Behe: Falling off mount improbable

[Lanakila]

Originally posted by Morat
Lankila: Text, edition, and page number please. If possible (and if it's not too much work), typing in those three or four paragraphs would be great. Haeckel's ideas were discarded, but you do realize that he was almost right, don't you? Embryo's don't replicate adult forms of their past as Haeckel thought, but embronyic forms. I'd like to see if that is the context the book is discussing.

This is the general treatment given to Haekel's embryo's.



   As Haeckel's ideas are firmly dismissed, I fail to see how his embryo's can be such an "Icon".

 Or, you might note that Wells himself seems to have a problem with facts when it comes to Haeckel. Here:

 

That is what was in the textbook Morat, my bad. I am not so sure that what you state is true or proven but that is what is in the textbook (that the embryos go through all the stages of other embryos). I don't know how you would prove that, but that is what is in the textbook. Biology concepts and applications by Cecie Starr, Wadsworth Publishing Company 1997.

Those 3 or 4 paragraphs would take a long time to type, so I will not waste space, only saying exactly what Morat has already stated.

 

[Morat]

Lankila: The problem is that Haeckel's ideas (that embryo's go through the adult forms of their ancestors) was discredited long ago. His drawings were altered to play that up.

   But embryo's do tend to mimick embryonic stages of their ancestors, and modern photographs show that clearly.

   The question is: Is your textbook promoting Haeckels' false notion, or the one biologists accept today?

  Ah, I found a quote from that section:

The early, embryonic stages of all vertebrate lineages proceed through strikingly similar stages. Look at Figure 18.7. Without the labels, would you know which embryo is an early developmental stage of a fish, lizard, chicken, or human?

   So it's obvious the text in question is referring to the concept that replaced Haeckel, not Haeckel. It'd be nice if they used modern photographs, but Haeckel's public domain.

   So we agree that the textbook, in fact, repudiates Haeckel's theory?

 

[Lanakila]

I thought the textbook was going along with Haekel's theory, but instead it doesn't even mention it. It does have those same photos though. The evidence you state proves a common descent could also be said to prove a common design and designer. But, you already know that.

 

[Morat]

  The point here, Lankila, is that the textbook was repudiating Haeckel.

   Embryology, while a nice confirming piece of evidence, is rather paltry compared to the rest of it. I'd be curious how retroviral insertions could be considered "common design", for instance.

 

 

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by MSBS
Just curious...how many of you that champion Behe (I'd particularly like to hear from npetreley) agree with his opinion on this:

For example, when Michael [Behe] and I [Kenneth Miller] engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

from http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html
first linked by LiveFreeOrDie above.

Miller is the Christian and Biology professor that wrote Finding Darwin's God.

Anyone going to bite?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by MSBS
Anyone going to bite?

Okay. I disagree. So what? I still think Behe is a brilliant fellow who is right on target with irreducible complexity.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Okay. I disagree. So what? I still think Behe is a brilliant fellow who is right on target with irreducible complexity.

Is he also "right on target" that the Earth is billions of years old? (He thinks so)

Is he also "right on target" that macroevolution occurs and can create new species? (He thinks so)

Or is his brilliance limited only to those parts of his thinking you happen to find emotionally appealing?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Is he also "right on target" that the Earth is billions of years old? (He thinks so)

Is he also "right on target" that macroevolution occurs and can create new species? (He thinks so)

Or is his brilliance limited only to those parts of his thinking you happen to find emotionally appealing?

He's brilliant. He's also wrong about some things. Perhaps if you were as brilliant as he is, you'd understand how that could be possible.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
He's brilliant. He's also wrong about some things.

Sort of an idiot savant of the scientific world, eh?

 

[Morat]

Nicky, you might be interested in Behe's own words regarding IC:

From Biology and Philosophy, vol. 16, pp 685-709


"However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize that there is a weakness in that view of irrreducible complexity [...that removing parts leads to a loss of function...]. The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system. Thus, seeking a counterexample to IC, in "Tower of Babel" Pennock writes about a part in a sophisticated chronometer whose origin is simply assumed, which breaks to give a system he posits can nonetheless work in a simpler watch in a less demanding environment. The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove components from a pre-existing system; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of IC and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this in future work.

   In other words, Behe flat out admitted that his IC work has been backwards and not applicable to evolution. It only took pointing out that several systems he ID'd as IC have evolutionairy pathways for him to sit down and realize he'd been working things backwards.

   He has yet to "address this asymmetry" to date.

  So, Nick, is Behe still "right on about irreducible complexity" now that he's admitted his IC claims aren't applicable to evolution? Or is this just another place he's wrong?