Behe's IC

[RonO]

In discussing IC it was discovered that the definition had changed over
time, and that the IDiots were not keeping TO up to date on the muddled
definitions.

It likely doesn't matter because Behe has just tried to make IC
untestable, while claiming that it could be testable. In his responses
to his critics at the turn of the century it turned out that irreducible
wasn't the special aspect of Behe's IC systems, and that there were IC
systems that were not Behe's type. Most IC biological systems seemed to
be not Behe's type, and the flagellum is still the only bacterial IC
system that Behe claims is his type of IC in bacteria. This seems to
confuse the issue because IC systems should be IC except that most are
not Behe's type of IC.

I found this page that reviews the IC fiasco and even claims to have
made Behe's original definition better. The bottom line is that Behe's
type of IC has never been demonstated to exist in nature at this time,
and it has devolved into the scientific creationist claim that the
flagellum is a designed machine, and hasn't progressed past that point.
What do unselected steps have to do with making something irreducibly
complex? Behe acknowledges that unselected steps contribute to
biological evolution all the time. He even takes the time to point out
when unselected steps are discovered even though he claims that those
systems are not his type of IC. The claim seems to be that Behe will
know if a system is his type of IC when he sees the order in which the
steps occurred (evolved) and their arrangement in the evolutionary scheme.

It should be noted that there are already a substantial number (the vast
majority) of evolutionary biologists that understand that genetic drift
(unselected steps) is important in biological evolution and there is
even a faction that claims that it could be the most important aspect of
biological evolution in terms of creating the species that currently
exist. Yes, more important than selection. I don't know about
importance, but more evolution (change in allele frequency) may be due
to drift than selection. Think about Kimura's neutral theory. I don't
know how important the neutral or near neutral variants are to
biological evolution in terms of what makes the current species what
they are, but there are a lot of neutral and near neutral variants that
make up the different species.

A creationist's take on IC:
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/ic-cr.htm

This link comes from a Christian science link.

https://network.asa3.org/default.aspx

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

It's interesting that Craig Rusbult et al modified Behe's original
definition of IC over the years. But he doesn't show if Behe agrees
with them. ISTM that unless Behe has publicly accepted them, it's
unreasonable to describe them as "Behe's type of IC".

Similarly, Rusbult criticizes Ken Miller's criticisms of IC because
they don't apply to the new definitions. However, my understanding is
Miller specifically addressed Behe's definition of IC. If Behe hasn't
accepted these changes, it's not surprising that Miller hasn't
adjusted his criticisms to them.

More to the point, my impression is Rusbult has conveniently forgotten
the reason why Behe invented IC in the first place, as an alleged
disproof of naturalistic evolution. IMO the important thing is not to
show that IC by any definition does or does not exist, but instead to
show that, if that kind of IC does exist, it could not have evolved by
unguided natural processes, or alternately, that it must have involved
a purposeful intelligent agent.

But Rusbult explicitly acknowledges these new definitions of IC
recognize the evolutionary possibilities of Behe's so-called indirect
methods, where the parts change function over time, and where
unnecessary parts are lost over time. By so doing, these new
definitions widen the definition of IC, but also lose their ability to
identify what could not evolve, or what must have involved an
intelligent agent, and by so doing, render IC moot.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[RonO]

Behe made the claims about unselected mutations, and in his responses to
his critics in 2000 he claimed that well matched, and the order and
arrangement of mutations would make the system his type of IC.

>
> More to the point, my impression is Rusbult has conveniently forgotten
> the reason why Behe invented IC in the first place, as an alleged
> disproof of naturalistic evolution. IMO the important thing is not to
> show that IC by any definition does or does not exist, but instead to
> show that, if that kind of IC does exist, it could not have evolved by
> unguided natural processes, or alternately, that it must have involved
> a purposeful intelligent agent.

Behe doesn't like to admit it, but his changes have been trying to
maintain the IC stupidity, while keeping IC something that could not
have evolved by natural mechanisms. The stupid "scientific test" for IC
that both Minnich and Behe put up in their Dover testimony was to start
with a bacteria with out a flagellum and get it to evolve a flagellum.
If a flagellum could have been evolved then Behe would be wrong and IC
will have failed. Both Minnich and Behe admitted that they had never
attempted the only scientific test that they proposed, so it was obvious
that neither cared about IC being testable.

>
> But Rusbult explicitly acknowledges these new definitions of IC
> recognize the evolutionary possibilities of Behe's so-called indirect
> methods, where the parts change function over time, and where
> unnecessary parts are lost over time. By so doing, these new
> definitions widen the definition of IC, but also lose their ability to
> identify what could not evolve, or what must have involved an
> intelligent agent, and by so doing, render IC moot.
>

Behe as always admitted that biological evolution is a fact of nature.
He has admitted that his designer might be dead because he doesn't see
any evidence for designer activity in the last couple of hundred million
years of biological evolution. His last IC system evolved in
vertebrates over 400 million years ago (the adaptive immune system).
His flagellum evolved in bacteria both Archea and Eubacteria over a
billion years ago. That is the major reason why Behe can't tell anyone
if the flagellum is his type of IC. It evolved so long ago that much of
the molecular history has been destroyed by multiple mutations a pretty
much ever site in the proteins that can change.

Behe relies on biological evolution to help him demonstrate the order
and arrangement of the mutations that will make a system his type of IC.
He thinks that there are orders and arrangements of mutations that
would need to be done by his designer. His crowing about finding two
unselected steps in the evolution of systems demonstrates how he thinks
that he will be vindicated. He admits that two are not enough, but he
claims that this is the edge of IDiocy, and that biological evolution
should not be able to go beyond that. Just like any other science
researchers have just determined what happened and it isn't what Behe
needs. Labs like Thornton's lab can use a top down analysis to work
backwards and determine the order of mutations in the evolution of the
proteins that they are working with. Behe accepts their work and likely
hopes that such work will vindicate him, but so far it hasn't. He
hasn't initiated such research for any of his systems. It is just more
science that he doesn't want to do because he doesn't want to know the
answer based on what has already been found.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

According your your cite, Dembski added the requirement that removing
a part would not change the *original* function of the IC system. My
impression is he added this to moot by definition Miller's analogy of
using parts of a mousetrap as a tie-clip. When and/or where did Behe
publicly agree to this change in definition?

And well-matched has always been part of Behe's definition.

>> More to the point, my impression is Rusbult has conveniently forgotten
>> the reason why Behe invented IC in the first place, as an alleged
>> disproof of naturalistic evolution. IMO the important thing is not to
>> show that IC by any definition does or does not exist, but instead to
>> show that, if that kind of IC does exist, it could not have evolved by
>> unguided natural processes, or alternately, that it must have involved
>> a purposeful intelligent agent.
>
>Behe doesn't like to admit it, but his changes have been trying to
>maintain the IC stupidity, while keeping IC something that could not
>have evolved by natural mechanisms. The stupid "scientific test" for IC
>that both Minnich and Behe put up in their Dover testimony was to start
>with a bacteria with out a flagellum and get it to evolve a flagellum.
>If a flagellum could have been evolved then Behe would be wrong and IC
>will have failed. Both Minnich and Behe admitted that they had never
>attempted the only scientific test that they proposed, so it was obvious
>that neither cared about IC being testable.
>
>>
>> But Rusbult explicitly acknowledges these new definitions of IC
>> recognize the evolutionary possibilities of Behe's so-called indirect
>> methods, where the parts change function over time, and where
>> unnecessary parts are lost over time. By so doing, these new
>> definitions widen the definition of IC, but also lose their ability to
>> identify what could not evolve, or what must have involved an
>> intelligent agent, and by so doing, render IC moot.
>>
>
>Behe as always admitted that biological evolution is a fact of nature.

Agreed. The issue here is Behe's claim that some parts of biological
evolution are too complex to have evolved by naturalistic biological
evolution. Behe presented IC as a test to identify those parts. But
as long as those IC parts could have evolved using his so-called
indirect methods, identifying IC no longer identifies a part that
could not have evolved.

>He has admitted that his designer might be dead because he doesn't see
>any evidence for designer activity in the last couple of hundred million
>years of biological evolution. His last IC system evolved in
>vertebrates over 400 million years ago (the adaptive immune system).
>His flagellum evolved in bacteria both Archea and Eubacteria over a
>billion years ago. That is the major reason why Behe can't tell anyone
>if the flagellum is his type of IC. It evolved so long ago that much of
>the molecular history has been destroyed by multiple mutations a pretty
>much ever site in the proteins that can change.

Behe isn't the only one to claim some biological systems are IC. As
various links posted to T.O. show, lots of people think more recent
biological phenomena qualify as IC, ex. bombadier beetle's defense
mechanism. I suppose one could claim that only Behe can say what is
IC, but that makes IC a frivolous concept.

>Behe relies on biological evolution to help him demonstrate the order
>and arrangement of the mutations that will make a system his type of IC.
> He thinks that there are orders and arrangements of mutations that
>would need to be done by his designer. His crowing about finding two
>unselected steps in the evolution of systems demonstrates how he thinks
>that he will be vindicated. He admits that two are not enough, but he
>claims that this is the edge of IDiocy, and that biological evolution
>should not be able to go beyond that. Just like any other science
>researchers have just determined what happened and it isn't what Behe
>needs. Labs like Thornton's lab can use a top down analysis to work
>backwards and determine the order of mutations in the evolution of the
>proteins that they are working with. Behe accepts their work and likely
>hopes that such work will vindicate him, but so far it hasn't. He
>hasn't initiated such research for any of his systems. It is just more
>science that he doesn't want to do because he doesn't want to know the
>answer based on what has already been found.
>
>Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Behe made the well-matched claim to his critics, and said that it was
part of his original definition, but that there were levels of well
matched. The parts of a lever and fulcrum are well matched enough to
function, but that isn't well matched enough for Behe. The lever and
fulcrum was Behes example of an IC system that was not his type of IC.
Behe never has given a means to quantitate well matched so that he can
determine if there is enough of it. He had to make that claim because
some of his critics were putting up IC systems and demonstrating that
they could evolve. Behe had to claim that those were not his type of IC
systems. If you removed a part they stopped doing their original
function, but that part of the definition obvioiusly doesn't matter.
Behe had to come up with more well matched and the order and arrangement
of mutations. Neither one of which could he demonstrate existed in
nature. Behe never came up with a means to quantitate well matched, and
he has never seen the order and arrangement of mutations that he needs.

Basically all Behe has is too complex to evolve. His flagellum example
has just degenerated into the scientific creationists claim that the
flagellum is a designed machine failure. He hasn't been able to
determine the level of well matched, the order and arrangement of
mutations that he needs, nor the number of neutral mutations involved.

>
>
>> He has admitted that his designer might be dead because he doesn't see
>> any evidence for designer activity in the last couple of hundred million
>> years of biological evolution. His last IC system evolved in
>> vertebrates over 400 million years ago (the adaptive immune system).
>> His flagellum evolved in bacteria both Archea and Eubacteria over a
>> billion years ago. That is the major reason why Behe can't tell anyone
>> if the flagellum is his type of IC. It evolved so long ago that much of
>> the molecular history has been destroyed by multiple mutations a pretty
>> much ever site in the proteins that can change.
>
>
> Behe isn't the only one to claim some biological systems are IC. As
> various links posted to T.O. show, lots of people think more recent
> biological phenomena qualify as IC, ex. bombadier beetle's defense
> mechanism. I suppose one could claim that only Behe can say what is
> IC, but that makes IC a frivolous concept.

Too complex was a common scientific creationist argument. They always
had the same problem that Behe still has. What is too complex? How do
you know? The complexity arguments including IC have all been failures.
The bombadier beetle was one of Gish's favorite fool the rubes pieces
of junk. The failure of scientific creationism was the reason ID had to
rise to take its place. It just turned out that the ID perps had
nothing to replace it with.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

In DBB, Behe accepted simple IC systems, such as a lever and fulcrum.
It was the simplicity which allowed the parts to be sufficiently
well-matched. It was also the simplicity which allowed the system to
be created by naturalistic processes.

Behe also said that the probability of IC decreased exponentially with
complexity, and asserted that biological IC systems were too
improbable to have happened by naturalistic evolution.

IIUC your reply, Behe has not accepted these modified definitions of
IC, and so "Behe's type of IC" is little different from the type he
specified in DBB.

>>> Behe relies on biological evolution to help him demonstrate the order
>>> and arrangement of the mutations that will make a system his type of IC.
>>> He thinks that there are orders and arrangements of mutations that
>>> would need to be done by his designer. His crowing about finding two
>>> unselected steps in the evolution of systems demonstrates how he thinks
>>> that he will be vindicated. He admits that two are not enough, but he
>>> claims that this is the edge of IDiocy, and that biological evolution
>>> should not be able to go beyond that. Just like any other science
>>> researchers have just determined what happened and it isn't what Behe
>>> needs. Labs like Thornton's lab can use a top down analysis to work
>>> backwards and determine the order of mutations in the evolution of the
>>> proteins that they are working with. Behe accepts their work and likely
>>> hopes that such work will vindicate him, but so far it hasn't. He
>>> hasn't initiated such research for any of his systems. It is just more
>>> science that he doesn't want to do because he doesn't want to know the
>>> answer based on what has already been found.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>

[RonO]

Behe has never demonstrated that his biological IC systems were too
improbable to have happened by naturalistic processes. He has only made
the claim and never backed it up. He could develop some workable
definition of well matched, and he could demonstrate that his order and
arrangement of mutations has occurred, but that has never happened.

Black Box hasn't amounted to anything in two decades. The bait and
switch is still going down, and there obviously isn't any ID science
worth supporting at this time.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

So consider the possibility that Behe has some useful definition of
"well-matched", and that he has demonstrated that his order and
arrangement of mutations has occurred. My understanding is, that
still would not present a challenge to naturalistic evolution. To the
contrary, they would present less of a challenge.

So even if Behe had agreed to these changes in definition of IC, IC
still wouldn't do what Behe claims IC does, ie identify a system that
could not have evolved by naturalistic processes. I see no reason why
Behe would even consider these changes in definition, nevermind agree
to them.

Agreed.

>Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>>>>> Behe relies on biological evolution to help him demonstrate the order
>>>>> and arrangement of the mutations that will make a system his type of IC.
>>>>> He thinks that there are orders and arrangements of mutations that
>>>>> would need to be done by his designer. His crowing about finding two
>>>>> unselected steps in the evolution of systems demonstrates how he thinks
>>>>> that he will be vindicated. He admits that two are not enough, but he
>>>>> claims that this is the edge of IDiocy, and that biological evolution
>>>>> should not be able to go beyond that. Just like any other science
>>>>> researchers have just determined what happened and it isn't what Behe
>>>>> needs. Labs like Thornton's lab can use a top down analysis to work
>>>>> backwards and determine the order of mutations in the evolution of the
>>>>> proteins that they are working with. Behe accepts their work and likely
>>>>> hopes that such work will vindicate him, but so far it hasn't. He
>>>>> hasn't initiated such research for any of his systems. It is just more
>>>>> science that he doesn't want to do because he doesn't want to know the
>>>>> answer based on what has already been found.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>

[RonO]

Behe would then have to demonstrate that his parts were well matched
enough to matter, and that the order and arrangement of the mutations he
found indicated that his IC system was too improbable to have evolved by
natural means.

Since he hasn't gotten to first base at this time he hasn't had to worry
about demonstrating that it would mean anything when he does get there.

>
> So even if Behe had agreed to these changes in definition of IC, IC
> still wouldn't do what Behe claims IC does, ie identify a system that
> could not have evolved by naturalistic processes. I see no reason why
> Behe would even consider these changes in definition, nevermind agree
> to them.

It doesn't matter because Behe has never demonstrated that any of the
IDiot definitions for IC apply to anything of relevance in nature. He
has to demonstrate that his IC systems exist before he can move on to
figuring out if it means anything or not.

At this time all Behe has is the claim that his IC systems might exist.

Ron Okimoto