claim
>>there is a designer, there ought to be certain properties they could
>>define without committing to this designer being the god of the Roman
>>Catholics or an invisible pink unicorn or whatever. One thing I'd like
>>to know is whether they think this designer has been continually
>>tinkering, prodding each genus or family or whatever into existence,
>>or whether it was a one-time introduction of novelty a half-billion
>>years ago.
>
>Paul is right. These would be legit questions because we can use
>science to answer them. My answer to Paul is simply that I do
>not know for the data is not in. Investigations guided by IC
>should uncover the answers to these questions. For example, if
>IC systems score only at the base of the tree of life, the one-time
>intervention is likely. But the preliminary data indicate a
>tinkerer. This is because IC systems are found in procaryotes that
>are not found in eucaryotes and visa versa. Thus, I do at this point
>(and because of the data) suspect the ID at work in the origin of
>life itself and the origin of at least two of the kingdoms.
>This conclusion can be strengthened by consideration of more IC
>candidates that are lineage-specific.
>

Why are the actions of this ID limited only to IC systems? Couldn't it
also have tinkered with other systems that could have evolved?
Couldn't it have guided all evolution and be the real source behind
mutations?

>Look, as i said before, you guys go your way, I'll go my way.
>Does that bother you?
>

What bothers me is that you abandoning science while trying to
maintain the trappings. You have jumped in with an answer that is a
baby step away from saying that God did it without having any evidence
to support your position. If you can actually propose experiments
that's great, but I don't see why you would bother. You already know
the answer.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Orr Tries to Critique Behe_,
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:

[snip]

>In fact, I think I'll end my contributions to this thread by
>responding to Matt Silberstein, who wrote a eye-catching reply to some
>of my points.
>

Thank you, I think.

>Paul Myers claimed there was no evidence of design. This is an awfully
>strong statement in my opinion. So I said:
>
>>Well, from my perspective, there is very good evidence that several
>>biological processes/structures were designed. Thus, that's
>>evidence of some kind of designer. :)
>
>>Could you explain what that evidence is?
>
>I already have (DNA recomibination, DNA replication, MTOCs). I've also
>just posted another example - the bacterial flagellum.
>
>>Is it just that it could not have occurred by evolution?
>
>First of all, I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about
>Darwinism.

If, by Darwinism, you mean an older version of our current theories,
why this limitation? I would think that you would want to examine the
best current thought.

>But even if you could come up with a possible Darwinian explanation, I
>wouldn't be convinced (unless the explanation was very rigorous and
>supported by experimental evidence). Y'see, these systems have the
>attributes of a designed system. We're back to Paley's watch.

How do they have the attributes of a designed system? That is the key
question. My only experience with designed systems are those designed
by people. Such systems are much simpler than biological systems, the
parts tend to have a single function, they are build, not grown. All
in all, I don't see the connection.

>But I will add that the failure of a Darwinian explanation does indeed
>serve to reinforce one's convictions about design.

>>And given that you postulate a designer, can you tell me something
>>about this designer?
>
>You mean step beyond the data?

No, I mean describe this thing you propose. Without some kind of
description all I have is a character string. You are proposing some
kind of answer, I want to know what that answer is.

>>For instance, is it a being? Is it subject to physical laws? Do you agree
>>with Behe that this designer(s) shares the human qualify of
>>intelligence? Please be as specific as you can, or at least point me to
>>where and how I can answer these questions.
>
>At this point, it does look like the designers(s) share the quality of
>intelligence. That's why we, as intelligent beings, can recognize them as
>something that has been designed.

This is interesting since people cannot even agree on what
intelligence means wrt people. Now you want to apply the term to some
unknown being.

>But I won't go much further than
>this. First things first. Once we better describe the designed elements
>of natural world, a pattern might develop that might give us clues about
>the designer(s).
>

Better yet, don't even bother to propose a solution. Identify the
potential problem, gather more evidence. And when you have enough to
support a solution, then propose it.

>In a reply to Paul, I said:
>
>
>>Wow. Maybe Kuhn was right about how paradigms shape the way we
>>see the data. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that
>>I could list example after example after example after example
>>after example after example after example (etc.) of elegant
>>biological systems that defy a Darwinian explanation (to date)
>>and you would reply, "So what?" So what? Y'know, maybe Darwinism
>>is a bogus explanation when it comes to these systems. May that's
>>the basis of the enigma. After all, they are not an enigma from
>>my perspective.
>
>Matt replied:
>
>>It all depends. Can you give us a way of identifying this class of
>>systems?
>
>As Behe notes:
>
>"A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
>that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of
>the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
>
>You may complain that the definition is too fuzzy, but hey, it works.
>It has successfully identified DNA replication and the bacterial
>flagellum, for example. And it is certainly no more fuzzy than a
>definition used to identify a "common ancestor."

No it has not. You have arbitrarily decided what was the system, you
have arbitrarily determined what was a part, and you have arbitrarily
decided what the function. A different identification of any of these
and we no longer have an IC system.

>>Can you show that there is some other way of building them?
>
>Can you describe another way of building a watch other than design?
>
>>If so, you may have a point. If all you can say about these "elegant"
>>systems is that we don't know how they came about, I am not too
>>impressed. At that point it would sound like "design" is just a
>>synonym for "I don't know".
>
>You confuse the questions "How was it designed?" with "Was it
>designed?" You don't need to know how things were designed before
>you can infer things were designed.

For human designed systems I can usually tell they were "designed"
because I am familiar with human design. I have seen the process and
so can identify the products. And even so, I frequently makes
mistakes. I misidentify design all of the time.

>Otherwise, we would, in principle,
>only be able to detect extraterrestial intelligence by direct contact.
>And I wouldn't agree with it. We could detect ETI be receiving a message
>without knowing how it was sent.
>

This ignore the quite significant problem in identifying an ETI
signal. It assumes that we could, in all or most cases, identify the
signal. Since we have never actually done this, it does not really
support your position. How do you know that we have not missed
thousands of ETI signals already?

>>>If all you have is "I don't know" after "I don't know" in
>>>response to literally hundreds of examples uncovered by biochemists,
>>>then it seems from where I sit that it's primarily *faith* that
>>>allows you think such systems developed according to Darwinian
>>>principles.
>
>>No. If we hundred and hundreds of "systems" where we can explain,
>>then it is not faith. But applying a meaningless character string and
>>saying by naming something you have explained it is just giving up.
>
>But Darwinism doesn't explain hundreds and hundreds of systems. As
>Behe showed in his book, almost all of these systems are unexplainable
>in terms of Darwinism.
>

Huh? Are you saying now that we don't have any systems with valid
evolutionary explanations? I thought the problem was only with this
small subset he calls IC.

>Paul said:
>
>>>At best, right now we have a reasonable hypothesis, that the MTOC
>>>evolved from simpler structures with less complex and less tightly
>>>integrated functions,with a reasonable research program
>
>I replied:
>
>>And what are the observations that lead you to make this hypothesis?
>>Y'see, from what we know about the yeast MTOC, it's not clear that
>>things could get that much simpler. It's already the simplest one that
>>has been described, yet even it is incredibly and irreducible complex.
>>All the players I listed in my previous posting are needed.
>
>Matt replied:
>
>>In identifying these systems as IC how were you able to determine the
>>*the* function of the system was?
>
>Are you suggesting it is hard to determine the function of DNA
>replication machinery or the bacterial flagellum?

Yes. I am saying that function is an arbitrary classification. Stuff
does lots of things. In particular, biological stuff does lots of
things at once. Identification of one of those things as *the* basic
function is just a human imposed distinction.

[snip]

>
>>But we don't just simply add. We add, change, and remove.
>
>Sure. But the change and loss hypothesis is undetectable. At least the
>addition hypothesis is detectable. Thus, *where* Darwinism can be
>detected and validated it fails.

But we do know that change and removal are existent processes.
Ignoring them because you can't find the historical evidence is
deliberate blindness.

>>Evolution does not claim that removing a part should lead to a simpler
>>but still functioning system.
>
>But if you did find this, I suspect you would be citing this as evidence of
>a Darwinian transformation! It makes for quite an interesting contrast.
>My views of IC can be either supported or damaged by experimental
>mutagenesis. Your views of Darwinism can only be supported.
>
>>It just says that, previous to the most recent change, the system was
>>able to survive in its environment.
>
>Then it says nothing of scientific utility. Of course the system was able
>to survive! Otherwise, it couldn't have changed. So you admit that this
>Darwinian notion means nothing more than something existed?

No I don't.

[snip]

>>>Darwinism predicts the stucture was gradually improved by adding
>>>things sequentially in time.
>
>>No he did not. And you certainly know better. I mean you biology and
>>biochem is far better than mine, you should know right off this is
>>wrong. Evolution uses addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
>>change. IC only deals with addition.
>
>You're right. I admit I was thinking in terms of what could be
>experimentally detected. I realize that evidence of this type of
>Darwinian transformation is essentially undetectable by experiment.
>

I was going to snip the above exchange, but how can I cut out a piece
where someone says I am right?

[snip]

Christopher C. Wood

unread,

Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97

In article <5o266q$n...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:

|> My, my. I seem to have generated quite a flurry of responses with
|> my critiques of Behe's critics. Yet with all that has been said,
|> I note no one has offered a darwinian explanation for the systems
|> I have recently proposed (DNA replication and the microtubule
|> organizing center)

Porting the goal posts again? As others have pointed out, you seem to
shift between claims that some feature indicates design, couldn't have
evolved via natural mechanisms, is difficult to imagine how it could
have evolved via natural mechanisms, to complaining that the detailed
evolutionary history of some mechanism is lacking.

|> nor has anyone (that I can tell) showed where my critiques of
|> Coyne, Orr, and Pomiankowski are seriously flawed.

I didn't think your critique of Orr's critique had any merit. You
miss Orr's point.

|> Thus, as far as I can tell, a serious and truly damaging critique
|> of Behe's book has yet to be written.

I disagree.

[ snip; Julie proposes DNA recomibination (sic), DNA replication,
MTOCs, and the flagellum of the bacterium as evidence for design ]

[ possibly Paul Myers inquiring ]

|> >Is it just that it could not have occurred by evolution?

|> First of all, I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about
|> Darwinism.

|> But even if you could come up with a possible Darwinian
|> explanation, I wouldn't be convinced (unless the explanation was
|> very rigorous and supported by experimental evidence).

Zoom. Watch those goalposts move.

Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com.youKnowWhatToDo ca...@CFAnet.com.HereToo

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97

In article <5o258r$j...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,

Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>In my opinion, Matt is being far too impatient. Attempts to answer his
>questions about the designer, at this stage, would be nothing more that
>philosophical musings.

I disagree. Many questions about the designer (which commonly goes by the
name "theory of evolution") have already been answered.

>To answer what the designer does we must first

>determine what indeed was designed. Behe's IC thesis will go a long

>way in solving this problem (IMHO).

How so? Behe himself can't reliably tell whether or not something is
irreducibly complex, and the IC we do find can be explained at least as
well by evolution as by design.
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden

Julie Thomas

unread,

Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97

In a previous article, my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) says:

>In article <5o258r$j...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
>[deletions]
>
>>

>> Look, as i said before, you guys go your way, I'll go my way.
>> Does that bother you?
>

>Of course it does. Unlike most of the anti-evolutionist crowd on this
>newsgroup, you actually express novel ideas in a literate fashion, and
>take the time to look up real data from the biological literature.

Just because one is skeptical of various aspects of neo-darwinism does
not mean they are "anti-evolution." But I suppose I should shut up
and take this as a compliment.

>It's a shame to see a mind like that wasted on a vaguely defined dead-end like
>design theory.

Well, when it comes to these systems, it's a shame to see a mind like
yours wasted on a vaguely defined dead-end like neo-darwinism. ;)

Seriously though. Any hypothesis will remain vaguely defined unless folks
begin refining the definitions. The way to ensure the hypothesis remains
vaguely defined is to abandon it from the start because it is vaguely
defined.

Furthermore, the only way to tell if it is a dead-end is to walk the road.
If a priori notions tell you it is a "dead-end," well, that's not a very
scientific approach, now is it?

gac...@softdisk.com

unread,

Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97

In article <5o258r$j...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
>

> Matt said:
>
> > Similarly, with this IC "problem" Behe, et. al. propose an Intelligent
> > Designer. Without any description of what this designer does, it is
> > just a Snerble. I don't require detailed information about the ID, I
> > don't care, at this point, whether it is aliens or the Great Sky God
> > or whatever. But I do want to know what is the set of actions this ID
> > has done to achieve the proposed effects. As it stands, this is a
> > completely ad hoc explanation. I can apply ID to anything that I don't
> > personally understand.
>

> In my opinion, Matt is being far too impatient. Attempts to answer his
> questions about the designer, at this stage, would be nothing more that
> philosophical musings.

Speaking of philosophy, isn't there a big epistomologic problem with
determining when the "design" occurred? If it's like the analogy of the
watch and the mousetrap, the blueprints could have around for millinea
of years before someone actually constructed them. Shouldn't there be a
philosophical distinction between "design" and physical realization --
commonly described as "assembly" or "fabrication" or more respecfully
"creation"?
The coyness about using the obvious word suggests some sort of agenda.

> To answer what the designer does we must first
> determine what indeed was designed. Behe's IC thesis will go a long
> way in solving this problem (IMHO).

> Once we begin to determine what

> has been designed, we can begin to look for patterns. Does the ID
> design features only? Whole organisms? Both? And where?
> When did design take place? Was the design beyond our comprehension
> (analogous to the singularity of the Big Bang) or did it involve guided
> evolution? Matt's questions can be answered in this way.

It appears we can deduce some things from the theory as presented. For
instance,. you've claimed that position 59 in a certain histone is
occupied by a certain animo acid, contrary to natural processes.
Obviously this implies an entity who not only cares about this, but
watches and intervenes in every DNA replication event to ensure that a
neutral mutation doesn't occur. Since this appears to be beyond the
ability of an extraterrestrial species, it forces us to a theistic
conclusion, at least. It also requires the ongoing intervention of
the entity. The obvious question is why the entity allows most of the
genome to evolve by natural neo-Darwinian processes but insists on
frustrating it at this particular position of one protein.

> And such
> explanations would be analogous to explanations that purport to describe
> common ancestors (none of which can be detected).

The explanations of common ancestors have the unfair advantage of
mouutains of sequence data, for starters. So far, there's not a
single "system" that is conventionally accepted as designed, so
there's a notable lack of substrate for theorizing.

> Paul added:
>
> >OK, I can go with this. For instance, if Julie or Behe want to claim
> >there is a designer, there ought to be certain properties they could
> >define without committing to this designer being the god of the Roman
> >Catholics or an invisible pink unicorn or whatever. One thing I'd like
> >to know is whether they think this designer has been continually
> >tinkering, prodding each genus or family or whatever into existence,
> >or whether it was a one-time introduction of novelty a half-billion
> >years ago.
>
> Paul is right. These would be legit questions because we can use
> science to answer them. My answer to Paul is simply that I do
> not know for the data is not in.

The data isn't in on the comparative DNA and reconstitutive analysis
of multi-component systems such as the flagellum. Where twe have a fairly
extensive data on simpler systems like coagulation, there is no evidence
for design. You're rejecting the data that's in and pinning your
hopes on data that may never come in.

> Investigations guided by IC
> should uncover the answers to these questions.

There are no investigations guided by IC, which is why it's a dead-end
theory. The only experiments it suggests are knockout preparations,
and these have been carried out for years without theistic inspiration.
"Design theory" is as intellectually sterile as last-Thursdayism.

> For example, if
> IC systems score only at the base of the tree of life, the one-time

> intervention is likely.

If there is a tree of life. According to Behe, common descent is merely
a "working hypothesis". I know you refuse to Behe's book, but you
appear to speak for him, apparently based on what you've read in the
reviews you've attacked. It seemes a very indirect, somewhat hermeneutic
apprach to scientific fact to write negative critiques of negative
critiques of a negative critique you won't read which is is a negative
critique of conventional science.

> But the preliminary data indicate a
> tinkerer. This is because IC systems are found in procaryotes that
> are not found in eucaryotes and visa versa. Thus, I do at this point
> (and because of the data) suspect the ID at work in the origin of
> life itself and the origin of at least two of the kingdoms.
> This conclusion can be strengthened by consideration of more IC
> candidates that are lineage-specific.

If they turn out to be evolved. Otherwise these theories (which you
faulted Matt for asking for) are like writing down Feynmann diagrams
for New Age crystal effects or telekinesis.
In passing, you're using IC here in the sense of "can't have
evolved" which is improper. It's Behe's term and he says it means
"no redundant parts". It's an open question if this confusion is
intended by Behe. Newton and Schroedinger aren't known for inventing
misleading terms of art.

> Look, as i said before, you guys go your way, I'll go my way.
> Does that bother you?

Not at all. Design theory is like cold fusion. It's not accepted science,
but it would be interesting if true. Even if it's boring, if that's the
way things are, reasonable people want to know about it. However, it
isn't appropriate material for introductory science classes, including
those in the public schools.
--George Acton

0 new messages