Re: [asa] Behe Responds To Ken Miller - Edge of Evolution

There are a lot of other studies on mutation frequencies. Selecting a
single one does not give much credibility. Another problem is that
Behe is assuming a specific target for the mutation in calculating
probability, whereas in reality evolution proceeds with anything
functional enough to survive and reproduce. Thus, Behe has
demonstrated that humans are not very likely to evolve resistance to
chloroquine, not that humans are not likely to change in some fashion.
 Drug resistance is likely to be somewhat atypical in this regard, as
drugs typically target a very specific cellular mechanism in the
target organism and require a specific response. In contrast, global
warming might be compensated for by metabolic, behavioral, or
geographic shifts (and maybe more).

> John T -- I don't think you're getting at the same thing Behe is saying
> here. Behe says an IC system is one in which the removal of one part will
> collapse the system. Behe says Miller represents that an IC system is one
> in which the parts of the system can't be used for any other purpose. Thus,
> Miller claims to have falsified IC by showing that the parts of a putatively
> IC system could be used for another purpose, in a different system. This is
> the "cooption" argument -- the IC system could arise through the cooption of
> its parts from other systems. Behe says that is not a falsification of IC
> at all; whether the parts can have functions in other systems doesn't
> matter; one still has to show how the incomplete IC system would function > as it coopts parts, or how the IC system could spontaneously coopt all the
> parts at once into a working system. Angus Menuge makes some
> interesting arguments about this in his book "Agents Under Fire."

Co-option falsifies IC (irreducible complexity) because it provides a
way to assemble the complex system step by step. Behe's reasoning is
wrong because he assumes that the system must provide the final
function in order to exist. Co-option tells how the incomplete IC
functions-it does something else.

There's an underlying issue of how to define IC. One definition is a
system that requires all its parts to function and will not perform
that function unless all the parts are there. However, such a system
can readily form without intelligent intervention. It may build up
from existing pieces, with the novel function of the system appearing
once all the parts are in place. Or it may be the case that the
system could be reduced with a little tweaking (e.g., one part could
), or has a very similar function when reduced a bit, etc. In fact,
this definition is so broad that a large molecule would qualify.
E.g., sepiolite has several useful physical properties that depend on
the exact configuration of numerous atoms in a repeating structure.
Replace one atom with another element, or rearrange them, and the
properties are lost. It forms by weathering of other minerals.
Popular definitions (e.g., the one in the proposed Ohio ID-inspired
"science standards") are often even broader. As for specified
complexity, the definitions have a definite post hoc feel to me, i.e.
they sound as though Behe, Dembski, et al. are trying to come up with
a definition that fits complex biochemical systems and makes them
sound hard to evolve, rather than examining human-designed objects and
looking for what distinguishes them from "natural" objects.

Another definition somewhat acknowledges this difficulty by adding
caveats about not being readily formed or explained according to
physical laws. However, this falls into the trap of affirming the
consequent, as well as being impossible to delineate securely-"not yet
explained" is the god of the gap again, and "has a good physical
explanation" has a significant subjective component, both in how good
is good and in what level of knowledge about the system ought to yield
explanations of its origin. All the ID focus on complex biochemical
systems is in the long run ill-advised because we still know so little
about them. Claiming that something is inexplicable because it is as
yet not fully explained is thus very premature.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.