On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:47:28 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
>>JR>The deductive argument IC ->couldn't have evolved is just as mistaken when
>>>Hoyle presents it as when Behe does, EVEN IF the conclusion is true. IC of
>>>suitably complex system does imply that the simplest path is unavailable
>>>(for the reasons presented in the quote above), but (certainly in principle,
>>>anyway) there are indefinitely many more circuitous evolutionary paths still
>>>available, even given IC of the end result.
>SJ>All Hoyle is saying is that one cannot plausibly arrive at
>>histone-4 by the normal, bottom-up, step-by-step, Neo-Darwinian pathway.
JR>Step-wise downward and lateral changes are also part of evolutionary theory,
>since they're part of run-of-the-mill genetics. (This is one difference
>from epicycles: the existence of these alternate mutation possibilities is
>fairly obvious, whereas the existence of epicycles was purely speculative.)
Histone-4 is a *protein* not a gene:
"HISTONES. A class of basic proteins, with an unusually large proportion
of the basic amino acids arginine and lysine in their make-up, associated
with DNA in the chromosomes of eucaryotic (q.v.) cells. Probably
concerned with shutting off gene activity." (Abercrombie M., Hickman
C.J., & Johnson M.L., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology", 1985, p143).
"histone, n. a type of simple protein that is usually basic and tends to form
complexes with nucleic acids (e.g. DNA) forming NUCLEOSOMES.
CHROMOSOMES of EUCARYOTES contain large quantities of histones
which may regulate DNA functioning in some way. The five major histones
are represented as: H1, H2A, H2B, H3 and H4." (Hale W.G., & Margham
J.P., "Collins Reference Dictionary of Biology", 1988, p277).
But the protein for Histone-4 is coded for by a gene, the histone H4 gene.
But this is even more invariant, only differing in 2 loci out of 306!:
"Cows and pea plants (and, indeed, all the rest of us) have an almost
identical gene called the histone H4 gene. The DNA text is 306 characters
long. We can't say that it occupies the same addresses in all species,
because we can't meaningfully compare address labels across species. But
what we can say is that there is a length of 306 characters in cows, which is
virtually identical to a length of 306 characters in peas. Cows and peas
differ from each other in only two characters out of these 306. We don't
know exactly how long ago the common ancestor of cows and peas lived,
but fossil evidence suggests that it was somewhere between 1,000 and
2,000 million years ago. Call it 1.5 billion years ago. Over this
unimaginably (for humans) long time, each of the two lineages that
branched from that remote ancestor has preserved 305 out of the 306
characters (on average: it could be that one lineage has preserved all 306 of
them and the other has preserved 304). Letters carved on gravestones
become unreadable in mere hundreds of years." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", 1991, p123)
JR>Also, to observe that this argument is fallacious is neither to claim nor
>imply that neo-Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Those are independent issues.
See above. It is instructive to note that John used Neo-Darwinian all-
purpose explanation type thinking to solve the problem, even though it was
not applicable.
While Neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, and in fact has been falsified, in the
minds of those who believe it, Neo-Darwinism it is not falsifiable, because
Neo-Darwinists can always think of some ad hoc hypothesis which can
save the theory. See for example Chris' "maybe we are too ignorant to
think of the answer" which was used by Darwin himself. A theory which
can always resort to such stratagems can never be falsified, in the minds of
its adherents.
JR>BTW, thanks for posting Behe's comment basically agreeing with my point, I
>believe (which encourages me wrt the ID movement: given that I haven't read
>Behe's book, I've relied on articles and discussions here, and this is the
>first time I've come across this [what seems to me] major and insightful
>concession), but then adding that the probability of producing a given IC
>system drops dramatically if a more circuitous incremental path is required.
>I think this may be true, actually, but the implications are unclear, since
>the prior probabilities are unknown. (E.g., if a circuitous path reduced
>the likelihood of producing X by 5 or 10 or n orders of magnitude, producing
>X may still be extremely likely.)
It is a major problem that critics of ID are working from the prejudiced
reviews of Darwinists. If they took the time to read and absorb Behe's
arguments they would find it is quite a different thing from what they
imagined.
JR>Also, I say only "may be true" because it's hard to know just what the
>change in odds is. A more complicated pathway to a given result seems a
>priori much less likely than a simple pathway. But given that there are
>indefinitely many, perhaps literally infinitely many complex pathways (in
>principle, not in concrete practice), it's hard (for me, anyway) to see
>accurately just what the effect is on the overall probability of producing
>X.
If histone-4 has 102 amino acids but only varies by 2 amino acids across all
eukaryotes, which include "protozoa green algae, yeasts, fungi and all
higher plants and animals (Maynard Smith J.., "The Theory of Evolution",
1993, p118), then is evidence that there are no functional pathways down
from it (and hence up to it) or up from it (and hence down to it).
JR>I think what one really needs to make this argument pack a lethal punch is
>either (1) a good statistical analysis of all the different possibilities,
>which would be an ENORMOUS (and perhaps impossibly speculative) task, I
>think, or (2) an argument not merely from IRREDUCIBLE complexity, but
>something like IMMUTABLE complexity, complexity such that change in any
>direction -- a reduction, an increase, a substitution, a reversal, etc.-- on
>any scale occurring in nature (one base pair, a contiguous group of base
>pairs, etc.) would results in an overall dysfunctional system. Now THAT
>would be an interesting proof, were it ever soundly
Well that's *exactly* what Hoyle has done! Histone-4 *is* virtually
"immutable" being invariant across the whole eukaryotic world at 98%
of its 102 amino acid positions.
JR>Remember, Steve, I'm entirely open to ID theory being true. I'm simply not
>open to bad arguments to that conclusion. And I think Hoyle's argument (as
>summarized, at least) is a bad one.
I am sure John sincerely thinks he is "open to ID theory being true" but in
my experience he always raises the bar so it can never be true *for him*.
I would remind John of the true story I told Loren of a Pakistani manager
who only ever employed Pakistani's, claiming he was not biased, but it was
just that Pakistani's were always the best applicants!
The fact is that John just dismisses both Behe and Hoyle's IC arguments as
"bad" without ever actually read either of their books! That might be John's
idea of a mind "entirely open to ID theory being true" but it is not mine.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not know when the technical and popular prose of science became
separated, although I accept the inevitability of such a division as
knowledge became increasingly more precise, detailed, and specialized. We
have now reached the point where most technical literature not only falls
outside the possibility of public comprehension but also (as we would all
admit in honest moments) outside our own competence in scientific
disciplines far removed from our personal expertise. I trust that we all
regard this situation as saddening, even though we accept its necessity."
(Gould S.J., "Take Another Look", Science, Vol. 286, 29 October 1999,
p899)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------