Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[The Raven]

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Genesis 2:7 God formed man out of dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils a breath of life. Man [thus] became a living creature. (Kaplan Translation)

The word translated as "formed" has specific meaning in Hebrew, having its root in how a potter makes pots.

Now, a potter doesn't throw down a lump of clay and have it instantly become what he wants. He forms and shapes it over time, through intermediate shapes until it takes the shape he wants.

I don't know how the ancient Hebrews thought, but to me, this implies that God did not create man in an instant, but shaped him over time. In short, by my reading, while it does not define the process in detail, the Bible specifically states that man is the result of an evolutionary process.

[AndrewC]

Whether the TTSS came from the flagellum or vice versa really doesn't matter at all - one is a functional subset of the other, where the other isn't supposed to have functional subsets, by the very definition of "irreducibly complex".

You mischaracterize the argument. The function in question is mobility, not transport of virulent proteins. And function is the determining factor in why it is not irreducible. A watch used as a paperweight is not irreducibly complex. When used to tell time it is.(note: that is not to measure time).

The fact that copper and sand are useful does not make the Pentium IV reducibly simple.

[PatrickHenry]

Please remove me from this ping list.

Done.

[Huber]

How is any of this inconsistent with intelligent design? Begley is trying to make the case that because life on earth is elegantly designed, it was not designed, but rather just evolved.

(Huh?)

If anything, such design elegance (object-oriented design)as described by Begley reinforces the improbability of random evolution!

[general_re]

Oh, well, in that case, the concept of irreducible complexity is even more worthless than it appears at first blush, since nowhere is there the requirement that the precursors or descendants of some structure perform exactly the same function as that particular structure does. In fact, evolutionary theory predicts quite the opposite, and suggests that we ought to see old structures adapting to new functions over time.

I suppose I should say that there is no such requirement in evolutionary theory or in nature - it appears that Behe and Dembski are all too happy to invent such a requirement, that the precursors must perform the same function to be considered precursors, out of whole cloth in order to strengthen their case.

[AndrewC]

I suppose I should say that there is no such requirement in evolutionary theory or in nature -

What!? You are now disavowing the fitness function? How the heck can evolution work if changes are not driven towards a fitness?

[LiteKeeper]

the Bible specifically states that man is the result of an evolutionary process.

Please provide chapter and verse.

[general_re]

Why does "fitness" imply one and only one specific function?

[AndrewC]

Why does "fitness" imply one and only one specific function?

How do you drive a single car down two different roads at the same time?

[general_re]

You don't - the car changes and takes a different road than the one it started out on. You don't have to be a shark to be as well adapted to your environment as the shark is to his. For that matter, you don't have to be a shark to be as well adapted to the shark's environment as the shark is.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Please provide chapter and verse.

I did in the post you responded to.

[AndrewC]

You don't - the car changes and takes a different road than the one it started out on.

Only if the car is not required at the original destination.

[Elsie]

If the feature aids or has no effect on survival, it remains.

Oh?

It would seem like ALL creatures should be literally COVERED with all kinds of INEFFECTUAL 'features' then!!

[Elsie]

Indeed it is. Sigh, I don't have time to post in detail at the moment, but will when I get home this evening.

Then by extrapolating this rate backward, we can see just when the Moon decided to jump off the surface of the Earth??

[biblewonk]

The "irreducible complexity." concept uses a mouse trap for an illustration. Since removing any one of the seven parts renders the trap useless it is irreductibly complex.

The example given in the article seems to compare two components which each contain thousands of building blocks. We still end up with a compenent that is useless if not complete and whose completeness is overly complex to fall together by any random chance.

[Elsie]

How do you drive a single car down two different roads at the same time?

Ha! Even I know this one!!

I can drive on Washington Street and US40 at the same time, or Kentucky Avenue and IN67 at the same time.

[general_re]

What destination would that be? Bears and dogs share a common ancestor, but despite the fact that they have diverged from one another and become rather different, they both appear to be relatively fit and well-adapted at the moment - obviously there is more than one way to be fit. Given that there are successful bacteria that lack flagella, flagella are obviously not the only road a successful bacterium can take.

[js1138]

I suppose that depends on the meaning of "different".

[AndrewC]

What destination would that be? Bears and dogs share a common ancestor, but despite the fact that they have diverged from one another and become rather different, they both appear to be relatively fit and well-adapted at the moment - obviously there is more than one way to be fit.

Well, that seems to be what this discussion is about. One side argues puddles and mud, the other side argues purpose and design. All I intended to convey in my original citation, was that one needs to look at how the type three secretory systems came about. The experts I have read state that they came about by loss of function, consistent with the bugs and the environment surrounding those bugs. This directly impacts the assertion that TTSS evolved into flagella. Evidence shows that this is probably not true.