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

I have often said that it is very difficult to separate the design issue from ontological questions. After all, before one can assemble all the parts in a purportedly irreducibly complex system, one has to have the parts to tinker with and one may ask where the very elementary components of the parts came from. For instance, is the electron designed? I believe it is. In other words, ontologically it would make sense to say that either everything is designed or else nothing is designed.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
Sent: Fri 7/13/2007 3:32 PM
To: David Campbell
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe Responds To Ken Miller - Edge of Evolution

David C. said: Co-option falsifies IC (irreducible complexity) because it provides a
way to assemble the complex system step by step.
 
Not so. In itself, cooption shows only that some components of a putatively IC system could possibly have been borrowed from some other system. It does not, in itself, show how the entire system could have been assembled step-by-step such that there is some utility in the system at each step.
 
The posibility of cooption might suggest a system really isn't IC, but it would have to be the case not only that there are coopt-able parts that would "fit" the system, but also that the putatively coopted parts were available for cooption and that they could have been assembled all at once into the IC system. This requires both some kind of proximity as well as some possibility of self organization of the system. It isn't enough to suggest that there is a small piece of metal on Mars that could be used as the catch bar in a mouse trap; you have to show that there is a small piece of metal in proximity to the other components and that there is a mechanism for spontaneous and complete self-assembly of the proximate parts into a system; or that there are intermediate systems to which proximately available parts could gradually be added, each of which intermediate systems has some utility.
 
So, to suggest that cooption in itself falsifies IC, it seems to me, is really just hand-waiving. Either that, or it really is a fundamental misunderstanding of what IC is supposed to mean.
 
Now, Ken Miller cites a bunch a papers that supposedly show a pathway in which the bacterial flagellum could have been assembled through gradual cooption of parts into the present motor system. But this is where it gets frustrating for someone like me: when you dig into the papers he cites, they don't seem to support anything like such a grandiose claim. In some instances, it seems more like "well, there's a little piece of metal on Mars that could serve as the catch on a mousetrap," rather than any kind of meaningfully plausible scenario. (Either that, or my incompetence with the literature makes me -- and Angus Menuge, from whose "Agents Under Fire" much of this rebuttal comes from -- miss something.)
 
I do think it's fair to say that the possibility of cooption suggests that something that seems to be IC might be derivable through natural selection after all, which I would agree should make us chary of grand claims for the concept of IC -- certainly it should make us reject any claim that the concept of IC must be a show-stopper. However, it equally overstates the case, IMHO, to claim that the concept of cooption conclusively settles the matter against IC as a possible roadblock for natural selection.

 
On 7/13/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:

        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.
        

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 13 16:45:41 2007