On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:47:50 -0400, Terry M. Gray wrote:
[continued]
TG>HAIG
>
>David Haig is an evolutionary geneticist/theorist who does research in
>the area of imprinting. But he had done his biochemistry research and
>focused entirely on a biochemical response to Behe's arguments.
This is interesting. Up to date Darwinists had not bothered to
supply a "biochemical response to Behe's arguments" because, as
Johnson points out:
"Once you understand the dimensions of the problem, and the
philosophical constraints within which it must be solved, Darwinism
is practically true by definition -- regardless of the evidence"
Johnson P.E., "Daniel Dennett's Dangerous Idea", Review of "Darwin's
Dangerous Idea", by Daniel Dennett, "The New Criterion", October,
1995]
TG>He started quoting from the Behe's response to the Orr review in
the >Boston Review
>(http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/br22.1/behe.html) where Behe
>claimed, "Evolutionary biology can't overrule biochemistry on
>fundamental principles of life. It's not a question of pride--that's
>just the way the world works." and "Since inherited changes are caused
>by molecular changes, it is biochemists--not evolutionary
>biologists--who will ultimately decide whether Darwin's mechanism of
>natural selection can explain life. No offense--that's just the way the
>world works." [TG: Of course, in stressing the priority of
>biochemistry, Behe only gives his view of biochemistry--he doesn't
>mention that there are many biochemists who disagree with him.]
I would have thought that there can be no question that biochemistry
takes priority over evolutionary theory. That's why molecular
biological evidence has overturned evolutionary theory in
anthropology, for example.
TG>Haig disagreed with Behe in these claims and pointed out that
>biochemists (at least those who don't think in evolutionary terms)
>sometimes view the genes as "the unmoved mover" and forget that
>genes themselves have a genetic (evolutionary) history.
This is just begging the question. That "genes...have a genetic
history" is uncontroversial. That they have an "*evolutionary*
history" (at least a *Darwinian* `blind watchmaker' "evolutionary
history" is the question being discussed. If Haig claims that "genes"
*necessarily* "have" an "evolutionary history" then he demonstrates
once again what Johnson says that evidence is unnecessary to
Darwinists.
TG>He presented an initial figure that looked something like this:
>
>----> Genes ----> Organism ----> Genes ----> Organism ----> Genes
>----> Organism -----> Genes ---->
>
>He emphasized that there is a two way causal interaction between
>genotype and phenotype because of evolutionary principles. Phenotype
>is the expression of the genotype, but genotype is replication (or
>survival to replication) of the phenotype. The environment and complex
>behaviors of organisms have a causal role in which DNA sequence we see.
>In other words the molecular explanation does not explain survival of
>a particular genotype because it does not deal with the whole. The
>modus operandi of the biochemist is to break the whole into parts that
>in the end destroys the meaning of the whole. I think that the main
>point of this part of Haig's presentation was to show that biochemistry
>is not the end all that Behe claims it is and that evolutionary
>theorists do have something to offer that the biochemist can't touch.
See above. I wonder how Haig would propose that the above could be
falsified?
TG>Haig then presented the hemoglobin/myoglobin story (similar to
>what is found in my and others' responses to Behe--see on-line
>reviews listed above.) Here the emphasis is on sequence comparison,
>gene duplication, and novel complex structures arising from
>previously existing less complex structures. There is lots of data
>here from comparative genetics and comparative biochemistry.
Terry, you fail to mention for the benefit of Reflectorites who may
not know that Behe explicitly does *not* claim "the
hemoglobin/myoglobin story" as an example of an "irreducibly complex
structure":
"As Professor Doolittle points out, the sequence of amino acids in
one protein might be strikingly like that in a second protein. A
good example is the one he gives us-the different subunits of
hemoglobin. This gave rise to the idea that the similar proteins
might have descended from a common gene, when in the past the gene
was duplicated. Virtually all biochemists accept this, and so do I.
Many proteins of the clotting cascade are similar to each other, and
similar to other non-cascade proteins, so they also appear to have
arisen by some process of gene duplication. I think this is a very
good hypothesis too. The critical point, however, is that the
duplicated gene is simply a copy of the old one, with the same
properties as the old one-it does not acquire sophisticated new
properties simply by being duplicated. In order to understand how
the present day system got here, a scientist has to explain how the
duplicated genes acquired their new, sophisticated properties.
With hemoglobin the task of getting from a simple protein with one
chain to a complex of four chains does not appear to present
problems, as I discussed on pp. 206-207 of Darwin's Black Box.
In both cases the proteins simply bind oxygen, with more or less
affinity, and they don't have to interact critically with other
proteins in a complex protein system. There is a fairly obvious
pathway leading from a simple hemoglobin to a more complex one.
With the proteins of blood clotting, however, the task of adding
proteins to the cascade appears to be horrendously problematic. With
one protein acting on the next, which acts on the next, and so forth,
duplicating a given protein doesn't give you a new step in the
cascade. Both copies of the duplicated protein will have the same
target protein which they activate, and will themselves be activated
by the same protein as before. In order to explain how the cascade
arose, therefore, a scientist has to propose a detailed route whereby
a duplicated protein turns into a new step in the cascade, with a new
target, and a new activator. Furthermore, because clotting can
easily go awry and cause severe problems when it is uncontrolled, a
serious model for the evolution of blood clotting has to include
quantitative factors, such as how much of a clot forms, what pressure
it can resist, how frequent inappropriate clots would be, and many,
many more such questions."
(Behe M.J., "Reply to my critics", Boston Review, November 1996.
http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/)
This is a typical example of Darwinist thinking. If a simple problem
can be solved, then it is taken that a hard problem does not need to
be solved. But there are three logically possible types of systems:
1. Those which are not "irreducibly complex".
2. Those which may or may not be "irreducibly complex".
3. Those which are "irreducibly complex".
Intelligent Design theorists are free to consider all three
possibilities. Darwinists *must* deny the third possibility exists.
TG>Next, he looked at the structure of ovomacroglobulin--a molecular
>"mousetrap" for proteases--a structure that physically traps the
>protease in a large cavity in the tetramer after undegoing a
>conformational change upon protease binding to the "bait region" (the
>protease binding site). He showed how this system of interworking parts
>"where the function of the whole is dependent on each part being
>present" might have evolved by gradual means. He discussed the
>structure of the alpha-2 macroglobulin which has a similar monomer
>structure, a bait region, but does not have the tetrameric
>conformational change that physically traps the protease in a cavity.
>This protein undergoes a conformational change upon protease binding to
>the active site that then exposes a reactive thioester that covalently
>binds to the protease and disables it. In other words, here is a
>functional intermediate on the way to forming the complex molecular
>machine.
Again, AFAIK Behe does not claim that "ovomacroglobulin" is
"irreducibly complex".
TG>Finally, he looked at the complement system--one of complex
>systems discussed in Darwin's Black Box (131-136). He presented a
>plausible scenario, all taken from the biochemical literature, for
>the evolution of the complement system, based on evidences of gene
>duplication and data from comparative biochemistry. He also noted
>the interesting observation that part of this pathway is functioning
>in fat cells for unknown reasons, but probably unrelated to immune
>system function.
Behe admits that there have been attempts to explain "the evolution
of the complement system":
"Another paper that gamely tries to account for a piece of the immune
system is entitled "Evolution of the Complement System." 6 (Farries
T.C. & Atkinson J.P., "Evolution of the Complement System,"
Immunology Today, 12, 1991, pp295-300). Like the paper discussed
above, it is very short and is a commentary article in other words,
not a research article. The authors make some imaginative guesses
about what might come first and second, but inevitably they join
Russell Doolittle in proposing unexplained proteins that are
"unleashed" and "spring forth" ("At some point a critical gene fusion
created a protease with a binding site for the primitive C3b";
"Evolution of the other alternative pathway components further
improved the amplification and specificity"; and "C2, created by the
duplication of the factor B gene, would then have allowed further
divergence and specialization of the two pathways"). No quantitative
calculations appear in the paper. Nor does an acknowledgment that
gene duplications would not immediately make a new protein. Nor does
any worry about a lack of controls to regulate the pathway. But
then, it would be hard to fit those concerns in the four paragraphs
of the paper that deal with molecular mechanisms." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box:", 1996, p137)
TG>My personal opinion is that Haig did the trick. He may not have
>given the solution to each one of Behe's unsolved problems, but he
>showed that a plausible explanation using known mechanisms could
>produce the systems in question.
It may be that Haig did explain "the evolution of the complement
system", or it may be that he explained it away as above. But my
guess is that you would be happy with the usual vague evolutionary
explanation, because as a convinced evolutionist you do not really
believe that there is any such thing as an "irreducibly complex"
biological system.
TG>Of course, Behe's response is "Did not!"
>
>Haig says, "Did so!"
>
>"Did not!"
>
>"Did so!"
>...
This is trivialising the issue. The question is, is Haig willing to
write it up in a peer reviewed scientific journal with the following
tests by Behe:
1. quantitative calculations.
2. an acknowledgment that gene duplications would not immediately
make a new protein.
3. address the lack of controls to regulate the pathway.
>[TG: Whether someone is convinced depends in part, I think, on their
>plausibility threshhold.
Since Terry has apparently ruled out that there can be "irreducibly
complex" structures, then it appears that there is *no* "plausibility
threshhold" for for him on this topic?
>TG>Perhaps the question should be asked (on both sides), is there
>any reason why you want evolution to be true or why you don't want
>evolution to be true.
This question is a bit like "have you stopped beating your wife"? It
seems to not consider there are people who, based on the
evdidence, really do not think that "evolution" (ie. `blind
watchmaker' macro-evolution), *is* "true".
>TG>People who don't want evolution to be true because they think it
>will wreck their theism ought not be trusted in their plausibility
>threshhold.
This seems to assume that "theism" has no objective content?
Otherwise, why does it follow that rejecting "evolution" because it
contradicts "their theism" necessarily means they "ought not be
trusted in their plausibility threshhold". If Christian
"theism" is true and Jesus really did send the Holy Spirit to guide
Christians into the truth (Jn 16:13), then it may be the rejection of
"evolution" by the vast majority of Christians, is a good reason to
reject "evolution", purely on theistic grounds.
But, as can be seen by my quote of Proverbs 16:33 and 1 Kings 22:34,
that I have come to see that it would not 'wreck" my "theism" even if
Dawkin's fully naturalistic `blind watchmaker' evolution was "true".
Indeed, for about 20 of my 30 years as a Christian theist, I thought
that "evolution" probably *was* "true" but it didn't "wreck" my
"theism".
My objection to "evolution" (ie. Darwinist `blind watchmaker'
evolution) is primarily evidenced based. My position is that there
is a lack of compelling evidence for `blind watchmaker' "evolution",
and that there is strong evidence that a supernatural Intelligent
Designer has guided the origin and development of life over and above
the claimed Darwinian mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
For example, the rapid acquisition of features that together were
necessary for human intelligence, does exceed my "plausibility
threshhold":
"Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of
giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence
of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from
the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification
of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more
dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine
tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits
phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at
the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition
of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical
systems are completely different from one another. Each modification
constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its
descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have
developed simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition
of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition,
supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of
the fish? The reality is that we are confronted with total
conceptual bankruptcy" (Schutzenberger M-P, "The Miracles of
Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger", Origins &
Design, Vol. 17.2, Spring 1996).
Another is the ability of human intelligence to understand
the underlying order of the universe:
"Another of Einstein's famous remarks is that the only
incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible. The success of the scientific enterprise can often
blind us to the astonishing fact that science works. Though it is
usually taken for granted, it is both incredibly fortunate and deeply
mysterious that we are able to fathom the workings of nature by use
of the scientific method. The purpose of science is to uncover
patterns and regularities in nature, but the raw data of observation
rarely exhibit explicit regularities. Nature's order is hidden from
us: the book of nature is written in a sort of code. To make
progress in science we need to crack the cosmic code, to dig beneath
the raw data, and uncover the hidden order. To return to the
crossword analogy, the clues are highly cryptic, and require some
considerable ingenuity to solve. What is so remarkable is that human
beings can actually perform this code-breaking operation. Why has
the human mind the capacity to "unlock the secrets of nature" and
make a reasonable success at completing nature's cryptic crossword"?
It is easy to imagine worlds in which the regularities of nature are
transparent at a glance or impenetrably complicated or subtle,
requiring far more brainpower than humans possess to decode them. In
fact, the cosmic code seems almost attuned to human capabilities.
This is all the more mysterious on account of the fact that human
intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological
evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science. Our
brains have evolved to cope with survival in the jungle," a far cry
from describing the laws of electromagnetism or the structure of the
atom. "Why should our cognitive processes have tuned themselves to
such an extravagant quest as the understanding of the entire
Universe?" asks John Barrow. "Why should it be us? None of the
sophisticated ideas involved appear to offer any selective advantage
to be exploited during the pre-conscious period of our
evolution..." (Barrow J., "Theories of Everything", Oxford
University Press: Oxford, 1991, p172)" (Davies P., "The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Science", in Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of
Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator", Continuum: New York,
1994, p54).
TG>People who believe that evolution must be true because
>they are atheists ought not be trusted in their plausibility
>threshhold. Hmm... whom does that leave?]
See above. It leaves those who believe that "evolution" (ie.
Darwinist `blind watchmaker' "evolution"), is not "true" because it
does not fit all the facts. What does fit all the facts better is
Mediate Creation!
TG>[To be continued]
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------