I respectively request that if you choose to not respond to individual posts
and in a timely fashion, that you do not respond to my posts. To be fair,
I'll refrain from responding to any of your tomes.
At 08:09 PM 1/30/97 +0800, you wrote:
>Group
>
>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:03:31 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SC>...Behe's model, however, does not seem to account for the
>>possibility that a mousetrap could evolve from something that
>>originally did not function as a mouse trap, which seems more
>>congruent with a macroevolution scenario.
>
>>SJ>Actually Mike *does* deal with this: "Even if a system is
>>irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly),
>>however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an
>>indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting
>>system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route
>>drops precipitously.
>
>>SC>What does this mean? Most people would recognize that complexity
>>provides a daunting challenge to evolution. Darwin recognized this
>>in the eye. But this is a problem for ANY model that attempts to
>>explain the origin of complex structures. Besides, the "indirect"
>>route isn't a necessary alternative to the gradual fine tuning of
>>some functionally irreducible structure that Behe seems to favor.
>>If evolutionary changes are not constrained by the requirement to
>>gradually make a better mousetrap, then large changes in
>>function--to say a catapult, can be arise from relatively small
>>changes in structure. This is not "circuitous." In fact,
>>significant changes could arise quickly rather than gradually if the
>>constraint on function is minimized.
>
>This is what Behe would no doubt call a "Calvin and Hobbes"
>story. Try it on the blood-clotting cascade and win a Nobel
>prize! :-) Behe would simply ask, "how exactly" would such
>"significant changes...arise quickly rather than gradually if the
>constraint on function is minimized":
>
>"Intriguing as this scenario may sound, though, critical details are
>overlooked. The question we must ask of this indirect scenario is one for
>which many evolutionary biologists have little patience: but how exactly?"
>(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
>Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996, p66)
>
>SJ>And as the number of unexplained irreducibly complex biological
>>systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure
>>has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows."
>
>>SC>This is the crux of the debate. Some people cannot imagine how
>>complexity could arise through naturalistic means, even if there is
>>an intelligent force behind the process (e.g., ECism).
>
>If there is (in any realsense) "an intelligent force behind
>the process", then it is not solely "through naturalistic means".
>
>SC>Other people can imagine it, and others simply say that Behe's
>>criticism does not provide a sufficient basis for rejecting the
>evolution model. My position is the latter.
>
>OK. If you "can imagine it", namely any *one* of Behe's claimed
>irreduciably complex systems, how about posting it? :-)
>
>SC>Simply pointing out deficiencies in a theory is not the same thing
>>as proposing a counter model. That has not been done.
>
>The "counter model" is Intelligent Design! Any competent biologist
>could come up with a detailed account of the most difficult
>"irreducibly complex" system if an all-powerful, all-knowing
>Intelligent Designer is allowed. For example, in the case of the
>blood clotting cascade, substitute Doolittle's "Yin" and "Yang" with
>'God" or "ID":
>
>"`Blood clotting is a delicately balanced phenomenon involving
>proteases, antiproteases, and protease substrates. Generally speaking,
>each forward action engenders some backward-inclined response.
>Various metaphors can be applied to its step-by-step evolution:
>action-reaction, point and counterpoint, or good news and bad news.
>My favorite, however, is yin and yang. In ancient Chinese cosmology,
>all that comes to be is the result of combining the opposite principles
>yin and yang. Yang is the masculine principle and embodies activity,
>height, heat, light and dryness. Yin, the feminine counterpoint,
>personifies passivity, depth, cold, darkness and wetness Their
>marriage yields the true essence of all things.'" (Doolittle, R.F., "The
>Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation: A Case of Yin and
>Yang", Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1993, 70, 24-28Behe, 1996,
>pp91-92)
>
>>SJ>His point is that *no one* has ever been able to explain even
>>*one* of these complex micro-biological systems using "a
>>macroevolution scenario".
>>
>>SC>Is this really his point--that no one has ever been ABLE to
>>explain this? Or is the point simply that there are no explanations
>>offered? There is a BIG difference between not offering an
>>explanation vs trying trying to find one, but failing. This is an
>>important distinction that is not being made here. From the
>>comments on Behe's book that I have heard and read, it appears to me
>>that antievolutionists overinterpret this observation.
>
>Based on the fact that to date "no one has ever been ABLE to explain
>this", Behe concludes that no one WILL ever be able to explain this".
>That's a Popperian risky prediction in the best tradition of science.
>All it now requires is for Neo-Darwinists to show how Behe's examples
>could "have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
>modifications". If they cannot do this, even in thought experiments,
>then Neo-Darwinism has failed and ID, which *can* explain it, should
>replace it as the more fruitful paradigm.
>
>>SC>What does it mean that there are no published accounts that try to
>>explain the origins of complex stuctures?
>
>Just that. Behe has searched the scientific literature and found
>nothing:
>
>"....if you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you
>focus your search on the question of how molecular machines the basis
>of life- developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The
>complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to
>account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable
>barrier to Darwinism's universal reach." (Behe, 1996, pp5-6)
>
>"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." (Behe, 1996, p185)
>
>
>SC>Has it been tried and failed? Or have no attempts been made? If
>>the latter, then is the question tractable to being tested
>>empirically?
>
>I would expect that there have been many "attempts" but all have
>"failed". No one is yet claiming that "the question" is not
>"tractable to being tested empirically". Pomiankowski agrees with
>Behe that detailed case histories must be found if biochemistry
>is to fall within evolutionary biology:
>
>"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...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)
>
>SC>If so, how long has it been possible to test the question? Keep
>>in mind here, that Mike also states that our understanding of
>>complex molecular structures, like cilia, is much more recent that
>>Darwin's model of evolution.
>
>I would have thought that it would have "been possible to test the
>question" for the last 40 years. In the above review Pomiankowski
>says:
>
>"Since the 1950s a deeper understanding of the molecular basis of
>life has been possible fuelled by increasing knowledge of the
>workings of DNA, molecular biology and better instrumentation."
>
>Behe points out that Doolittle wrote his Ph.D thesis on blood
>clotting in *1961*, 35 years ago:
>
>"Russell Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the Center for
>Molecular Genetics, University of California, San Diego, is the most
>prominent person interested in the evolution of the clotting cascade
>From the time of his Harvard Ph.D thesis, "The Comparative
>Biochemistry of Blood Coagulation" (1961), Professor Doolittle has
>examined the clotting systems of different, "simpler" organisms in
>the hope that that would lead to an understanding of how the
>mammalian system arose." (Behe, 1996, p91)
>
>>SC>As a counter point, one could ask how many published accounts
>>describe alternative, nonDarwinian ways of arriving at complex
>>structures?
>
>Which "alternative, nonDarwinian ways" do you mean? In the case
>of Intelligent Design, since it is not even considered within
>science, probably none. Berlinski says that Darwinian evolution is
>"doubly damned" for refusing to admit other alternatives (including
>design) as explanations, yet being unable to explain the main
>features of life itself :
>
>"Unable to say what evolution has accomplished, biologists now find
>themselves unable to say whether evolution has accomplished it. This
>leaves evolutionary theory in the doubly damned position of having
>compromised the concepts needed to make sense of life-complexity,
>adaptation, design- while simultaneously conceding that the theory
>does little to explain them" (Berlinski D., "The Deniable Darwin",
>Commentary, June 1996, p28)
>
>>SJ>If you believe that (say) the blood clotting cascade "evolved from
>>a primordial structure by gradual improvement of" blood clotting
>>ability", then why don't *you* win "instant fame" by doing it
>>first, as Russ wrote:
>
>>SC>First of all, I said that evolution by gradual refinement of a
>>function, such as blood clotting, is not an a priori requirement of
>>evolution.
>
>Sorry, if "evolution" is to be a general theory of biology, it *must*
>be able to explain it, or yield to a better, more general theory,
>such as Intelligent Design.
>
>SC>Second, I appreciate Mike's point that this is a hole in
>>the evidence for evolutionary biology. It would be nice if his
>>point stimulated some thought to "evolutionary molecular biology."
>>I, however, will pass on the challenge--it's not what I do or know.
>
>That's what they all say! :-) Nobody knows the answer in their
>discipline, but everybody assumes that somebody else must know the
>answer in their discipline:
>
>"The amount of scientific research that has been and is being done on
>the cilium-and the great increase over the past few decades in our
>understanding of how the cilium works lead many people to assume that
>even if they themselves don't know how the cilium evolved, somebody
>must know. But a search of the professional literature proves them
>wrong. Nobody knows." (Behe, 1996, p69)
>
>>SC>Mike's criticism, and the discussion it has stimulated, revolves
>>around the philosophical concepts of probability and liklihood--they
>>are really different things. I plan to post something on this soon.
>
>I doubt that this is what "Mike's criticism" is about at all. I
>wonder if Steve has actually read Mike's book?
>
>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) |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________