On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:20:20 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
[continued]
The origin of complex biochemical systems: Not in the the Journal of
Molecular Evolution:
"When the molecular basis of life was discovered, evolutionary
thought began to be applied to molecules. As the number of
professional research papers in this area expanded, a specialty
journal, the Journal of Molecular Evolution, was set up. Established
in 1971, JME is devoted exclusively to research aimed at explaining
how life at the molecular level came to be. It is run by prominent
figures in the field. Among the more than fifty people who make up
the editorial staff and board, are about a dozen members of the
National Academy of Sciences. The editor is a man named Emile
Zuckerkandl, who (along with Linus Pauling) first proposed that
differences in the amino acid sequences of similar proteins from
different species could be used to determine the time at which the
species last shared a common ancestor. The three general topics of
papers published in JME the origin of life, mathematical models of
evolution, and sequence analyses-have included many intricate,
difficult, and erudite studies...But the root question remains
unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form? No one has
ever explained in detailed, scientific fashion how mutation and
natural selection could build the complex, intricate structures
discussed in this book. In fact, none of the papers published in JME
over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a
detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been
produced in a gradual, step-by- step Darwinian fashion...The very
fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved,
is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework
for understanding the origin of complex biochemical
systems...Attempts to explain the evolution of highly specified,
irreducibly complex systems either mousetraps or cilia or blood
clotting-by a gradualistic route have so far been incoherent, as we
have seen in previous chapters. No scientific journal will publish
patently incoherent papers, so no studies asking detailed questions
of molecular evolution are to be found. Calvin and Hobbes stories
can sometimes be spun by ignoring critical details, as Russell
Doolittle did when imagining the evolution of blood clotting, but
even such superficial attempts are rare. In fact, evolutionary
explanations even of systems that do not appear to be irreducibly
complex, such as specific metabolic pathways, are missing from the
literature. The reason for this appears to be similar to the reason
for the failure to explain the origin of life: a choking complexity
strangles all such attempts." (Behe, 1996, pp165, 176-177)
Not in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
"Perhaps, then, it is a mistake to conclude too much based just on a
survey of JME. Perhaps other, nonspecialized journals publish
research on the origins of complex biochemical systems. To see if
JME is simply the wrong place to look, let's take a quick look at a
prestigious journal that covers a broad range of biochemical topics:
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Between 1984
and 1994 PNAS published about twenty thousand papers, the large
majority of which were in the life sciences. Every year the journal
compiles an index in which it lists the year's papers by category.
The index shows that in those ten years, about 400 papers were
concerned with molecular evolution...The number of papers on the
topic published yearly by PNAS has increased significantly, going
from about 15 in 1984 to about 100 in 1994; clearly this is a growth
area. But the great majority (about 85 percent) are concerned with
sequence analysis, just as most papers in JME were, passing over the
fundamental question of how. About 10 percent of the molecular
evolution papers are mathematical studies-either new methods to
improve sequence comparisons or highly abstract models. No papers
were published in PNAS that proposed detailed routes by which complex
biochemical structures might have developed. Surveys of other
biochemistry journals show the same result: sequences upon
sequences, but no explanations." (Behe, 1996, p178)
Not in books:
"Perhaps if there are no answers in journals then we should look in
books...perhaps in one of the libraries of the world there is a book
that tells us how specific biochemical structures came to be.
Unfortunately, a computer search of library catalogs shows there is
no such book. That isn't too surprising... new theories are usually
preceded by papers on the topic that are first published in
scientific journals. The absence of papers on the evolution of
biochemical structures in the journals Just about kills any chance of
there being a book published on the matter..The search can be
extended, but the results are the same. There has never been a
meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex
biochemical systems." (Behe, 1996, pp178-179)
Not anywhere:
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is
no publication in the scientific literature-in prestigious journals,
specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution
of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even
might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution
occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments
or calculations....the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is
merely bluster. `Publish or perish' is a proverb that academicians
take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the
community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia (and if
you don't already have tenure, you will be banished). But the saying
can be applied to theories as well. lf a theory claims to be able to
explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an
explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences
and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has never addressed
the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the
theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it
should perish." (Behe, 1996, pp185-186)
MB>An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the
>bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid,
>that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts
>before it works - a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic
>studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are
>needed to produce a working flagellum.
One glance at the drawing of the bacterial flagellum at page 71 of
DBB (it is also opposite the title page) is the nearest thing to
proof of intelligent design that I can imagine. It seems to me an
affront to reason to imagine that a "blind watchmaker" could craft a
machine like that - it is significant that no one has ever tried.
If the thought of the eye made Darwin "cold all over", the sight of
this drawing of a bacterial flagellum would have frozen him solid!
:-)
>MB>The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant
>and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments;
>supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between
>these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular
>trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its
>particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading
>docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the
>destination compartment.
It is so "complex" that there is no explanation for it in all the
world's scientific literature.
>MB>Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the
>cell - the very basis of life - is staggeringly complex. But doesn't
>science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these
>systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the
>University of Chicago, wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian
>accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular
>system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
At the Seminar held at Southern Methodist University attended by such
Darwinist luminaries as Arthur Shapiro and Michael Ruse, Behe issued
this challenge:
"...no one at this conference has argued the merits of Darwinism by
pointing to a complex biological structure and explaining in detail
how it arose from a simple structure through the agency of natural
selection." (Behe M.J., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism:
Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics:
Richardson TX, 1994, p77)
His challenge was not taken up.
>MB>A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account
>for the cell, but I don't find them persuasive. Instead, I think
>that the complex systems were designed - purposely arranged by an
>intelligent agent.
Behe likens science's refusal to acknowledge design to detectives in
a room looking for clues as to what squashed a body flat, all
the while bumping into an elephant in the same room! :-)
"Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A
dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying
glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the
middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant.
The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm's legs as
they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives
get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on,
looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say
detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants.
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to
explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled
"intelligent design." To a person who does not feel obliged to
restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward
conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They
were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and
necessity; rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the
systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to
bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental
level, in its most critical components, is the product of
intelligent activity." (Behe, 1996, p192)
>MB>Whenever we see interactive systems (such as a mouse trap) in the
>everyday world, we assume that they are the products of intelligent
>activity. We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We
>know of no other mechanism, including Darwin's, which produces such
>complexity. Only intelligence does.
Behe points out that the detection of inteligent design is "humdrum"
and requires no special principles:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data
itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that
biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a
humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science.
It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over
the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which
we reach conclusions of design every day." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New
York, 1996, p193)
>MB>Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that,
>say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce
>such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my
>idea would be neatly disproved. But I don't expect that to happen.
Indeed. One would have thought that if it could have been
demonstrated, it woul have been by now.
>MB>Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life
>is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But
>even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don't want the best
>scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct
>explanation.
Agreed. Behe points out that scientists like Robert Shapiro, have
exchanged their original loyalty to the goal of "explaining the
physical world" to a "loyalty...to science":
"Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical
experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed
unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a
sudden appearance of life on the earth. finally, we may have
explored the universe and found no trace of life, or process leading
to life, elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to
turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included,
would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific
explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely
than the remainder." (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to
the Creation of Life on Earth", Summit Books: New York, 1986,
p130, in Behe, 1996, p234)
>MB>Pope John Paul spoke of "theories of evolution." Right now it
>looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design.
Amen! Behe concludes DBB with:
"As we reach the end of this book, we are left with no substantive
defense against what feels to be a strange conclusion: that life
was designed by an intelligent agent. In a way, though, all of the
progress of science over the last several hundred years has been a
steady march toward the strange....Copernicus and Galileo...
Darwin...Einstein...Now it's the turn of the fundamental science of
life, modern biochemistry, to disturb. The simplicity that was once
expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom;
instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the
cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an
intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have
gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural
laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no
reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured
as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun,
as the history of life expanded to encompass long- dead reptiles, as
the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of
Darwin's black box." (Behe, 1996, pp252-253
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------