Reply to Robison and Ikeda
Mike Behe
This is a brief reply to some points raised by Keith Robison and Tim Ikeda
in a series of posts. I appreciate their taking the time to read my book and
comment on it, and I'll try to answer what I think are their main points. I
should add that I don't intend to get involved in an extended discussion, and
in any event an author can't follow his book around re-explaining it; the
book has to speak for itself. Nonetheless, since Robison and Ikeda are
trained in the relevant areas of science, and since they make interesting
points, I'll reply here.
In "Behe's Black Box. 0: On the Frontiers of Ignorance" Robison
states:
> Suppose you challenge me to show that a standard mousetrap is _not_
> irreducibly complex. You hand me all of the parts listed above.
> I am to set up a functional mousetrap which at least mostly resembles
> the standard one, except I hand you back one piece. Can it be done?
>
> Yep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mousetrap?
> On the floor.
That's an interesting reply, but you've just substituted another
wooden base for the one you were given. The trap still can't
function without a base. Furthermore, you were essentially given a
disassembled mousetrap, which you then assembled. All of the parts were
preadapted to each other by an intelligent agent. The point that has to be
addressed is, how do you start with *no* pieces (at least none specifically
designed to be part of a mousetrap), and proceed to a functioning,
irreducibly complex trap.
In "Behe's Black Box. 1: Pseudogenes" Robison quotes me and then replies:
>> In his article Miller has not told us how any of these
>> functions might have arisen in a Darwinian step-by-step
>> process, nor has he pointed to articles in the
>> scientific literature where we can find the information.
>> He can't do that, because the information is nowhere to
>> be found.
> The fact of the matter is, the answer can be found in almost
> any genetics textbook. There are two major mechanisms for
> producing such duplications in biology, and both have
> been demonstrated experimentally.
>
> Behe is apparently completely ignorant of the enormous amount of
> literature on tandem duplication, in which one copy of a gene
> spawns multiple copies. A common mechanism is unequal crossing over,
> due to the recombinational machinery misaligning two chromosomes.....
>
> The second mechanism is reverse transcription + integration. In this
> case, the mRNA for a gene is reverse transcribed into a DNA segment,
> which then integrates into the genome.....
I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean (and I did not say) that
there is a separate mechanism for generating pseudogenes. I simply meant that
the normal process of DNA replication or recombination, which sometimes
generates pseudogenes, is very complex, and has not been explained in a
Darwinian fashion either by Kenneth Miller or anyone else. (For example,
Kornberg & Baker's 1992 edition of "DNA Replication" has virtually nothing on
how any of the steps of replication could evolve in a Darwinian fashion.) The
point in my book was that the pseudogene argument is essentially "God
wouldn't have done it that way, so Darwinian evolution must be true."
Pseudogenes may be reasonable evidence for common descent, but the assertion
that they show that life was produced by Darwinian mutation/natural selection
has to be judged separately.
In the same post Robison states:
> That Behe is ignorant of these basic molecular genetic and biochemical
> facts is a depressing commentary on the level of research that
> went into his book.
In this group of posts I am repeatedly said to be "ignorant." That
may be true, but I think there is reason to give me the benefit of the doubt.
I have a Ph. D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania (received
an award from Sigma Xi for "Best Thesis), postdoc'd for four years at the
National Institutes of Health (as a Jane Coffin Childs Fund postdoctoral
fellow), have been an academic biochemist for 14 years, have gained tenure at
a reasonably rigorous university, have published a fair amount in the
biochemical literature, and have continuously had my research funded by
national agencies (including a five-year Research Career Development Award
from the National Institutes of Health) and currently have research funds.
Well, perhaps I am a real biochemist, but am simply "ignorant" of
work on the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems? Perhaps.
But I am not unaware that evolution is a controversial subject, and certainly
tried to cover all bases when researching and writing my book. I have no
death wish. I do, after all, have to live with my departmental colleagues, a
number of whom are Darwinists. So I searched the literature as thoroughly as
I could for relevant information and tried to be as rigorous as possible.
Perhaps there are step-by-step, Darwinian explanations in the literature for
the complex systems I describe in my book, but if there are I haven't seen
them, nor has anyone brought them to my attention.
My book has now been reviewed quite widely, including reviews by
academic biochemists. Several of them were quite hostile to my idea of
design, but all agreed that the systems I described are enormously complex
and currently unexplained. The hostile reviewers were confident that the
systems would eventually be explained by Darwinism in the future. I do not
share their confidence. Neither did James Shapiro, a biochemist at the
University of Chicago who reviewed Darwin's Black Box for National Review a
few weeks ago. He, too, thinks Darwinism has failed for these systems, but
hopes that they will be explained by some other non-intelligent mechanism.
In "Behe's Black Box. 2: Cascades" Robison gives an argument that cascades
can develop gradually. I encourage him to develop the argument rigorously and
submit it to a refereed journal for publication. If he does so, he will be
the first.
In "Behe's Black Box. 3: The Krebs Cycle" Robison says:
> Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook
> on which to hang his thesis. Right?
>
> However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems
> with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis.
Unfortunately, the assertion that the TCA cycle is irreducibly
complex is Robison's, not mine. In my book (p. 150-151) I clearly state that
an A-->B-->C-->D metabolic pathway may have developed in a Darwinian fashion
(although this has not been demonstrated rigorously.) I pointedly do *not*
argue about things like the TCA cycle. I do, however, raise questions about
the biosynthesis of purines because the end product, AMP, is needed for life
and intermediates in the AMP pathway have not been demonstrated to occur in
origin of life experiments.
If I say a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, and someone replies that
a hammer is not irreducibly complex, how has that answered my point? If I
write about problems with purine biosynthesis, it is no answer to say that
other pathways might have developed gradually. Parts of life may have
required intentional design, other parts maybe not. To answer that question
you have to deal with the hardest examples, not the easier ones.
In "Behe's Black Box. 4: Antibodies" Robison writes:
> Antibodies bind to other molecules. Suppose you have a poison. The
> poison acts by binding to a molecule in the human body, using a very
> specific mechanism. Particular atoms on the poison must interact
> with particular atoms on the target molecule. If the antibody binds
> to, and covers those atoms on the poison, then the poison will not
> function.
Sure, that's true. Not only antibodies, but any protein might bind
serendipitously to some molecule. "Binding" is not irreducibly complex. But
the point made in the book stands. Antibodies do not kill off invading
organisms, so they are no help in explaining the systems that do kill them.
In "Re: Behe's Black Box. 1: Pseudogenes" Tim Ikeda writes:
> The fact is, it is tremendously unlikely that a lecturing
> professor of biochemistry, such as Behe, could be (or could
> remain) ignorant that recombination occurs and can ultimately
> lead to pseudogenes. I think it's even more improbable that
> a biochemist wouldn't think about these examples before
> deciding what to write (or choosing to leave out).
Thanks.
> Nobody is ignoring the difficulty of understanding evolution at a
> biochemical level. In this Behe is presenting nothing that we
> biochemists didn't already know. But how can one examine the steps
> involved in molecular evolution when few features of cell biochemistry
> fossilize? The best one can do is to try to understand and compare
> the operations of the systems in living organisms. That work is
> just beginning now.
Well, I have to disagree. I think nearly everybody is ignoring the
difficulty of understanding biochemical evolution. Certainly that seems to be
the case when you examine biochemistry textbooks and the biochemical
literature. Furthermore, in my personal experience many biochemists are
astonished when I tell then about the lack of rigorous studies on biochemical
evolution. I also disagree that "that work is just beginning now." I see no
sign of a serious effort to explain specific, complex systems within a
Darwinian framework.
> Personally, I find Behe's dismissal of the fossil record (see his
> book) to be a terribly weak and again, diversionary sleight of hand.
I don't know what you mean. I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil
record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it
can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian
mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply
takes for granted common descent.
Again, thanks to Keith Robison and Tim Ikeda for comments on my book.
I hope this reply clarifies my thinking somewhat. Writing this post, however,
has taken a hunk of time that I really won't have to give in the future.
Hopefully people who read the book will be able to understand what I meant,
and even if they disagree with me, perhaps it will serve to get them thinking
about a stagnant area of science.
Mike Behe
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Behe Voice: 610-758-3474
Dept. of Biological Sciences Fax: 610-758-4004
Lehigh University Secretary: 610-758-3680
Bethlehem PA 18015 e-mail: mj...@lehigh.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
Keith Robison
Mike Behe (mj...@lehigh.edu) wrote:
: This is a brief reply to some points raised by Keith Robison and Tim Ikeda
: comment on it, and I'll try to answer what I think are their main points. I
: should add that I don't intend to get involved in an extended discussion, and
: in any event an author can't follow his book around re-explaining it; the
: book has to speak for itself. Nonetheless, since Robison and Ikeda are
: trained in the relevant areas of science, and since they make interesting
: points, I'll reply here.
: In "Behe's Black Box. 4: Antibodies" Robison writes:
: > Antibodies bind to other molecules. Suppose you have a poison. The
: > poison acts by binding to a molecule in the human body, using a very
: > specific mechanism. Particular atoms on the poison must interact
: > with particular atoms on the target molecule. If the antibody binds
: > to, and covers those atoms on the poison, then the poison will not
: > function.
: Sure, that's true. Not only antibodies, but any protein might bind
: serendipitously to some molecule. "Binding" is not irreducibly complex. But
: the point made in the book stands. Antibodies do not kill off invading
: organisms, so they are no help in explaining the systems that do kill them.
And nobody is claiming they are. However, you made the explicit claim (p.131)
Antibodies are like toy darts: they harm no one.
which carries with it the implicit claim that antibodies are dependent
on other systems, which are in turn dependent on antibodies, and therefore
the whole mess is "irreducibly complex".
But this _explicit_ claim from p.131 flies in the face of the long-known
existence of antibodies which can neutralize toxins and viruses.
Antibodies can function in the absence of other systems, and
therefore it is somewhat less than cricket to imply otherwise.
Keith Robison
Harvard University
Department of Molecular & Cellular Biology
Department of Genetics
Matt Silberstein
Let us evolve a mousetrap.
1) A rock balanced on a log out in the woods. If disturbed it might
roll and crush the mouse.
2) Same rock, same log, same woods, now a stick keeps the rock from
falling.
3) Same everything, now some food is near the stick.
4) Same everything, now some really good food.
5) Same everything, now a big rock.
6) Same everything, now it is near the mouses home.
7) Same everything, but we put it inside, to catch house mice.
8) Same everything, now we put it in a box, so we can move it from
place to place.
9) Same, not we have the stick under tension.
10) More tension on the stick.
11) Enough tension so that the spring of the stick can hurt the mouse,
but not kill it. The homeowner can pick up the stunned mouse.
12) Enough tension so we can eliminate the rock.
13) Now we reduce the log to a catch in the box to keep the stick
under tension
14) Now we replace the stick with a piece of metal.
15) Widen the head of the metal spring so we have a better chance of
getting the mouse.
16) Increse the tension so we might kill them mouse.
17) Widen the spring enough to capture the mouse.
18) Done, I think.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
James G. Acker
Mike Behe (mj...@lehigh.edu) wrote:
It's unlikely that the author will engage in a protracted
t.o. discussion (and also unnecessary). However, should he
choose to address it, I'd like to note that I'm curious about
one thing that Dr. Behe said, in light of information supplied
by Keith Robison, as illustrated below.
Behe writes:
: Well, I have to disagree. I think nearly everybody is ignoring the
: difficulty of understanding biochemical evolution. Certainly that seems to
: be the case when you examine biochemistry textbooks and the biochemical
: literature. Furthermore, in my personal experience many biochemists are
: astonished when I tell them about the lack of rigorous studies on
: biochemical evolution. I also disagree that "that work is just beginning
: now." I see no
: sign of a serious effort to explain specific, complex systems within a
: Darwinian framework.
In contrast, Keith Robison wrote:
--- insert ---
Almost simultaneously with the publishing of "Darwin's Black Box",
came:
The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the
pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in
the design of metabolic pathways during evolution
Journal of Molecular Evolution, Sep 1996, 43: 293-303
Melendez-Hevia, Waddell & Cascante
These authors take up exactly the problem which Behe claims is ignored:
how could a complex biochemical pathway evolve by a step-wise
Darwinian process, with each intermediate pathway providing selective
advantage.
What is worse for Behe, though, is that looking through the bibliography
for this paper reveals multiple citations for similar analyses of
other biochemical pathways. For example, some of the same authors
have four papers on the evolution of the pentose phosphate pathway,
dated 1985, 1988, 1990, and 1994 and a paper on glycogen biosynthesis
from 1993. They cite other analyses of Krebs cycle evolution from
1981 (x2), 1985, 1987 (x2), 1992, as well as two books on the general
subject of metabolic evolution from 1992.
Behe's literature search, which supposedly found nothing,
covered up to 1994.
Emboldened by this, I did a quick Entrez** search for papers on the
evolution of amino acid biosynthesis (drawing on a faint memory
of having seen such a paper.
Sure enough, it was no problem to find a host of citations, including
Orig Life Evol Biosph 18: 41-57 (1988)[88217276]
New prospects for deducing the evolutionary
history of metabolic pathways in prokaryotes:
aromatic biosynthesis as a case-in-point.
S. Ahmad & R. A. Jensen
Mol Biol Evol 2: 92-108 (1985)[88216112]
Biochemical pathways in prokaryotes can be traced
backward through evolutionary time.
R. A. Jensen
Microbiol Sci 4: 258, 260-2 (1987)[91058939]
Enzyme specialization during the evolution of
amino acid biosynthetic pathways.
C. Parsot, I. Saint-Girons & G. N. Cohen
Annu Rev Microbiol 30: 409-25 (1976)[77043263]
Enzyme recruitment in evolution of new function.
R. A. Jensen
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 76: 3996-4000 (1979)[80035004]
Origins of metabolic diversity: evolutionary
divergence by sequence repetition.
L. N. Ornston & W. K. Yeh
--- end insert ---
Behe's statement that he sees "no serious effort" to
explain specific, complex systems in a Darwinian framework seems
at peculiar odds with the titles of the articles that Robison provided.
Is Behe overlooking these (and others), or are they not what he's been
looking for? I suspect the latter, but in that case, why are these
unsuitable examples?
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
howard hershey
To which I would add simple polyploidy and/or aneuploidy. This would undoubtedly
be the easiest mechanism in any ur-organism capable of replication at all.
> I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean (and I did not say) that
>there is a separate mechanism for generating pseudogenes. I simply meant that
>the normal process of DNA replication or recombination, which sometimes
>generates pseudogenes, is very complex, and has not been explained in a
>Darwinian fashion either by Kenneth Miller or anyone else. (For example,
>Kornberg & Baker's 1992 edition of "DNA Replication" has virtually nothing on
>how any of the steps of replication could evolve in a Darwinian fashion.) The
>point in my book was that the pseudogene argument is essentially "God
>wouldn't have done it that way, so Darwinian evolution must be true."
>Pseudogenes may be reasonable evidence for common descent,
So pseudogenes now have common descent without Darwinian evolution. This
must be an interesting process. How would you distinguish between a
non-Darwinian process and a Darwinian one. What accounts for the homologies
that sure look like they are due to random mutations rather than design?
>but the assertion
>that they show that life was produced by Darwinian mutation/natural selection
>has to be judged separately.
At some points, abiogenesis might well not be a Darwinian process but simply
a chemical one. For a Darwinian mutation/selection process to proceed
an imperfectly replicating system is a prerequisite. Since *all* that is
necessary for the generation of pseudogenes is *any* kind of nucleotide
replication system, you are required to prove that *all* such replication
systems are irreducibly complex. *Not* that the *present-day* mammalian system
is complex (it is). But that *all* nucleotide replication systems (including
RNA replication of viruses) are irreducibly complex systems and/or that it is
impossible to go from the simplest such system to a more complex system
by any reasonable stepwise process. This is a more difficult task than
simply pointing out that a book that describes the more complex system of
present-day procaryotes and eucaryotes doesn't say anything about how it
could have evolved. Since when has the absence of knowledge been considered
evidence *for* a theory (in this case, irreducible complexity) rather than
the starting point for studies to test alternative ideas?
>
>In the same post Robison states:
>
>> That Behe is ignorant of these basic molecular genetic and biochemical
>> facts is a depressing commentary on the level of research that
>> went into his book.
>
> In this group of posts I am repeatedly said to be "ignorant." That
>may be true, but I think there is reason to give me the benefit of the doubt.
[snip resume which is not relevant here]
> Well, perhaps I am a real biochemist, but am simply "ignorant" of
>work on the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems?
Ignorance is vital to important research. Had you merely pointed out that
there are areas of biochemistry about which we are ignorant, including
areas where it is difficult to imagine a stepwise Darwinian solution given
our present level of information, no one would have batted an eyelash.
But you are making a specific claim of 'irreducible complexity' based on
nothing more than this lack of information. For a claim of 'irreducible
complexity' to hold, you need *evidence* that contradicts the current
paradigm not merely the absence of evidence that might support it. That
there are no planets outside the solar system (AFAIK) that are known
to have liquid water on them is not evidence in support of the idea that
such planets only exist in our solar system. Similarly, the fact that
mammalian clotting mechanisms involves a complex chain of homologous enzymes
in a cascade does *not* mean either that simpler mechanisms are impossible
nor that this mechanim must be created *ex nihilo* because no stepwise
process could accomplish it. This argument would only be meaningful if
a) all vertebrates had *exactly* the same mechanism for clotting including
nearly identical (and definitely identical in function) proteins at each step.
Any vertebrate which has a simpler system (by even one step) and still
clots its blood shows that the mammalian system is not 'irreducibly' complex.
Any vertebrate that shows a difference in part of the pathway (a gene that
shows no homology to the equivalent mammalian gene, but homology to a
different gene) shows that the mechanism is not irreducibly complex (alternative
mechanisms work) for its function. Any homology of this system's proteins to
invertebrate systems (that may or may not function as clotting or wound
healing) indicates that preadaption may account for the complexity.
No part of the system can be dispensible for function in any other
organism. Since you have no apparent problem with common descent, and
are not claiming that mammals as a group were created *ex nihilo*, this
research into related mechanims in other vertebrates and invertebrates
would be necessary for any claim of 'irreducible complexity'. Absent
such comparative research, your claim that the mammalian system is an
example of 'irreducible complexity' is nothing but an assertion in the
absence of the evidence needed to either disprove it or convince anyone
of its meaningfulness. Certainly no reason to drop a useful paradigm
with evidence for one that is useless and without evidence.
Gee. That almost looks like a cascade to me. Except that, unlike a cascade
of similar activities, this involves a chain that does *different* things
to the same or similar subsrate. I would have thought that that would be
even *more irreducibly complex* (isn't that something like a little bit
pregnant?)
>(although this has not been demonstrated rigorously.) I pointedly do *not*
>argue about things like the TCA cycle. I do, however, raise questions about
>the biosynthesis of purines because the end product, AMP, is needed for life
>and intermediates in the AMP pathway have not been demonstrated to occur in
>origin of life experiments.
> If I say a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, and someone replies that
>a hammer is not irreducibly complex, how has that answered my point? If I
>write about problems with purine biosynthesis, it is no answer to say that
>other pathways might have developed gradually. Parts of life may have
>required intentional design, other parts maybe not. To answer that question
>you have to deal with the hardest examples, not the easier ones.
>
What you want to do is answer the largest *answerable* question. These
are not necessarily the hardest ones (some of which may be unanswerable
by scientific means because there is no evidence one way or the other).
Answering the easy questions (and the TCA cycle is hardly easy) is often
a steping stone to the harder ones.
What would constitute a difficult question as opposed to a presently
at least potentially answerable one with respect to the irreducibility
of biochemical pathways? Answerable questions will involve systems that
are limited to particular groupings of animals rather than ubiquitous.
The clotting cascade counts. Antibodies count. Pseudogenes count.
They count because there is the *possibility* for evolutionary variation
within the group and the *possibility* for signs of homology ousidet the
grouping. AMP synthesis is more problematic. Although some organisms
have dropped *de novo* synthesis as an adaption to parasitism, it is
clear that this is a very deep and highly conserved process that developed
at a very early stage in the evolution of life. Since this reaction involves
utilization of phosphate bonds as a way to store energy and activate
molecules, I would hazard a guess (again this is not evidence) that
phosphate utilization from inorganic sources would be important in the
development of the pathway.
>In "Behe's Black Box. 4: Antibodies" Robison writes:
>
>> Antibodies bind to other molecules. Suppose you have a poison. The
>> poison acts by binding to a molecule in the human body, using a very
>> specific mechanism. Particular atoms on the poison must interact
>> with particular atoms on the target molecule. If the antibody binds
>> to, and covers those atoms on the poison, then the poison will not
>> function.
>
> Sure, that's true. Not only antibodies, but any protein might bind
>serendipitously to some molecule. "Binding" is not irreducibly complex. But
>the point made in the book stands. Antibodies do not kill off invading
>organisms, so they are no help in explaining the systems that do kill them.
Antibodies are undoubtedly evolutionarily related to earlier genes involved
in cell-cell recognition.
>
>In "Re: Behe's Black Box. 1: Pseudogenes" Tim Ikeda writes:
>
>> The fact is, it is tremendously unlikely that a lecturing
>> professor of biochemistry, such as Behe, could be (or could
>> remain) ignorant that recombination occurs and can ultimately
>> lead to pseudogenes. I think it's even more improbable that
>> a biochemist wouldn't think about these examples before
>> deciding what to write (or choosing to leave out).
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Nobody is ignoring the difficulty of understanding evolution at a
>> biochemical level. In this Behe is presenting nothing that we
>> biochemists didn't already know. But how can one examine the steps
>> involved in molecular evolution when few features of cell biochemistry
>> fossilize? The best one can do is to try to understand and compare
>> the operations of the systems in living organisms. That work is
>> just beginning now.
It is precisely this comparative work with living organisms that is
required to show how these systems came into existence. The homology
(indeed, highly conserved homology) of homeiotic genes across phyla
shows that proteins can switch functions. The existence of duplicate
genes, duplicate genes that produce slightly different proteins that
perform the same basic function but with different optima (isozymes),
duplicate genes that perform slightly different functions (the globin
complex), and duplications that show varying degrees of homology to a
particular protein (alpha and beta globin, myoglobin and alpha globin)
are all evidence that concurs with descent with modification for
proteins (Darwinian mechanism) as well as structure. Nothing in any
of these examples look like anything which was created *ex nihilo*
(descent with creation of complex systems at appropriate points).
Where are the putative God-directed genes?
>
> Well, I have to disagree. I think nearly everybody is ignoring the
>difficulty of understanding biochemical evolution. Certainly that seems to be
>the case when you examine biochemistry textbooks and the biochemical
>literature. Furthermore, in my personal experience many biochemists are
>astonished when I tell then about the lack of rigorous studies on biochemical
>evolution. I also disagree that "that work is just beginning now." I see no
>sign of a serious effort to explain specific, complex systems within a
>Darwinian framework.
>
>> Personally, I find Behe's dismissal of the fossil record (see his
>> book) to be a terribly weak and again, diversionary sleight of hand.
>
> I don't know what you mean. I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil
>record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it
>can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian
>mechanism.
No one thought it could. However, any biochemical evolutionary or
non-evolutionary God-directed gene synthesis (or complex system proposed
as necessarily occuring *ex nihilo* by intelligent design) scheme must be
congruent with common descent.
This puts constraints on
>My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply
>takes for granted common descent.
>
> Again, thanks to Keith Robison and Tim Ikeda for comments on my book.
>I hope this reply clarifies my thinking somewhat. Writing this post, however,
>has taken a hunk of time that I really won't have to give in the future.
>Hopefully people who read the book will be able to understand what I meant,
>and even if they disagree with me, perhaps it will serve to get them thinking
>about a stagnant area of science.
It is not a stagnant area of research. Lots and lots of gene homology
research is ongoing and more and more homologies are being found. Each
such homology is thought to occur by duplication and divergence in
much the same way as Keith described. I'm surprized that you think
this is a novel description.
Thomas Scharle
In article <32b2b07a....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
|> In talk.origins Mike Behe <mj...@lehigh.edu> wrote:
|> > In "Behe's Black Box. 0: On the Frontiers of Ignorance" Robison
|> >states:
|> >
|> >> Suppose you challenge me to show that a standard mousetrap is _not_
|> >> irreducibly complex. You hand me all of the parts listed above.
|> >> I am to set up a functional mousetrap which at least mostly resembles
|> >> the standard one, except I hand you back one piece. Can it be done?
|> >>
|> >> Yep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mousetrap?
|> >> On the floor.
|> >
|> > That's an interesting reply, but you've just substituted another
|> >wooden base for the one you were given. The trap still can't
|> >function without a base. Furthermore, you were essentially given a
|> >disassembled mousetrap, which you then assembled. All of the parts were
|> >preadapted to each other by an intelligent agent. The point that has to be
|> >addressed is, how do you start with *no* pieces (at least none specifically
|> >designed to be part of a mousetrap), and proceed to a functioning,
|> >irreducibly complex trap.
|>
|>
|> 1) A rock balanced on a log out in the woods. If disturbed it might
|> roll and crush the mouse.
|> 17) Widen the spring enough to capture the mouse.
|>
|> 18) Done, I think.
The response of Behe is quite puzzling, isn't it?
Does he really want to take the analogy this seriously?
Let's suppose that he has demonstrated that a mousetrap is
"irreducibly complex". What does that have to do with design, and
what does that have to do with biology?
For everyone conceeds that some things in this world, such as
mousetraps, are designed. Some of those things, and let us grant
Behe his point, such as mousetraps, are also irreducibly complex.
Does this mean that there is a correlation between irreducible
complexity and design?
Certainly some designed things are not irreducibly complex. I
dare say, most designed things could be simplified. Does Behe
suggest that the path of development of an object must alway
proceed by *increasing* complexity?
Are there things which are irreducibly complex which are not
designed? Is an electron irreducibly complex? Would Behe
consistently argue from "irreducible complexity" to "design" in
all cases?
By the way, Behe puts the constraint on his analogy that the
pre-mousetrap must be functioning as a mousetrap. Perhaps the
pre-mousetrap functioned, not as a trap, but a lure (as Behe
suggests, the mouse would dance on the trap, were it not for the
hammer).
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Brett J. Vickers
I know this is totally unrelated to the subjects being discussed, but
I thought I'd toss out an interesting datum I discovered while
searching the Talk.Origins Archive today. When Ted Holden tried in
early 1995 to establish a moderated talk.catastrophism newsgroup, one
of the people voting for it was Mike Behe (mj...@lehigh.edu). See:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/catastrophism-vote
I have no idea what this means, if anything.
--
Brett Vickers bvic...@ics.uci.edu