On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:38:39 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>SJ>"Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes
>to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are
>what I term "irreducibly complex."
PM>The problem is that Behe has failed to show that the system is
>irreducibly complex
Behe has shown that there are no plausible explanations in
the scientific literature for the origin of a whole class of
complex, integrated bimolecular systems:
"...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 M.J., "Darwin's Black
Box", 1996, pp5-6)
But just like it is impossible to prove a universal negative, so
Behe admits it is probably impossible to prove that a "system" cannot
have arisen gradualistically, ie. that it is *not* "irreducibly
complex":
"There is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism
is logically impossible. But the hurdles for gradualism become
higher and higher as structures are more complex, more
interdependent. Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural
process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be
foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless,
we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it
would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like
postulating that a natural process might explain computers.
Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as
concluding that mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch
Ness monster doesn't exist." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996,
pp203-204)
But this only shows that Darwinism is untestable!
PM>or similarly that irreducibly complex could not have arisen
>through intermediate steps.
This reveals confusion. By *definition* something that is
"irreducibly complex could not have arisen through intermediate
steps":
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex
system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously
improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same
mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system,
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is
missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly
complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a
powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection
can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological
system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an
integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have
anything to act on." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p38)
SJ>That means the system needs several components before it can work
>properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a
>mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so
>on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian
>manner, gradually improving its function.
PM>Of course this 'mouse trap' idea has already been addressed and
>been shown to be a poor example since Behe assumes that the
>intermediate steps cannot have any advantages or function or that
>the final step required could not have arisen gradually.
This "moustrap" was after all, only an "example". But as a matter of
interest, what "advantages or function" do "intermediate steps"
leading up to a "moustrap" have?
PM>Behe's mistake is to assume that the mousetrap only functions as
>a mousetrap and that it requires all items for it to function. Both
>assumptions are wrong.
What else can "the mousetrap" function as apart from "a mousetrap"?
And what "items" can a "mousetrap" not "require" for it to
"function".
>SJ>You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a
>few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place
>before you catch any mice. An example of an irreducibly complex
>cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller,
>powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum
>requires a number of parts before it works - a rotor, stator and
>motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40
>different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working
>flagellum." (Behe M., "Darwin Under the Microscope", New York
>Times, October 29, 1996)
PM>Nice example of proof by assertion.
Which "assertion"? 1. "You can't catch a mouse with just the
platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring" or 2. "The
flagellum requires a number of parts before it works - a rotor,
stator and motor....about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed
to produce a working flagellum."
Please explain which "assertion" is incorrect.
PM>Behe has shown that the rotor is complex, not irreducibly
>complex.
He has "shown" that no one has even *attempted* an explanation of
the bacterial flagellum "rotor" (see quote below)
How else could be have "shown that the rotor is...irreducibly
complex"?
>SJ>Behe points out that no one has ever published a model of how the
>bacterial flagellum originated:
PM>That by itself is no proof of irreducibly complex either.
Please state what you *would* consider to be "proof of irreducibly
complexity", Pim?
>"The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is
>about as rich as the literature on the cilium, with thousands of
>papers published on the subject over the years. That isn't
>surprising; the flagellum is a fascinating biophysical system, and
>flagellated bacteria are medically important. Yet here again, the
>evolutionary literature is totally missing. Even though we are told
>that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no
>scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual
>evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine." (Behe M.J.,
>"Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p72)
>SJ>"As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy in a simple
>bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the
>subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by
>selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What
>advantage could derive, for example, from a "preflagellum" (meaning a
>subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of
PM>The author is wondering about the advantage but does not address
>whether he believes that there is none.
I assume that he *knows* of none, because no one has ever published
any! If you know of any "advantage" of "a `preflagellum'", please
state what they are.
SJ>"simultaneous" development of the organelle at a level where it
>becomes advantageous (Macnab R., "Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis:
>The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System," CRC Critical Reviews
>in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, December 1978, pp291-341)?
SJ>A few rethorical questions are not proof SJ.
Perhaps you would state what you would accept as "proof" P.M.?
>SJ>The "obvious" answer is that we are discussing whether a
>fully naturalistic `blind watchmaker' mechanism alone can accomplish
>the building of one of Behe's claimed "`irreducibly complex'
>structures".
PM>Why not?
"Why not?" what?
>SJ>Clearly an intelligent designer, human or divine, can build an
>irreducibly complex structure. Note: I accept that God could work
>through a mchanism that appeared totally random to human beings
>(Proverbs 16:33; 1 Kings 22:34), even a fully naturalistic `blind
>watchmaker' mechanism, if He so chose. But the question is, did
>He?:
PM>Who cares? It cannot be proven in a scientific manner. You
>assume that god could build an irreducibly complex structure but
>nature couldn't. Interesting assertion but how would you go about
>proving this?
I don't need to. As Dennett's friend Prof. Inwagen points out,
ignoring or riduculing Behe will only make the majority of people
even more suspicious of Darwinism than they are already:
"This book will do much to correct the common misapprehension that
anyone who questions the Darwinian theory of evolution must be a
"young earth creationist" whose motivation is to preserve the literal
truth of of the stories told in the first three books (sic?) of
Genesis against against the encroachments of modern science and
reason. If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it,
misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favour
of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an
ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully
answer Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of
Darwinism."(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996, back cover)
If "scientific" naturalism cannot explain how these complex,
integrated systems arose, but Intelligent Design can, then eventually
the latter will replace the former.
>TG>One person commented that Darwinists expect irreducible
>complexity.
>SJ>I am amused by this. Why then do Darwinists attack Behe?
PM>Because of his assumptions that irreducibly complex structures
>point to a designer?
If they are indeed "irreducibly complex structures" then they do
"point to a designer".
PM>Because of the abuse of Behe's work by some to promote an
>unprovable philosophy of the existance of an intelligent
>supernatural designer?
Is that any reason for "Darwinists" to "attack Behe"? Their
"philosophy" of naturalism that denies "the existance of an
intelligent supernatural designer" is equally "unprovable".
>SJ>Actually, this is Dawkin's "Stonehenge" argument:
>
>"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)
PM>And indeed that is the best and compact argument indicating why
>irreducibly complex is not a very good argument.
It may be the "best...argument" but it is falalcious. "Stonehenge"
was built by intelligent designers. Intelligent designers can easily
cross functional complexity gaps that the inanimate objects cannot.
>SJ>By this sort of all-purpose `missing evidence' argument Darwinism can
>explain anything and its opposite. If there are "Tell-Tale Traces"
>then the "Mystery" is "Solved". If there are none, a hypothetical
>`just-so' story is invented to explain where the "Tell-Tale Traces"
>went. Either way, the "Mystery" is "Solved" for Darwinists,
>because evidence is not necessary for something that just has to be
>true.
PM>No, the mystery is not solved but the Behe problem of irreducibly
>complex has been shown to be based on poor logic and assumptions.
>Simple.
Not really. Origin-of-life Professor Robert Shapiro said that Behe
had "done a top notch job of explaining and illuminating one of the
most vexing problems in biology":
"Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and
illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of
complexity that permeates all of life on this planet....this book
should be on the essential reading list of all those who are
interested in the question of where we came from, as it presents the
most thorough and clever presentation of the design argument that I
have seen."
- Robert Shapiro, Author of "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth"
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996, back cover)
Regards.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------