On 06 Dec 96 12:33:40 EST, Jim Bell wrote::
JB>Burgy posted a note about the talk.origins archive article on Behe. So I got
>it and read it.
Indeed: On 05 Dec 96 14:23:49 EST, John W. Burgeson wrote:
JWB>The following exchange was made on Compuserve yesterday. Comments
>anyone?
>
>In Behe's book, the following:
>
>"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." Pg. 185.
>
>Is this statement correct?
>
>No, it is not. A new file was added to the talk.origins FAQ Archive last week
>that addresses Behe's book and contains several references to papers that do
>exactly what what Behe claims has not been done. To find it, fire up your Web
>browser and head for http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/ . Go into the What's New
>section; the answer to Behe is the first article-link on that page.
If the words "Is this statement correct? No, it is not" are Burgy's, then
he seems to think that the mere posting of articles that may touch on
the examples Behe gives is sufficient to refute Behe's argument. The
above quote by Behe continues:
"...There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely
none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." (Behe
M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution",
Free Press: New York, 1996, p185)
This last, "supported by pertinent experiments or calculations"
qualifies what Behe means by "that describes how molecular evolution
of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have
occurred."
JB>It's not very good.
Thanks. You may have saved me the trouble of checking the web site
for myself. I expected it would be "not very good" simply because of
the time lag. Behe's book has been out for several months, and if he
was wrong about his central claim above we would have heard about it
almost immediately, especially from outraged authors and journal
editors.
[...]
JB>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.
Strangely enough, I agree with the critic. If Darwinists can find
*any* way to build a functioning mousetrap with one less
component, then *by definition* the original mousetrap was not
"irreducibly complex". But what is now "irreducibly complex" is the
new mousetrap stapled to the floor!
In any event, this was just an illustration. In the real biomolecular
world there *are* irreducibly complex systems, as even Dawkins is
forced to admit:
"The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that
we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection.
But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we
know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is
cumulative selection, we have a problem. Certainly the modern
cellular machinery, the apparatus of DNA replication and protein
synthesis, has all the hallmarks of a highly evolved, specially
fashioned machine. We have seen how staggeringly impressive it is as
an accurate data storage device. At its own level of
ultra-miniaturization, it is of the same order of elaborateness and
complexity of design as the human eye is at a grosser level. All who
have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex
as the human eye could not possibly come into existence through
single-step selection. Unfortunately, the same seems to be true of
at least parts of the apparatus of cellular machinery whereby DNA
replicates itself, and this applies not just to the cells of advanced
creatures like ourselves and amoebas, but also to relatively more
primitive creatures like bacteria and blue-green algae. So,
cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step
selection cannot. BUT CUMULATIVE SELECTION CANNOT WORK UNLESS
THERE IS SOME MINIMAL MACHINERY of replication and replicator power,
and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too
complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less
than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this
as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker..."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991,
pp140-141. My emphasis.)
Indeed, Ross reports that recent research has found that the
minimum genome is at least 256 genes:
"Arcady Mushegian and Eugene Koonin of the National Center for
Biotechnology Information reasoned that any genes such diverse
species hold in common are likely essential for basic cell function.
That number adds up to 240. To cover certain enzyme functions
critical for cell survival. they add 22 genes, for a total of 262,
then they trim out 6 genes that appear redundant or specific to each
bacteria's adaptation for feeding on its specific host. Their final
figure, then, for the minimum genome to support cell function and
reproduction is 256. Referring to their calculation as preliminary,
Mushegian and Koonin realize they may have overlooked some critical
function(s) not covered by the 256 genes. Clearly, the bacteria do
have to find and attach to suitable hosts, and some level of genetic
redundancy appears essential for species' survival. When complete
genome analysis for more species, including humans, becomes available
in a few months, a more accurate estimate of life's minimal chemical
complexity will also be available. But in the meantime, Mushegian
and Koonin's work provides a ballpark figure for determining the
magnitude of the "spontaneous generation" problem. Anyone proposing
a naturalistic interpretation for life's origin must be able to
explain how 256+ genes, plus all the other chemical components and
structures for survival and reproduction put themselves together via
mindless, purposeless, non-organic processes." (Ross H, "Simplest
Bacterium not so Simple", Facts & Faith, Reasons To Believe:
Pasadena CA, Vol. 10, No. 4, Fourth Quarter 1996, p5)
This is the *real* minimum irreducibly complex "mousetrap"! :-)
JB>Robison then goes on to specialized arguments with Behe about
>pseudogenes and cascades. Not being an expert, I can't really
>comment on this...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.
This is illuminating. Because Darwinists assume evolution is a fact,
the mere existence of the finished product is taken to be conclusive
proof of evolution!
JB>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.
I have a bit of trouble with this. Darwinists might agree that an
complex system as it now exists has an "inability to function unless
all parts are present". But if they can "postulate a reasonable
evolutionary" (ie. gradual, step-by-step) "pathway" then they would
have made their point.
Dawkins gives the example of an archway:
"An arch of stones, for instance, is a stable structure capable of
standing for many years even if there is no cement to bind it.
Building a complex structure by evolution is like trying to build a
mortarless arch if you are allowed to touch only one stone at a time.
Think about the task naively, and it can't be done. The arch will
stand once the last stone is in place, but the intermediate stages
are unstable. It's quite easy to build the arch, however, if you are
allowed to subtract stones as well as add them. Start by building a
solid heap of stones then build the arch resting on top of this solid
foundation. Then, when the arch is all in position, including the
vital keystone at the top, carefully remove the supporting stones
and, with a modicum of luck, the arch will remain standing.
Stonehenge is incomprehensible until we realize that the builders
used same kind of scaffolding, or perhaps ramps of earth, which are
no longer there. We can see only the end-product, and have to infer
the vanished scaffolding." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991,
Penguin, pp148-149)
Of course whether it actually happened that way, is another thing
altogether:
"Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are
famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but they
often forget that plausible stories need not be true." (Gould S.J.,
et. al., "The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random
clades", Paleobiology, vol. 3 No. 1, 1977, pp34-35)
A creationist, finding a Darwinist story about vanished intermediates
implausible, might just as easily infer a vanished scaffolder!
JB>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
Is that all? :-)
JB>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."
This is an important point. If "nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution" (Dobzhansky, 1973), then one would
expect much, much more.
JB>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."
Indeed, Andrew Pomiankowski in New Scientist also says:
"At this point I find myself partly agreeing with Behe. If
biochemistry is to fall within evolutionary biology, we need detailed
case histories. Behe's trawl of the scientific literature on cilia
found only three major attempts to understand their evolution. Each
is interesting, covering issues such as the possible origin of cilia
as independent symbiotic bacteria, the use of cilia in phototaxis and
mechanical difficulties in the evolution of cilia. Evolutionary
thinking is pushing at the frontiers of knowledge. But the general
lack of interest in biochemical evolution that Behe reveals is
typical. Only in the area of DNA and protein sequence analysis has
evolution been taken seriously. Why haven't biochemists tried harder
to understand how specific complex systems evolved?...the comparative
biochemistry of cilia is also almost nonexistent. Nothing is known
about variation in cilia design across different groups of organisms,
although it undoubtedly exists. Nobody has attempted to relate this
variation to differences in function or to reveal hints of the
proto-cilium. Similar problems bedevil many attempts to uncover
biochemical evolution. But there is a bigger problem. Most
biochemists have only a meagre understanding of, or interest in,
evolution. As Behe points out, for the thousand-plus scholarly
articles on the biochemistry of cilia, he could find only a handful
that seriously addressed evolution. This indifference is universal.
Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or
three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be
lucky to find anything better than "evolution selects the fittest
molecules for their biological function". Behe is good at exposing
the paucity of evolutionary thought in the field of
biochemistry....To understand molecular design, we need a biochemical
account of evolution...Biochemistry is yet another area of biology
still awaiting its Darwinian revolution." (Pomiankowski A., "The God
of the tiny gaps" reviews of "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe,
New Scientist, Vol 151, No. 2047, 14 September 1996, p44-45)
JB>In sum, I find this critique of Behe in keeping with most of the
>chest beating claptrap that comes out of talk.origins.
Which in itself is evidence against the theory. If they really were
secure in their faith, they would not need to beat their chest. The
only evolutionists (and creationists) that impress me are those who
can argue their points calmly, politely and clearly.
Happy New Year!
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------