Behe's Bulldog

[Jerry Smith]

What the heck. If we are going to do this, let's do it right.

DNAunion,

You tell me, without using tautologies or simple authority, what Behe's criteria for determing what constitutes an I/C core is, and we will then see whether any of your accusations against Miller really stand.

What is the criteria? Let's use the watch analogy. We have several watches of different makes on the table & we have a strong magnifying glass. Explain to me, using Behe's rationale, how we would determine which parts of the watch are truly I/C and which are unnecessary add-ons.

Once we have the criteria, we can apply it to the cellular structures that Miller uses in his counterexamples and we can see whether he has refuted Behe, whether he has misunderstood Behe (and on what points), and quite possibly, whether he has misrepresented Behe.

From that, we can deduce whether you have maligned Miller  for personal aggrandizement, or whether you have a keener insight into the nature of the debate than most and have pointed out actual failings on Miller's part.

But we can't do it without the criteria, and since Behe isn't worth refuting if his criteria are circular, let's hear your best shot at explaining the criteria Behe would have us use to determine what parts of an I/C system constitute its I/C core. I will be glad to carry on this debate (or farce, as it proves to be) with that necessary background on the table.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
What the heck. If we are going to do this, let's do it right.

DNAunion,

You tell me, without using tautologies or simple authority, what Behe's criteria for determing what constitutes an I/C core is, and we will then see whether any of your accusations against Miller really stand.

What is the criteria? 

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."  Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg 39

 

[Jerry Smith]

lucaspa - is that the defining criteria for the I/C system or for the I/C core components? I'd really like to have DNA's answer though.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

How about if system X has components A and B such that the system continues functioning if either A or B is removed, but not both.

Are A and B part of the "IC core"?

 

[Jerry Smith]

LFOD, whether he answers yes or no to your question should depend on some criterion by which we can determine by looking at them what parts are necessary components of the I/C core and what parts are not. What I am after are the criteria.. Then we can deduce for ourselves which parts of which systems should be considered I/C (as Miller has done, to the great dismay of DNA) based on those criteria. We then don't have to depend on ID'ers to give us rigged sets of "lists" that they already know we haven't yet discovered exceptions to.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Considering how much scrutiny my response will receive, I am going to take my time working on it (it might be a couple of weeks - next time I get a weekend without the kids - which is what I needed to work out my long reply in the other thread).

Also, it will not use the watch analogy - it will be based on the cilium.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Fine. As long as the criteria are clear, it doesn't even matter whether you use an example mechanism. Take all the time you want.

 

[Riddermark]

Maybe I am missing something but I don't see why a special criteria is needed to determine if a part of a system is necessary for it to be IC.  You have to study the system and learn how it operates.  When you figure that out one can remove the part to see if the system fails .

I don't see why some special criteria is needed.  How could you even have one if the system in question is not well known?

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Riddermark: you just hinted at one possible criterion. If removal of the part causes failure, then the system is I/C - that would be an identifying criterion. I don't know that DNAunion thinks Behe would advocate that particular criterion (alone, anyway) - but if the term I/C is to have any meaning in science we must be able to identify an I/C system and its I/C core components in some way.

 

[Riddermark]

but if the term I/C is to have any meaning in science we must be able to identify an I/C system and its I/C core components in some way.

Of course, I agree. Do you think that this is not the case though? Do you think that we can not determine if a system is IC or not? Certainly I think that we can.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Riddermark...

Irreducible complexity is a new term & there has been no published research that demonstrates that I/C is or can be a real property of natural systems. Also, there has been no research that demonstrates that I/C is a useful tool for understanding natural systems.

It may be that I/C can be a well defined concept, but still not be significant. In other words, it may be that I/C is a real characteristic of some systems, but one that tells us nothing else about them - just whether they can fall under that category or not.

I might have mentioned that this thread is a continuation from previous threads, where DNAunion has been attacking Kenneth Miller for his criticism of Michael Behe:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/29446.html
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/31780.html

Outside the context of a parry to this attack on Miller, I would not be asking for strict clarification on the identifying characteristics of Behe's term. It seems that DNAunion's attack focuses on the fact that Miller, in this essay, has chosen to focus his attention on flagella and cilia, borrowing Behe's positive examples for his criticism. DNAunion is upset because Miller focused on different parts of the cilium in his counterexample than Behe declared I/C in his book. This is unfair, DNAunion says, because Miller must be restricted to those subsystems that are listed as I/C in Behe's writings. If he focuses on other ones, then, because Behe never mentioned those others in terms of I/C, Miller must be representing Behe.

The core of DNAunion's argument rests on the notion that Behe never specifically called certain parts of the cilium I/C. However, if it turns out that those parts meet Behe's criteria for I/C, then DNAunion's argument is completely spurious and need not be considered any further.

On the other hand, if Behe has not adequately defined I/C so that it can be recognized in nature, then his carefully doctored laundry list of what is "I/C" has no basis in nature. If that is the case, we come to the question of whether Miller can be blamed for assuming that Behe actually had a scientific point, and attempting to use a real definition (like the one you offerred in your post) to show that I/C has no impact on the possibility of a system's evolution?

If, however, Behe has given us a good, non-circular, identifying definition of what it means to be I/C, and if Miller's examples do not fall under that definition, then there comes a question of whether Miller misunderstood Behe or not, and whether that misunderstanding was intentional.

So you see why a proper definition of I/C will be necessary in order to evaluate DNAunion's claims that Miller misrepresents Behe.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
LFOD, whether he answers yes or no to your question should depend on some criterion by which we can determine by looking at them what parts are necessary components of the I/C core and what parts are not. What I am after are the criteria.. Then we can deduce for ourselves which parts of which systems should be considered I/C (as Miller has done, to the great dismay of DNA) based on those criteria. We then don't have to depend on ID'ers to give us rigged sets of "lists" that they already know we haven't yet discovered exceptions to.

I agree totally. I just wanted to throw out one example that a good set of criteria must be able to properly handle.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Aren't we making this more complicated than it has too be?

A structure is "irreducably complex" and/or has "specified complexity" if I, being ignorant of the scientific literature, can't think of a way that it could have evolved or if I think that saying so will sell more books.

 

[Riddermark]

JS,

I appreciate the response however, I do not want to enter into what has appearently been a sparring match between members here. I was just curious as defining criteria for IC systems. I don't think there is anything needed beyond what I had originally said.

I do have one question though. You opened with:

Irreducible complexity is a new term & there has been no published research that demonstrates that I/C is or can be a real property of natural systems.

Do you reject that Behe's examples in his book are IC, or just that they are not published in journals, or both?

 

[Morat]

On a slight tangent, I do know that Behe has admitted that evolution produces systems he considers IC, and that it's a "problem" for his pet theory (as his theory, of course, is that evolution can't produce such systems).

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
lucaspa - is that the defining criteria for the I/C system or for the I/C core components? I'd really like to have DNA's answer though.

That is Behe's definition of an IC system.  As I cautioned, Behe makes contradictory statements.  Once Miller and others showed that his IC systems are not IC because one or more components could be removed without loss of function, Behe has tried to amend the definition.

Also, note the "well matched" part of the definition.  Now, compare that to Behe here:
" Let me interject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched.  For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log.  Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and fulcrum.  If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it.  So some systems require several parts but are not closely matched one."  Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems, in Mere Creation ed. William A. Dembski, 1998, pg 179.

So, does an IC system have to be "well matched" or not?  In one place Behe says "yes", in another "no".  The fulcrum and lever are IC because removal of either causes the system to fail.  That would seem to indicate that an IC system is one where removal of any component causes it to fail.  In that case, the beta-galactosidase system in bacteria is IC, because Hall mutated the bacteria so that one component was inactive and the system didn't work.  But, then Hall watched the evolution of a new IC system composed of different components to do the same function.  So here we have the elimination of an IC system but also the evolution of an IC system. The latter, of course, is something Behe claims cannot happen.

1.  BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory.  Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983.  Also described at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

Now, at this point you have two choices:
1. You can conclude IC has been refuted by data.
2. You can refuse to admit that IC is refuted and start making ad hoc hypotheses and rhetoric in an attempt to save it. Amending the definition is one such ad hoc hypothesis.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
On a slight tangent, I do know that Behe has admitted that evolution produces systems he considers IC, and that it's a "problem" for his pet theory (as his theory, of course, is that evolution can't produce such systems).

Could you please find the citation for that admission? It would be extremely useful to add to our reference lists for these discussions.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
How about if system X has components A and B such that the system continues functioning if either A or B is removed, but not both.

Are A and B part of the "IC core"?

According to Behe in both his versions, yes. If removal of a component causes the system to cease functioning, then that has to be part of the "core".

The idea of a "core" arose because Behe declared several systems IC in Darwin's Black Box.  Now, that supposedly meant that Behe had examined the systems carefully so that he knew that removal of any of the components of the system would render it non-functional.  Now, Behe used general systems in specific species.  That is, he declared blood clotting systems in general to be IC but discussed only the human blood clotting system in his book. Similarly, Behe declared all cilium and flagella IC but discussed only the cilia and flagella from a single taxonomic group.  Miller and others tested whether the systems were IC by comparing systems across taxa.  And they found that different taxa had components removed and the system still functioned.

Therefore, by Behe's definition in the book, the systems he claimed were IC were not.  His theory of IC was refuted.  In order to save the theory, Behe then added the ad hoc hypothesis of a "core".  However, I don't see how this is going to save him because, particularly in the flagella, different taxa have different components missing, so what is the "core"? 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by DNAunion
Also, it will not use the watch analogy - it will be based on the cilium.

It needs to be broader than that, DNAunion.  Jerry is right. For this to be a general theory, it needs to have broad criteria that we can use on any system, not just a list of what the "core" elements you think are in the cilium. After all, Behe claims that we can detect IC systems based on his general definition of removing one component and watching the system cease to function.

Behe says that, by using IC, we can detect manufacture by an intelligent entity.  Simply giving us a list of the "core" components of the cilium doesn't allow us to do that.  We would want to go to any organism and decide what parts of it were manufactured by an intelligent entity and what parts arose through Darwinian selection.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Riddermark...

Irreducible complexity is a new term & there has been no published research that demonstrates that I/C is or can be a real property of natural systems. Also, there has been no research that demonstrates that I/C is a useful tool for understanding natural systems.

It may be that I/C can be a well defined concept, but still not be significant. In other words, it may be that I/C is a real characteristic of some systems, but one that tells us nothing else about them - just whether they can fall under that category or not.

Tangent here. Thornhill and Ussery wrote a paper categorising the different routes of Darwinian evolution.
A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution RICHARD H. THORNHILL AND DAVID W. USSERY J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116  The paper is online here:  http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

Now, Behe used a sentence in Origin for his criteria to falsify Darwinian evolution.  Unfortunately, Darwin himself too narrowly defined natural selection there.  I'll post a little from the paper to show that IC is a characteristic of some systems, but does not preclude their having evolved by Darwinian evolution:

"(a) Serial direct Darwinian evolution. This means change along a single axis. Although it can generate complicated structures, it cannot generate irreducibly complex structures."

"
<DIV class=bulk>(b) Parallel direct Darwinian evolution. This means approximately synchronous changes in more than one component, so that modification to other components always occurs before the total modification to any one component has become significant. For example, in the evolution of the eye of <I>Nautilus</I>, and of the vertebrate eye if this passed through a <I>Nautilus</I>-like stage (Land &amp; Fernald, 1992), it would be necessary for the evolution of the retina to be approximately synchronous with that of the pinhole eye. The retina is accessible via smallsteps from a single photosensitive cell, with increments of photosensitivity, and the pinhole eye is likewise accessible from a minor concavity, with incremental advantages initially in physical protection and then in focusing (Nilsson &amp; Pelger, 1994). However, neither component would function without the other, and, furthermore, the retina would be exposed to damage if not enclosed. </DIV>


<DIV class=bulk>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."</DIV>
<DIV class=bulk>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=bulk>"(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)."</DIV>
<DIV class=bulk>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=bulk>"d) Adoption from a different function. For example, scale-feather intermediates would offer no aerodynamic advantage, but one can hypothesise a sequence from scales to primitive but airworthy feathers in which each step offers an increased advantage as insulation. Their use for proto-flight motility would therefore only begin after this sequence. Recently discovered fossil evidence suggests that feather evolution did indeed follow such a sequence ... Adoption from other functions, whether generating an irreducibly complex structure or otherwise, appears to be widespread at the molecular level. ... There are several apparent instances of adoption in one of Behe's examples, the blood-clotting system. ... There are two ways by which irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components could result from adoption"</DIV>
<DIV class=bulk>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=bulk>There appears to be no structure that is not accessible by one or a combination of two or more of these routes of Darwinian evolution.</DIV>