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

Dave S. said: *My point was not that the first system arose suddenly, but
that pieces which had no function for a time became functional when all the
pieces fell together and produced a second system.*

Here is what your report in PSCF says: *Thus the single IC control sequence
of the ancestor about 470 million years ago became two separate IC control
sequences in tetrapods by normal Darwinian evolution.
*
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your summary. Are you saying there were pieces
from the single IC control sequence which had no function, and which were
then coopted into the two later IC control sequences? What I read from your
summary is that there was a *functional* IC control sequence that evolved
into two separate IC control sequences using parts that were *functional* in
the prior single IC system.

It seems to me that these are two very different kettles of fish. If there
were non-functional parts laying around that were shown to be coopted into
the two later IC control sequences, that would indeed seem to suggest ways
in which IC systems can arise from natural selection. But, if the coopted
parts were functional parts of a prior functional IC control system, it
seems to me that this doesn't falsify IC. The prior IC system pushes the
complexity problem back further than the two later IC systems.

Let's say I build an IC engine with four subsystems -- air intake,
combustion, drive, and exhaust. Let's say further that that the air intake
and combustion systems are duplicated apart from the engine. Standing
alone, neither sub-system has any utility. However an additional component
is added to each of them. This results in two new systems that each have
utility and also are IC: say, a siren and a compressor. Could you
reasonably claim that the siren and compressor falisfy the entire concept of
IC? I don't think so. You still have to answer for the original IC engine
from which those later two IC systems were derived. That's how I'm
conceiving of your example. But maybe I'm missing what actually happened
because I don't have the original paper on which you were commenting?

Dave O. (ASA Member)

On 7/13/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't get your problem. Why must I argue that all systems must be IC? It
seems that common descent eliminates that for at least some systems. My
point was not that the first system arose suddenly, but that pieces which
had no function for a time became functional when all the pieces fell
together and produced a second system. Take out one piece and the system
would not work, which IC specifies. We have an IC de novo without miraculous
intervention. Why add that the parts of the system have to be fully
functional in some other system previously? Is there anything in my report
that requires that the original system be IC? Whether it is or not is not
germane.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:32:02 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
writes:
>
> Dave, I took a peek at your article. If I understand it right, the
"anti-IC" paper you're summarizing shows how one IC system evolved into two
separate IC systems in a particular line of organisms. Is that right?
>
> If that's a fair summary, it is quite an interesting discovery, but it
seems to me that it doesn't do much damage to Behe's basic position. After
all, you still have to start with the precursor IC system. Apparently,
nothing in the summarized paper suggests a gradualistic pathway to that
original IC system. So, I would imagine an IC advocate spinning it this
way: "sure, once you have an IC system, it might be possible to break it
into equally IC sub-systems; another fascinating property of IC that shows
the intelligence of the designer."
>
> Note that I'm not disagreeing with your overall conclusion necessarily,
but maybe I'm missing why 1 IC system >> 2 IC systems defeats the entire
notion of IC or suggests that the originally IC system could have arisen
only by natural selection.
>
> BTW -- I'd also like to see the ant-ID crowd's response to the
teleological conclusion you draw from the Weinreich study. I'm guessing it
would be lumped right along with IC arguments.
>
> Dave O. (ASA Member)
>
>
> On 7/13/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On the construction of an IC system, see my "News and Views" in the
September 2006 PSCF.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:30:21 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <
dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > I note with interest Behe's accusation that Miller cites sources as
authority that don't really stand for the proposition cited: Behe says, Now,
dear reader, when Miller writes of "protein-to-protein" binding sites in one
sentence, wouldn't you expect the papers he cites in the next sentence would
be about protein-to-protein binding sites? Well — although the casual reader
wouldn't be able to tell — they aren't. None of the papers Miller cites
involves protein-protein binding sites.
> >
> > Now, forgive me if I start to sound like Phil Johnson a bit here, but as
a lawyer, this is a tactic I know well. People often cite cases as
authorities in legal briefs that, on careful reading, don't really support
that party's position. Often this is a result of laziness, not malice, but
it's also done as a way of "padding" a list of authorites to make it look
more impressive. Being a good lawyer at an excellent, well staffed firm, I
used to relish actually reading the other side's citations and then hoisting
them on their own petards.
> >
> > And, it seems to me, Miller and others have done this before. I often
see a list of papers cited as evidence that science has found an
evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. On close examination, if
you actually read the papers, they are a disjointed collection of studies
that hint at something here or there.
> >
> > None of this is to say that, at the end of the day, Behe is right. Yet,
much as we rightly decry the bad and nasty arguments in places like Uncommon
Descent, I wonder if we should also recognize that the vehemently anti-ID
crowd is playing exactly, exactly the same game. It is unfortunately a
"culture war" issue not only because of the ID side, but also because of the
tactics of the anti-ID side.
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > Again -- not to say Behe is necessarily right, but this does illustrate,
I think, how the sides often argue past each other for rhetorical points
rather than engaging in meaningful debate.
> >
>
>
>

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 22:23:20 2007