Creationism vs. evolution debate to be topic of two-day Clarksb

Clarksburg ^ | May 17 2004 | Kim Mines

[Shryke]

What's to explain? "Irreducible" doesn't refer to the degree of the complexity.

I wanted you to explain how a progenitor race would evolve from non-living matter into a race far more advanced than us, yet retain reducable systems.

[Ichneumon]

Perhaps we can all save time and, instead of endlessly debating these topics, just place a bid on this and then ask it for answers if we win: Ark of the Convenant for sale on eBay.

[PatrickHenry]

That would look nice as a desk. Or a conference table. Maybe with a big thick glass top over it.

[Know your rights]

just as soon as the occasional clot becomes large enough to present health risks, natural selection would favor the evolution of systems to keep clot formation in check. And where would these systems come from? From pre-existing proteins, of course, duplicated and modified. The tissues of the body produce a protein known as alpha-1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues and keeps them in check. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a working protease inhibitor

Miller's one step further along, but still hasn't addressed this point of Behe's: "The regulatory problems of the clotting cascade are particularly severe since, as pointed out by Halkier (1992, 104), error on either side--clotting too much or too little--is detrimental."

[Know your rights]

I wanted you to explain how a progenitor race would evolve from non-living matter into a race far more advanced than us, yet retain reducable systems.

Why shouldn't they retain reducible systems? Increasing complexity in no way implies or requires a shift from reducible complexity to irreducible complexity.

[Junior]

But not necessarily fatal before the organism reaches breeding age -- and nature has a lot of individuals with which to experiment.

[Know your rights]

let's suppose that a mutation in the active site of B changes its behavior, making it a little less likely to cut fibrinogen and a little more likely to activate protease A.

What reason is there to suppose that such a slightly different molecule B can exist? Molecules are not in general changeable by arbitrary amounts. (Some can undergo continuous geometric transformations such as folding, but even if the molecule under discussion is one such, it is far from clear that a geometric transformation could have the effect Miller is looking for.)

[Know your rights]

But not necessarily fatal before the organism reaches breeding age -- and nature has a lot of individuals with which to experiment.

So you're suggesting that a species can evolve from A to C by way of an intermediate stage B that has less survivability than A, but leaves it possible with luck to reach stage C before it dies out? That strikes me as considerably less likely to work than the traditional idea of continuous improvement.

[Junior]

The change is to a section of DNA, and hence the resulting protein will be slightly different. Since the make-up of the DNA is limited (one of four specific thingies), the switch-out in the resulting protein will also be, of necessity, limited.

Actually read the full links I posted rather than just the excerpts I posted. The gist of both articles is that the cascade could have evolved without outside interference; whether it did is another matter entirely. However, Occam's razor specifically says we should not invoke unneeded entities, and aliens tampering with our DNA (evidently early on, as the origins of the cascade can be found in invertebrates) is doing just that.

[Ichneumon]

[Behe's response dealt only with a few *other* points in that reference, which is why his response was irrelevant to the points in *my* post.]

You footnoted that reference with regard to cascades, and Behe's response did indeed address the reference's statements about cascades.

You're really grasping at straws here.

My point with regard to blood clotting was:

It's hard to tell whether Behe does this through ignorance or willful dishonesty, but the fact remains that *his* definition and analysis of "IC" is too restrictive. He places too many "rules" on how he will "allow" evolution to reach his examples of "Behe-style IC" structures, while evolution itself *IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE RULES* when it operates. Thus Behe's conclusion that "Behe-style evolution" can not reach "Behe-style IC" hardly tells us anything about whether *real-world* evolution could or could not have produced them.

[...]

Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).

In a nutshell, Behe's argument relies on the *false* premise that evolution can only build systems by incrementally only *adding* components. As I point out, the blood clotting mechanism could have been constructed (and from biochemical clues, most probably *was* constructed) by a sequence of "add-change-remove". Behe completely fails to take into account the existence of such possibilities.

The link I referenced at that point also discussed that specific issue, as well as giving the reader more information on the nature of the blood clotting mechanism and how the parts of it could have evolved in "non-Behe-style" ways that Behe failed to take into account.

Behe's "response", such as it is, is laughable. The entire portion of his reply which deals with this issue is this single passage:

In "Behe's Black Box. 2: Cascades" Robison gives an argument that cascades can develop gradually. I encourage him to develop the argument rigorously and submit it to a refereed journal for publication. If he does so, he will be the first.

Boom, that's it. But sadly, THIS COMPLETELY SIDESTEPS THE ACTUAL POINT. Behe, either through dishonesty or lack of understanding, doesn't even *touch* upon the actual point that was being made. He just snottily suggests that Robison should publish his argument. This is *not* a rebuttal, it's a dodge.

Furthermore, it's not up to Robison to prove that the blood clotting mechanism *did* evolve that way -- the whole point is that unless Behe can prove that it *DIDN'T*, Behe has no right whatsoever to claim that he has "shown" that the blood clotting mechanism is "Irreducibly Complex", because the whole notion of "IC" rests on the argument that you *can* and *have* ruled out all possible evolutionary mechanisms by which the system in question might have arisen by evolution. Not only has Behe clearly not done so, but he has failed to even once *ponder* the issue of evolution reaching a state involving *any* kind of subtractive operation -- Behe's entire personal definition of "IC" in fact allows for evolution to *ONLY* build a system by successively *adding* components, *period*. But it is well known that real-life evolution is not so restricted. In fact, even hard-core *creationists* accept that evolution can proceed via the removal of components or features (amusingly, some of them insist that's the *only* way that evolution actually operates, by removing functionality from a "created" original).

Behe, quite simply, utterly fails to address the point that was being made about the flaw(s) in his work -- just as I said, and I stand by that statement. The fact that he used the word "cascade" in a hit-and-run sentence hardly turns that passage into a cogent rebuttal.

Worse, Behe is being an enormous hypocrite -- he snottily suggests that Robison submit his points to a refereed (i.e. peer-reviewed) journal for publication, and yet Behe himself has spent years making excuses for why he published *his* work in a mass-market book for general audiences, and has NOT ever submitted them for peer-review. In fact, Behe gets downright testy when asked about that. So he's being a real asshat to ask Robison to jump through that hoop when Behe himself won't.

Finally, when Behe writes, "If he does so, he will be the first" with regards to publishing "the argument that cascades can develop gradually", Behe is either baldfaced lying, or revealing massive ignorance.

Let me repeat that in case you missed it: Behe is either baldfaced lying, or revealing massive ignorance.

Behe published his book in 1996, and the "response" you're so impressed with also in 1996. So what excuse does he then have for pretending to be blissfully unaware of the large number of previously published articles on that EXACT topic, for example:

Doolittle, R. F., (1993) "The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation: A case of yin and yang," Thrombosis and Haemostasis 70: 24-28.

Doolittle, R. F., and Feng, D. F., (1987) "Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins," Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 52: 869-874.

Doolittle, R. F., and Riley, M. (1990) "The amino-acid sequence of lobster fibriongen reveals common ancestry with vitellogenin." Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 167: 16-19.

Xu, X., and Doolittle, R. F., (1990) "Presence of a vertebrate fibrinogen-like sequence in an echinoderm." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 87: 2097-2101.

Behe arrogantly claims to know how the blood clotting system could or could not have evolved -- and yet seems remarkably ignorant of such basic research on the topic as the above references. If he wants to declare himself such an expert on the topic that he can conclusively rule out any possible evolutionary pathway by which it might have evolved, WHY HASN'T HE DONE HIS HOMEWORK?

And what's *your* excuse for missing them? They were in the second reference I linked...

Yet another article on Behe's errors and misconceptions regarding blood clotting and its evolution: Is the Blood Clotting Cascade "Irreducibly Complex?".

And there are dozens more if you'd like to see them.

As I said, Behe failed to tackle the points I raised in the response you keep harping about. That was a true statement, and I stand by it. And I'm less and less impressed with people whose idea of "intellectual honesty" in discussing this topic is to stamp their feet and say, "Behe has demolished you all, somewhere over in yon reponse!". If you still think so after all this, feel free to start presenting some of the counterpoints IN YOUR OWN WORDS instead of just waving in the general direction of some scattershot reply by Behe and declaring that he's already adequately dealt with the objections, WHEN HE HAS NOT.

[Know your rights]

The gist of both articles is that the cascade could have evolved without outside interference

Could have *only if* a slightly changed protease B with the specified properties exists.

[Know your rights]

stamp their feet and say, "Behe has demolished you all, somewhere over in yon reponse!". [...] waving in the general direction of some scattershot reply by Behe and declaring that he's already adequately dealt with the objections

Have fun beating those straw men.

[Ichneumon]

[please point out an example of an "evolumaniac" (definition, please?) who makes a "loud claim" (how loud?) that there is no "debate taking place" on this topic.]

When you claim that a certain flaw has been established,

It has.

and cite in support a reference for which Behe has responded to the claimed flaw,

See prior post -- Behe's saying in effect "oh yeah?? Prove it!!" barely even counts as a "response".

you are misrepresenting the status of the debate.

No, I'm not -- I pointed out flaws, neither you nor Behe have actually rebutted them.

But even if he had, how in the heck do you get from a disagreement over who has responded to what when, all the way to: "there is certainly a debate taking place (contrary to the loud claims of some evolumaniacs)."

Who do you fantasize has ever claimed that there *wasn't* a debate taking place?

And why do you keep shifting the goalposts?

[Shryke]

Why shouldn't they retain reducible systems?

Indeed. Why would a more complex creature retain reducability, while a far simpler one not? Do you not see the absurdity of the question? It may be possible that this has happened, however, it seems extremely unlikely, if not completely illogical.

[Know your rights]

Why would a more complex creature retain reducability, while a far simpler one not?

Why not, since the reducibility or irreducibility of complexity has nothing to do with the degree of complexity? I think you're reading things into "irreducible" that aren't there.

[Know your rights]

Behe's argument relies on the *false* premise that evolution can only build systems by incrementally only *adding* components. As I point out, the blood clotting mechanism could have been constructed (and from biochemical clues, most probably *was* constructed) by a sequence of "add-change-remove". Behe completely fails to take into account the existence of such possibilities.

Is what you're saying qualitatively different from what Miller says in "Is the Blood Clotting Cascade "Irreducibly Complex?""?

[Shryke]

Why not, since the reducibility or irreducibility of complexity has nothing to do with the degree of complexity?

I've pointed out that your scenario is counter-intuitive. Why would this be something you believe has occurred, when it is so unlikely?

[RightWingNilla]

I'm a veteran of a thousand crevo wars*

Blue Oyster Cult?

[Junior]

So you're suggesting that a species can evolve from A to C by way of an intermediate stage B that has less survivability than A, but leaves it possible with luck to reach stage C before it dies out? That strikes me as considerably less likely to work than the traditional idea of continuous improvement.

You obviously cannot grasp the concept. "B" has a survival advantage over "A" (after all, it was a small change in the DNA that got from "A" to "B"). "C" never entered into it.

[Junior]

Exactly. And since it does, there is no need to invoke an outside entity.