In a message dated 9/28/2000 3:47:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
> Here is an excerpt from a speech by a Dr. Roland Hirsch in accepting a
> Distinguished Service Award from The American Chemical Society. In it
> Dr Hirsch makes the *stunning* claims that:
>
> 1. based on molecular biological data "the Darwinian theory itself is
> fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed. "
>
Interesting assertion. But does the evidence supports this? We shall see.
> 2. "cellular processes are ... irreducibly complex" in that "gradual,
> step-by-
> step evolution of the process would not work, for none of the intermediate
> stages would be "selected" because none of the intermediate stages would
> be functional."
>
Showing the same lack of understanding of evolutionary pathways as shown by
other IC proponents. It's remarkable in the light that scientists have
identified potential pathways to IC systems in nature.
Robison shows a natural pathway to an IC system
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Richard H.
Thornhill1 and David W. Ussery. Published in The Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116, 2000.
"Possible routes of Darwinian evolution can be classified into four
fundamental categories, as outlined below."
a) Serial direct Darwinian evolution.
This means change along a single axis. Although it can generate
complicated structures, it cannot generate
irreducibly complex structures
b) Parallel direct Darwinian evolution.
Parallel direct Darwinian evolution can generate irreducibly complex
structures, but not irreducibly complex
structures of functionally indivisible components (Fig. 1), and this is
the valid conclusion to draw from Behe's thesis.
c) Elimination of functional redundancy.
Redundancy elimination can generate irreducibly complex structures of
functionally indivisible components, and
a Darwinian evolutionary route of this type has been suggested for
biochemical cascades, such as the blood-clotting
system (Robison, 1996).
d) Adoption from a different function.
"Adoption from other functions, whether generating an irreducibly
complex structure or otherwise, appears to be widespread at the
molecular level. The following are a few examples: (i) Many bacteria
and yeasts contain chimeric flavohaemoglobins, consisting of a haem
domain which is homologous to non-chimeric haem proteins, and a
flavin-binding domain which is homologous to NADPH sulphite reductase,
toluate 1,2 dioxygenase, cytochrome
P450 reductase, and nitric oxide synthase (Moens et al., 1996). (ii)
Antifreeze glycoprotein in the blood of Antarctic
notothenioid fishes, which enables them to survive in icy seas, is
considered to have evolved from a functionally
unrelated pancreatic trypsinogen-like protease, and the recent discovery
of chimeric genes which encode both the
protease and an antifreeze glycoprotein polyprotein strongly supports
this theory (Cheng & Chen, 1999).
(iii) Crystallins (proteins with refractive functions in the eye lens)
are closely related or identical to stress-protective
proteins in non-ocular tissues (eg. Drosophila a-crystallins and small
heat-shock proteins are homologous).
Piatigorsky uses the term "gene-sharing" for the encoding in a single
gene of a protein with two or more functions,
and suggests that this may be a widespread evolutionary 'strategy'
(1998). "
"There are several apparent instances of adoption in one of Behe's
examples, the blood-clotting system. One is the
kringle domain, a structure of 90 amino acids with three characteristic
disulphide bonds, which is present in various
proteins of the blood-clotting cascade, and also in hepatocyte growth
factor, which is not involved in blood-clotting
(Gerhart & Kirschner, 1997, pp. 220-222). A second example is epidermal
growth factor, a 53 amino acid peptide with
a characteristic motif of six cysteines, which is present in several
blood-clotting proteins, and also in the epidermal
growth factor precursor, the low density lipoprotein receptor, laminin
(an extracellular matrix protein), and several
transmembrane receptors (Davis, 1990)."
"There are two ways by which irreducibly complex structures of functionally
indivisible components could result from adoption:
(i) Generation of an irreducibly complex structure by the joining of two
or more non-irreducibly complex structures
of functionally indivisible components. A possible example is the V(D)J
joining mechanism in the immune systems
of jawed vertebrates, as the most primitive version of this may have been
formed by the insertion of a transposon
into the gene for a membrane-spanning receptor (Agrawal et al., 1998;
Hiom et al., 1998; Plasterk, 1998). The
receptor, which probably had a function in the non-adaptive defence
system of jawless vertebrates, may not have
been irreducibly complex. The product of the transposon, which had the
non-defence-related function of transposing
the transposon itself, was very simple, consisting solely of two
transposases, and may not have been irreducibly
complex. However, the insertion gave rise to irreducibly complex split
antigen-receptor genes, and thus ultimately
to the highly advantageous variable immune system.
(ii) Supply of an existing irreducibly complex structure of functionally
indivisible components. The structure would
have evolved previously by either redundancy elimination or the joining
of two or more non-irreducibly complex
structures of functionally indivisible components. Undulipodia may be
accessible by Darwinian evolution in this
manner, as their two main hypothesised origins are from ectosymbionts
(Szathmary, 1987) and spindle tubules
(McQuade, 1977; Cavalier-Smith, 1978, 1982). However, the most detailed
published hypothetical pathway for the
transformation of ectosymbionts into undulipodia was actually one of
parallel direct Darwinian evolution. In this
scheme, the connection between tubulin microtubules and dynein arms,
which Behe suggested to be irreducibly
complex, was absent at the initiation of the mutualist relationship
between the eukaryote and the microtubule-
containing spirochete, and its origin was explained, albeit incompletely,
as part of the transformation from
rotational to undulipodial motility (Szathmary, 1987). "
They conclude:
"The classification presented here probably covers all possible routes of
Darwinian evolution, so that any biological structure
should be accessible by some combination. It is hoped that it offers a useful
conceptual framework for discussing accessibility
by Darwinian evolution and responding to claims that certain structures are
inaccessible."
> 3. "recent research in information theory...concludes that random mutations
> cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information."
>
Also interesting but so far unsupported assertions. More relevantly it has
been shown the opposite:
http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
or
Evolution of biological complexity
Christoph Adami*,, Charles Ofria,¤, and Travis C. Collier¦
* Kellogg Radiation Laboratory 106-38 and Beckman Institute 139-74,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and ¦ Division of
Organismic Biology, Ecology, and Evolution, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA 90095
> Note these claims are all based on the *data* that Hirsch knows in his
> field.. Dr Hirsch is not associated with the ID movement, but hopefully he
> soon will be!
>
Perhaps then ID can do some research to support their assertions? ID however
cannot gain credibility from quoting nor from support of scientists unless
they are willing to do the work of supporting their assertions. I hope that
the ID movement will address the excellent arguments by Wein and Elsberry
that show that ID is having some significant problems:
Wesley Elsberry:
"The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to
agency can be given as follows:
1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects
known to be designed by an intelligent agent.
2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed
by an intelligent agent.
3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency
or choice.
4.For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we
may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent.
"This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one
must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological
phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude
intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that
intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large
problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an
attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent.
The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also
fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that
Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized
as an intelligent agent. "
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
> I am becoming more confident that what we are starting to see is the
> beginning of a trickle of scientists, which will gradually build up into a
> flood-tide
> in repudiating the 19th century materialistic paradigm of Darwinism and
> replace it with a new 21st paradigm of intelligent design! This is shaping
> up to
> be a scientific revolution that will make the Copernican and Darwinian
> revolutions look like a Sunday school picnic. What an exciting time to be
> alive!
>
It surely is an exciting time for some but so far ID has failed and if this
is the best ID can hope for: Scientists repudiating Darwinism then ID surely
has no future as a scientific alternative to neo-Darwinism. Certainly not if
scientists repudiate Darwinism based on the same fallacious arguments as used
so far by the ID movement. The paradigm of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is
still strongly present and no credible alternatives have been shown.
Certainly intelligent design, which cannot exclude natural selection as its
intelligent designer has nothing to offer. How could it?
> I call on those evolutionists (particularly Christians) who have opposed the
> ID
> movement to re-evaluate their position in the light of this emerging new
> evidence and not go down with the sinking ship of scientific materialism
> out of misguided loyalty to science (as it is currently conceived). Your
> loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
> materialistic-naturalistic
> philosophy.
>
Indeed, and the data show no support for the claims of the intelligent design
movement. It has been shown how IC systems can arise naturally. It has been
shown that the ID filter by Dembski is hardly supporting their arguments.
That Steve is hoping that others will abandon good science and is willing to
conflate just like Johnson, the meaning of naturalism only shows that
Darwinism and its sucessors are still doing fine.
It's somewhat sad to see that Steve suggests that Christians and scientists
have not evalutated the evidence and reached their conclusions or worse, that
they have a misguided loyalty to science. As Lamoureux and others have shown,
such arguments are not only insults to scientists but also to Christians. To
conflate naturalism with ontological naturalism does not further the
discussion as has been shown by Pennock, Lamoureux and many others.
IF ID wants to gain a foothold in the scientific world then they should do
the hard work to support their assertions, build a hypothesis, define the
terms. But so far the terms used are vague and ambiguous, intelligent design
cannot even rule out natural selection as the intelligent designer for
instance. ID is also not shown to be a better explanation of the observations
(or lack thereof).
Wesley Elsberry wrote on talk.origins:
"I 've read it. Dembski merely claims that one can *detect* "design".
Detection is not explanation. Dembski's "design" is just the residue
left when known regularity and chance are eliminated. Dembski's
arguments that natural selection cannot produce "specified complexity"
are, to say the least, highly unconvincing. If "specified complexity"
exists at all, Dembski has not yet excluded natural selection as a
cause of events with that property."
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/design/rev_tdi.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa.html
My hope is that our fellow Christians take notice of the arguments by
Lamoureux et al in the book "Darwinism defeated?" and do not make the mistake
of conflating naturalism with ontological naturalism and are willing to look
at the available evidence based on its scientific merrits not on an erroneous
link of the data to ontological naturalism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 13:01:11 EDT