It's not very good.
The author, Keith Robison, first challenges Behe's mousetrap example:
<<Suppose you challenge me to show that a standard mousetrap is not
irreducibly complex. You hand me all of the parts listed above. I am to
set up a functional mousetrap which at least mostly resembles the
standard one, except I hand you back one piece. Can it be done?
Yep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mousetrap? On
the floor. What if I assemble the mousetrap by pounding the staples into
the floor? Would I have a fully functional mousetrap?
Of course I would. Would it be just as useful? Nope -- there is actually
a selective advantage to having a typical mousetrap, rather than a kit.
Not only do I have to assemble the mousetrap, but I can't put it on a
stone or concrete floor, or a very irregular floor or a very soft one
(such as soil). It's a nuisance to put behind or under appliances &
furniture. I can kiss my security deposit goodbye.
Clearly it is inferior. But just as clearly, it is functional! >>
As I read this I was saying to myself, "Wait a minute! All you've done is
switch bases! The components CANNOT operate without being secured to a base.
You just want to staple them to the floor! Can you REALLY be missing this
obvious blunder?"
As I read on, I found that indeed he had.Behe himself wrote an answer to this,
when the question was posed to him. Mike wrote, "That's an interesting reply,
but you've just substituted another wooden base for the one you were given.
The trap still can't function without a base."
To that, the critic says:
"Which completely misses the point. The base-free mousetrap still
functions; it simply uses a component of its natural environment in its
workings. "
It is his answer that misses the point. When challenged to remove the base and
still have a mousetrap, the guy just used "natural environment" for the base.
It still proves the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. It is not "base-free" at
all.
Chalk this point up to Behe, easily.
Robison then goes on to specialized arguments with Behe about pseudogenes and
cascades. Not being an expert, I can't really comment on this, though I can
comment on one aspect: Behe is a much better writer. His prose is clearer, and
it is easy to figure what he is saying. Not so with this critic.
Further, it seems to me the critic fails to answer the point. Behe states
that, e.g., there is no explanation for a Darwinian, stepwise development of
the complex "copy machinery" that produces a pseudogene. Robison responds:
"Hence we see that the available body of biological knowledge predicts
that pseudogenes are an inevitable phenomenon -- given enough time. The
complex machinery that Behe claims is necessary for pseudogene formation
not only exists, but it exists for completely different purposes, in all
living systems."
But the question here is NOT one of existence! Behe ACKNOWLEDGES the machinery
exists! (Duh, he says it in the very passage the critic quotes!). The LACK is
in the evolutionary explanation for the machinery.
Next, Robison displays a rather glaring misunderstanding of irreducible
complexity:
<<This leads to a question: if the Krebs cycle, in all its complexity, is
not "irreducibly complex", how can we have any confidence in our ability
to recognize an "irreducibly complex" system? After all, that is the
only criterion we have to recognize one: that we cannot postulate a
reasonable evolutionary pathway.>>
No, that is NOT how we recognize an irreducibly complex system. "Evolutionary
pathway" has nothing to do with it. That is only a causal consideration. What
defines IC is the inability to function unless all parts are present. Another
major boo boo.
If there is any criticism which DOES bear analysis, it is the claim that Behe
has MISSED several published articles on the subject. Behe says there have
been NONE, but Robison lists, e.g.,
*Orig Life Evol Biosph 18: 41-57 (1988)[88217276]. New prospects for
deducing the evolutionary history of metabolic pathways in prokaryotes:
aromatic biosynthesis as a case-in-point. S. Ahmad & R. A. Jensen
*Mol Biol Evol 2: 92-108 (1985)[88216112]. Biochemical pathways in
prokaryotes can be traced backward through evolutionary time. R. A.
Jensen
*Microbiol Sci 4: 258, 260-2 (1987)[91058939]. Enzyme specialization
during the evolution of amino acid biosynthetic pathways. C. Parsot, I.
Saint-Girons & G. N. Cohen
*Annu Rev Microbiol 30: 409-25 (1976)[77043263]. Enzyme recruitment in
evolution of new function. R. A. Jensen
*Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 76: 3996-4000 (1979)[80035004]. Origins of
metabolic diversity: evolutionary divergence by sequence repetition. L.
N. Ornston & W. K. Yeh
PROBLEM: All of the papers cited by Robison are concerned with the development
of *metabolic pathways*. Metabolic pathways are NOT irreducibly complex. Behe
even ACKNOWLEDGES such pathways may have evolved (see DBB 151 ff.) But again,
that does NOT address the problem of irreducible complexity.
Behe posted a note on this to his critic, in fact, but Robison ignored it. On
the papers themselves, Behe has said:
"Most of them are sequence analyses which, as I explain in my
book, can't tell us *how* a pathway could have come about. Several of the
papers do deal with the chemistry of several pathways, but simply show that
the reactions are chemically allowed in portions. The papers do not address
the question of how a cell that is successfully metabolizing with a different
pathway could switch to a second one, given that would invariably screw
up metabolic regulation. Furthermore, the papers are by a few scattered
groups, published in backwater journals by foreign groups in small countries
(sorry to show my American prejudice), and have not been followed up by the
larger research community."
Robison thus contends that molecular biologists have shown how IC systems
could have arisen in an evolutionary fashion. If that is so, why do even the
most eminent of Behe critics AGREE with Mike?
For example, Jerry Coyne wrote in his Nature review of DBB that, "There is no
doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their
evolution WILL BE hard to unravel." (Emphasis mine)
Doesn't sound like it's been unraveled yet, does it?
In National Review, James Shapiro wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian
accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system,
only a variety of wishful speculations."
In sum, I find this critique of Behe in keeping with most of the chest beating
claptrap that comes out of talk.origins.
Jim