<< Test by
rereading my criticism while ignoring the illustrations. They are not
needed to state my point that the problem with Behe's construction of
irreducible complexity is the requirement for functional irreducibility.>>
Yes, this will work as a one stage critique. Proceeding to offer imagined
"selective advantages" is the second stage with which I took issue. I see this
all too often in evolutionary arguments.
It is, BTW, untestable.
<< However, others believe that an
evolutionary scenario enables them to imagine how the origin of complex
systems could be explained in terms of science. And this is fine. If Behe
says he can't imagine it, why can't someone else say they can?>>
First, those who imagine are forever insulated from testing the conjecture.
This type of imagination becomes, as I explained before, something of a "magic
wand" to make the sort of problems Behe brings up go away. Second, Behe has
searched, in vain, for more than imaginings in the scientific literature.
<<The real realist, Jim, would say to both, go for it>>
How would your propose that you, Steve, "go for it"? You wrote earlier:
<< I agree with Behe that it is hard to imagine
cilia evolving by fine-tuning of proto-cilia. Once you remove any of the
components of a cilia it ceases to have any cilia-like function. But is it
necessary to think that cilia must evolve in this way? Cilia are complex
cellular appendages with molecular motors that allow them
to wave and move cells through liquid, or move liquid past cells.
But, rather than evolving from something with similar function, why can't we
consider that cilia evolved from something that did not have cilia-like
function? Suppose a primordial structure provided an early selective advantage
because it increased the surface area of the cell and facilitated nutrient
uptake?>>
We can suppose until Judgement Day. But what research will enable you to move
beyond supposition to science? What "selective advantage" are you imagining,
and how will you reconstruct the conditions of the past to test this? What
current, published data allow you to make such a suppostion?
Not to put you on the spot, but this is just the sort of thing that causes
Darwinian skeptics such as myself to label so much of evolutionism a "shell
game." Perhaps I'm harsh in my assessment. Help me out here.
Jim