Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org.
Posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander
|
A Response to Sharon Begley’s Wall Street Journal Column Michael J. Behe Discovery Institute February 18, 2004 |
| In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal (February 13, 2004, Science Journal, page B1, “Evolution Critics Come Under Fire for Flaws In 'Intelligent Design'”) science writer Sharon Begley repeated some false claims about the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) that have been made by Darwinists, in particular by Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University. After giving a serviceable description in her column of why I argue that a mousetrap is IC, Begley added the Darwinist poison pill to the concept. The key misleading assertion in the article is the following: “Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function.” In other words, opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is not IC. So, for example, Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller’s tendentious reasoning any part of any system at all has a separate “function”. Presto! There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. That’s what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms--the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly--who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn’t be used as a paperweight, or a decoration, or a blunt weapon?) Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention. In order to catch a mouse, a mousetrap needs a platform, spring, hammer, holding bar, and catch. Now, suppose you wanted to make a mousetrap. In your garage you might have a piece of wood from an old Popsicle stick (for the platform), a spring from an old wind-up clock, a piece of metal (for the hammer) in the form of a crowbar, a darning needle for the holding bar, and a bottle cap that you fancy to use as a catch. But these pieces, even though they have some vague similarity to the pieces of a working mousetrap, in fact are not matched to each other and couldn’t form a functioning mousetrap without extensive modification. All the while the modification was going on, they would be unable to work as a mousetrap. The fact that they were used in other roles (as a crowbar, in a clock, etc.) does not help them to be part of a mousetrap. As a matter of fact, their previous functions make them ill-suited for virtually any new role as part of a complex system. Darwin’s Black Box, page 66.
The reason why a separate function for the individual parts does not solve the problem of IC is because IC is concerned with the function of the system: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin’s Black Box, page 39.
The system can have its own function, different from any of the parts. Any individual function of a part does not explain the separate function of the system. Miller applies his crackerjack reasoning not only to the mousetrap, but also to the bacterial flagellum--the extremely sophisticated, ultra complex biological outboard motor that bacteria use to swim, which I had discussed in Darwin’s Black Box and which has becoming something of a poster child for intelligent design. No wonder, since anyone looking at a drawing of the flagellum immediately apprehends the design. Since the flagellum is such an embarrassment to the Darwinian project, Miller tries to distract attention from its manifest design by pointing out that parts of the structure can have functions other than propulsion. In particular, some parts of the flagellum act as a protein pump, allowing the flagellum to aid in its own construction--a level of complexity that was unsuspected until relatively recently. Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely. In fact, the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device, anymore than the ability of parts of a mousetrap to act as paperweights has to do with the trap function. And the existence of the ability to pump proteins tells us nil about how the rotary propulsion function might come to be in a Darwinian fashion. For example, suppose that the same parts of the flagellum that were unexpectedly discovered to act as a protein pump were instead unexpectedly discovered to be, say, a chemical factory for synthesizing membrane lipids. Would that alternative discovery affect Kenneth Miller’s reasoning at all? Not in the least. His reasoning would still be simply that a part of the flagellum had a separate function. But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it--it doesn’t explain it at all. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum remains unaltered and unexplained by any unintelligent process, despite Darwinian smoke-blowing and obscurantism. I have pointed all this out to Ken Miller on several occasions, most recently at a debate in 2002 at the American Museum of Natural History. But he has not modified his story at all. As much as some Darwinists might wish, there is no quick fix solution to the problem of irreducible complexity. If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they’ll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building--not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand. |
|
Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org. |
Mike Gene is making money off of suckers? Wow, someone better inform him about this…
From his webpage:
Point of Clarification: Some people have expressed interest in seeing this page updated more frequently. The majority of the arguments/hypotheses found on this web page were spawned very late in the night, as I usually sacrifice sleep to keep the teleological ball rolling. Because of many other obligations in life, ID Thinking is something I reserve for spare time, an intellectual hobby.Gene seems like a honest gentleman. Now, before you go half-cocked into another kooky money making conspiracy theory, maybe you should consider Miller’s stake in all of this…Warning: Buyer beware. The internet is loaded with all kinds of kooky theories and arguments and who can say I am any different? My advice would be simply this: don't trust me as any type of authority and balance my views with those who don't agree with me. If you are interested in origins, learn as much biology as possible and then attempt to arrive at your own informed conclusions about the arguments presented on this site and elsewhere. And grains of salt come in handy.
It’s interesting that you responded to post #27 this way. Mike Gene is quoting in his sixth paper what he originally stated in his first paper. He appears to be consistent.
In other words, his whole argument comes down to "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!", which is not science.
I agree that "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!" is not science, which is exactly what my problem is with methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. They have put science into a naturalistic box and we are literally dealing with "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!"
Breaking News: ID evolves!
Technically, it's a duck invoice.
BTW, regardless of the number of references, the question is -- are those to who he referred being represented fairly? Or, does the author, like some on these threads, pick and choose parts of others work that might seem (out of context) to support the author's assertions.
On a last note. Peer-reviewed papers are "original" works, not some literary compilation with footnoted references to others' works. Peer-reviewed works must contain original research, complete with enough detail to allow others to reconstruct that research. Herein may lie the rub for IDers: there is no such thing as original research in the ID community. IDers rely on parsing the works of others to hunt for tidbits that might support an ID position. This would be why no ID work ever appears in a peer-reviewed journal -- there is no actual research to be reconstructed.
Don't be a snot. Popular articles on science need not be peer reviewed, though they should be based upon peer-reviewed works.
Again, what is your beef? Scroll down to the bottom of the paper and look at the sixty-some-odd references. Complaining that something might be misquoted or misrepresented is moot until you do this… Bottom line.
The cosmos, DNA, consciousness and… pssst, this article (you believe something has been debunked because… ; )
[SNIP]
Behe basically said: If a system X exists, it cannot have come about through natural selection. He then discovered numerous systems X.
He is an uncommon conman. He has provided several examples of what he calls "irreducible complexity". In each case, he has been shown to be wrong.
Furthermore, he has never shown that his personal ignorance of evolutionary processes or mechanisms is a meaningful metric for biological studies or scientists in general.
That overstates the case, but I'll let it slide, since the larger errors in this post greatly overshadow this one.
so will it will be either unchanged due to its criticality for its present function(maximum fitness and "unavailable" for cooption) or be driven towards criticality for that function(seeking maximum fitness and "unavailable" for cooption) as predicted by Darwinian evolution.
It never ceases to amaze me how often the creationists on these threads grossly misrepresent what is actually "predicted by Darwinian evolution". I'm often left wondering whether they're ignorant of the field, or dishonest about it. But neither option inspires confidence, and they could of course be both.
This part of LLLICHY's post is so riddled with errors it's difficult to know where to begin.
Error #1: Note the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the middle of the sentence, which magically changes from talking about how a component must be *useful* enough to be maintained, to (abracadabra) being *critical* and thus so indispensible that the organism can't survive without it performing its current function. Presto, chango, nothing up my sleeve! Nice try, but while it's (generally) true that components aren't retained (for extremely long periods, anyway) unless they perform *some* useful function, that's ENTIRELY different from presuming that all retained components or features are "critical" to the existence of the organism and could not possibly be turned to another use without making the organism unviable. For example, the protruding external ear on humans is *useful*, but not *critical* -- we could continue to live without them, hearing through a simple hole in our heads into the ear canal like birds do.
Error #2: The above passage presumes, incorrectly, that a component must have one-and-only-one function (and that it is "locked into" performing that one function, as explained in #1). Nonsense. Even gradeschool children can spot the flaw in this (so what's LLLICHY's excuse?) What child does not know that the human nose is used for respiration *and* smelling? And most high-school students know that the nose also performs filtering (nose hairs catch airborne debris before they reach the lungs), heat exchange (air is warmed by blood vessels in the nose before it reaches the lungs, protecting the lungs from cold damage), moisturizing (turbinates in the nose release moisture into the incoming air so as not to dry out the lungs), and so on.
Error #3: Conversely, LLLICHY (incorrectly) presumes that a component "must" be locked into its one "critical" function because if it ceases to perform that function, there won't be anything else to "fill the need". Again, even a child knows better. For example, the nose is used for breathing -- but the mouth can be too. Biological systems are replete with examples of redundancy and duplication of function.
Error #4: Not only do different components often perform or contribute to the same function, but the *same* component can diverge and go down *two* functional pathways, one of which continues to perform the original function while a "copy" is co-opted to some other use. This mechanism, gene duplication, has been known and studied since at least the 1960's. I'm sorry that LLLICHY is more than three decades behind on his reading in this field. Perhaps he might want to come up to speed before he attempts to critique this topic again. Through gene duplication, the descendants inherit *two* (or more) copies of the gene for the feature they code for. Initially both copies simply crank out copies of the feature as usual. However, the key point is that if one mutates or is selected in some other direction (e.g. to some other function), there's no problem, since the *other* copy of the gene continues to fulfill the original function. In short, the "spare" copy of the gene is *entirely free* to evolve away from the original function towards something else, since the other copy is still present. For just one real-world case out of literally thousands, see for example Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes.
Error #5: LLLICHY launched into this fallacious argument just days after he had already been informed of the flaws in it. Selective amnesia, or intellectual dishonesty? From this post of mine in response to his same mistakes six days ago:
First, stubbornly sticking to the "cars can only go to one destination" aspect of the flawed analogy not only doesn't "answer" RWP's point, it ignores *his* point, which is that fitness involves the fine-tuning of *multiple* functions in an organism, not just one-and-only-one.And lest he attempt the "oh, I must have missed that reply" excuse, I'd like to point out that he posted replies in a thread which was entirely devoted to the topic of gene duplication: Genome Evolution | First, a Bang Then, a Shuffle , so he *is* well aware of the mechanism. Why, then, does he pretend not to be aware of its consequences to his "components are locked into to one function" argument here? Inquiring minds want to know.Second, the whole "one car on one road" analogy is fundamentally flawed as a model of genetic evolution on several counts, the primary one being that due to gene duplication, genes most certainly *CAN* and *DO* go down "two (or more) roads at once" without having to "abandon" the "original destination" (i.e. current function). And even without gene duplication, a single copy of a gene can perform more than one function, yet again making the "single car" analogy ludicrously unsuitable and grossly misleading as a mental model of genetics and evolution.
Error #6: Not only is LLLICHY wrong on the facts, and using a bait-and-switch argument, but he's wrong about what is "predicted by Darwinian evolution". Not only does the modern field of evolution not match his straw-man version of it, but even *Darwin's* original presentation of evolution explicitly predicted the opposite of what LLLICHY claims it predicts. Rather than predicting that components must be "driven to criticality", Darwin actually predicts that they can remain free to change function:
Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; [my point #2 -- Ich.] thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; [my point #3 -- Ich.] to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.LLLICHY is over 140 years behind on his understanding of evolution's predictions, apparently. And so is Behe, for the same reason.The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swimbladder. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or 'ideally similar,' in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration.
-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859.
Six major errors in one sentence (seven if you count the one I let slide). Impressive.
And as Behe makes clear, you build a straw man and knock it down by your mischaracterization of his argument.
Untrue. Steve-b's summary of Behe's core argument is entirely accurate (see below). Anyone who disagrees is free to present their own version of "Behe's argument" (instead of just sob, "is not!") so that we can A) compare it against what Behe actually wrote, and B) see if that version holds any water either.
Premise two is a false representation of his argument.
No. Here is premise two from Steve-b's post: "2)possession of only a subset of those parts conveys no advantage and thus is not preferred by natural selection". Compare to Behe's own words:
Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. [...] An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. [...] 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.That's exactly what Steve-b's shorter version says. Where's the alleged "straw man"?
He again has clearly stated above "The system can have its own function, different from any of the parts. Any individual function of a part does not explain the separate function of the system."
This is just Behe trying to have it both ways, and in the process invalidating his first argument. Hardly convincing.
Compare these two claims from Behe:
Claim A: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. ... 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."A or B -- pick one, you can't have both. Well, not and be intellectually honest, you can't.Claim B: "The system can have its own function, different from any of the parts. Any individual function of a part does not explain the separate function of the system."
Either natural selection doesn't "have anything to act on" until the component is completely finished (claim A), *OR* it *does* have something to act on in the form of the functional-for-a-different-purpose subcomponents (claim B).
They're mutually exclusive.
If Behe wants to admit the truth of claim B -- and he knows he has to -- then he must abandon claim A. But he hasn't. Thus the criticisms against his self-defeating argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.