Darwin's Black Box

[Behe4304]

Michael Behe has stated his theory of irreducible complexity in the book Darwin's Black Box. There are people who debate this claiming that this theory does not disprove evolution. I believe it does. Can anyone tell me how this theory does not disprove evolution, and if so, can anyone explain and argue the blood clot theory (by Behe).

 

[Hydra009]

IMO, intelligent design theory does not disprove evolution. Intelligent Design basically takes an organism and says, "Gee, look how complex it is! That must mean an Intelligent Designer (*wink* *wink* God) created it." All it does is appeal to a pre-existing belief in God. This is not science, and as such, is not a threat to evolutionary theory.

Further, there are many organisms in the natural world which proponets of ID would be hard-pressed to explain with their theory. http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/

 

[Lonnie]

"Michael Behe has stated his theory of irreducible complexity in the book Darwin's Black Box. There are people who debate this claiming that this theory does not disprove evolution. I believe it does."

I agree.
I am sure people would be happy to debate it, and there are many topics about Behe's theory, and evidence... but as you see them try to argue against the evidence Behe persents, you see that they will never be able to disprove that Behe's evidence against evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

Michael Behe has stated his theory of irreducible complexity in the book Darwin's Black Box. There are people who debate this claiming that this theory does not disprove evolution. I believe it does. Can anyone tell me how this theory does not disprove evolution, and if so, can anyone explain and argue the blood clot theory (by Behe).

The basic idea of an IC system is that, since all the parts of the system are needed for it to function, then there would be no way to evolve the system one piece at a time, since there would be no selective benefit to the system.

Of course, this assumes some things about evolution that are not true. For instance, it assumes that precursor systems would have been used for the same function. It also assumes that evolution progresses by the stepwise the addition of smaller pieces.

In reality, evolution frequently advances through the process of exaptation. That is borrowing a system for a new and different purpose. Also, even through simple processes one can evolve an IC system. Here is an abstract example:

1. Start with system with one part: A
2. Add to this part B which improves the output of part A
3. Modify A such that it depends on the further action of part B, but is now more efficient.

We now have a two part system, where both parts depend on the each other for proper operation.

As for vertebrate clotting, Kenneth Miller gives an interesting and informative account of how it may have evolved through evolution, right here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html.

 

[HouseApe]

I am not a biologist, so I cannot discuss the details at the depth Behe does. Most of the refutations of Behe's work that I have seen are based on the idea that the uses of certain biological processes can change, not just the process itself. So that if a certain process or protein or organ could not have developed, fully formed, instantaneously to produce it's function, it's because it did not originally have that function to start with. In other words, it initially formed for another purpose, but through evolution changed it's use to a second (or third or fourth) purpose, so that it just appears to pop up ready to go, when in fact it was already there.

The idea here is that Behe, by leaving out the above concept, has a gap in his knowledge, and has filled that gap with God.


Looks like Ondoher beat me to it!

 

[Deamiter]

You might really enjoy the book Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He's got a PhD in biology, and though he doesn't analyze completely all of Behe's arguments, in this book, he does devote quite a bit of space to the idea of Irreducable Complexity. Here at Amazon.com, it's quite cheap. Anyway, that's where I'd suggest you start.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...93/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-4196782-6569431

 

[Prometheus_ash]

The difference between ID and Evolution is that Evolution when it confronts a problem, says let us find out. When IDers discover something they cant understand, they point to God as an explanation.

Take the eye for example.
A IDer (or creationist would say):
"See this eye, it is Way to complicated to ever have evolved, and we have no explanation about how it did evolve, so God must have made it"

An evolutionary scientist would say:
"Lets find out the mechanism by which this evolved, and then test our idea to see if it is right."

DO you notice the difference? One uses sceince as an explanation, and the other does not.

*I know this is a bit of a gross over simplification, but it suffices I think as a demonstration.

-Ash

 

[michabo]

Behe has a good point - if there are irreducibly complex systems, then evolution is falsified. However, he hasn't found it here. In fact, blood clotting serves as an example of evolution in action. Different animals and even different people have different clotting mechanisms. If this were really irreducibly complex, then we would expect to see all animals share the same mechanism.

BTW: Behe has struck out several times before and been proven decisively wrong, especially with his early claims about whales having no predecessors. What does his committemnt to the conclusion say about his committment to truth?

 

[Vance]

The only thing good about Behe is that he realizes that Young Earth Creationism is bunk.

 

[Hydra009]

Vance, wasn't Behe the creationist who recently acknowledged evolution? Or was it someone else?

 

[gluadys]

Vance, wasn't Behe the creationist who recently acknowledged evolution? Or was it someone else?

I believe you are thinking of Michael Denton. But Behe is no creationist either. He has always stated that apart from some biochemical complexities which he does not think are evolvable, he fully accepts the Darwinian mechanisms as explaining the origin of species, and even accepts common descent. He seems to treat design as a necessary adjunct to evolution, not a replacement of the process.

 

[Hydra009]

I believe you are thinking of Michael Denton.

Yes, that's the one. Thanks!

But Behe is no creationist either. He has always stated that apart from some biochemical complexities which he does not think are evolvable, he fully accepts the Darwinian mechanisms as explaining the origin of species, and even accepts common descent. He seems to treat design as a necessary adjunct to evolution, not a replacement of the process.

Interesting. The Creationists don't seem to be aware of that.

 

[Vance]

AiG presents a very schizophrenic approach to these guys. On the one hand, the just eat up the fact that these guys have problems with the standard evolutionary model. On the other hand, they get twisted into fits over the fact taht they also accept that the earth is billions of years old and that the current species derived from earlier species in a macro way. What a quandry.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Michael Behe has stated his theory of irreducible complexity in the book Darwin's Black Box. There are people who debate this claiming that this theory does not disprove evolution. I believe it does. Can anyone tell me how this theory does not disprove evolution, and if so, can anyone explain and argue the blood clot theory (by Behe).

Re-read Behe's first chapter. He states explicitly that he accepts evolution -- including macroevolution. What he argues is that the origin of life required an ID and that complexity observed in later species was encoded in early lifeforms.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

You might really enjoy the book Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He's got a PhD in biology, and though he doesn't analyze completely all of Behe's arguments, in this book, he does devote quite a bit of space to the idea of Irreducable Complexity. Here at Amazon.com, it's quite cheap. Anyway, that's where I'd suggest you start.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060930497/qid=1098479193/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-4196782-6569431

I would like to point out that Miller is a Catholic, not an evil atheist like me .

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Here are some critiques of Behe's hypothesis if IC:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

I have a procedural problem with Behe's hypothesis. Because Behe has not collected and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal any evidence whatsoever for intelligent design, the hypothesis has no business being considered for a public school curriculum. New ideas have to pass a rigorous and skeptical analysis performed by other scientists before they will be adpoted into the body of scientific knowledge. This is what gives science the great credibility it enjoys. Behe and other ID proponents have put the hypothesis through this test and therefore it has no claim to scientific legitimacy. Until it does, it ought to be excluded from science classes in the public schools.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

check out the links list at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html (confirming that the above posters is right, this is an excellent list, thanks)
or at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html


blood clotting is the field of Dr. Russell Doolittle, who is a very outspoken evolutionist, see:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ruse_irredcomplex.html

for quotes and references.

scientific opinion is strongly against Behe on the issue of blood clotting as the various proteins are certainly derivable via evolution (gene duplication-mutation of copy) in a nested hierarchy. see:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html

there is a large literature on Behe's _black box_ this should help you get into it.

 

[caravelair]

check this out... we have directly observed the evolution of an IC system:

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

kinda destroys behe's idea that IC = unevolvable, doesn't it?

 

[Daedalus]

I also think that the argument of complexity dissproves evolution.
I mean, if there is no God that created life, then there is no big deal about life, and life should just blend in.
I never saw more than let's say 10 stones (a pillar) one on top of another except for those I placed that way, so what about thousands of genes being somehow placed in the right order.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I also think that the argument of complexity dissproves evolution.
I mean, if there is no God that created life, then there is no big deal about life, and life should just blend in.
I never saw more than let's say 10 stones (a pillar) one on top of another except for those I placed that way, so what about thousands of genes being somehow placed in the right order.

please listen carefully.

scientific evolution is silent about God, this does not mean God is not involved, it is indicative that science is silent about God.
evolution=/=atheism
science talks about mechanisms, about instrumental and mediate causes. nothing more. do not make the evolutionism/scientism error that silence=absence.

2nd-abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory. it is prior to TofE, TofE requires a self replicating system of some kind.