Ken Miller still misrepresenting Behe

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
Now pay attention LiveFreeOrDie. In both cases, Miller did NOT discuss what Behe actually said. Miller constructed strawmen versions of Behe's positions and then knocked down his own distortions while claiming to have refuted Behe.

Then in that case Miller did Behe a favor. Now that you have made it so clear what Behe was really saying, it's clear he wasn't saying much of anything at all.

 

[DNAunion]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”A number of proteins are involved in this complex pathway, as described by Behe:


***********************************************
Behe: When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII) sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. (Behe 1996a, 84)
************************************************

Miller: How important are each of these proteins? In line with the dogma of irreducible complexity, Behe argues that each and every component must be in place before the system will work, and he is perfectly clear on this point:


*************************************************
Behe: . . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails. (Behe 1996a, 86)
**************************************************


Miller: As we have seen, the claim that every one of the components must be present for clotting to work is central to the "evidence" for design. One of those components, as these quotations indicate, is Factor XII, which initiates the cascade. Once again, however, a nasty little fact gets in the way of intelligent design theory. Dolphins lack Factor XII (Robinson, Kasting, and Aggeler 1969), and yet their blood clots perfectly well. How can this be if the clotting cascade is indeed irreducibly complex?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: What a fine example of quoting out of context and distortion!

Here is again a lengthier quote than the words Miller lifted out of context.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well known, the blood-clotting system first the definition of irreducible complexity. … The components of the system (beyond the fork in the road) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Just as none of the parts of the Foghorn [Leghorn] system is used for anything except controlling the fall of the telephone pole, so none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p86)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Note that Behe states the blood-clotting system AFTER the fork is irreducibly complex: he doesn’t say that the whole blood-clotting system is. Yet Miller “refutes” Behe by showing that one of the proteins that plays its role BEFORE the fork can be removed and function still retained.

Miller’s mistake is indefensible because not only did Behe specifically name the point after the fork as the system that is IC, he also explicitly listed the components of the system: fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Note that the protein Miller says can be missing and function retained is NOT in that list.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ” Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Compound strawman.

First, the ID claim is not that each and every novelty of life was designed by an intelligence. That’s nothing more than an exaggerated distortion of an opponent’s position.

Second, ID doesn’t claim that the designing or instantiation of the design has to violate natural laws. [To explain the point by analogy:] A desktop computer contains systems that are IC: a computer will not form by natural laws alone: yet computers do exist, and without any of the laws of nature being violated. Intelligence directing a process can achieve things quickly and easily that spontaneous natural processes either can’t or won’t.

Finally, do we have any idea what might motivate Ken Miller to use underhanded tactics in an attempt to shoot down ID, instead of sticking to facts? Yes, we do. ID doesn’t fit his religious ideas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: No silly, anything that is true by definition is "no brainer", not a strawman.

But the definition of an IC system relies on the concept of "precursor" systems. Behe's definition of "precursor system" is the IC system minus one major functional part. Since this "precursor system" bears no resemblance to precursors predicted by evolution and observed in nature, Behe's use of IC to attack evolution is really just a sophisticated straw man.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
Finally, do we have any idea what might motivate Ken Miller to use underhanded tactics in an attempt to shoot down ID, instead of sticking to facts? Yes, we do. ID doesn’t fit his religious ideas.

ROTFL.

Do we have any idea what might motivate Mike Behe and his buddies at the DI to use underhanded tactics in an attempt to foist their bunk on an unsuspecting lay public instead of sticking to the regular process of scientific research and review? Yes, we do. Evolution doesn’t fit their religious ideas.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

 

[Jerry Smith]

I get the impression that Miller is overestimating Behe ( and some of his own readers ) - not misrepresenting. Of course Miller doesn't refute Behe's statements. He refutes Behe's premise, by showing problems that Behe's statements are careful to dance around. He quotes passages of Behe's articles, not necessarily to show that the words themselves are terribly wrong, but that they overlook key ideas that refute the premise behind them.

So it is that Miller talks about microtubules and dynein having other functions in the cell (though none in what would be a functional predecessor to the cilium). Both men know it is the case - Miller points it out directly in arguing against the concept of I/C as it supports ID.

Miller does invariably direct his arguments at the precept that I/C exists and can be used to infer ID. He does invariably discuss more of the supposedly I/C systems than Behe would like. He does start with Behe's argument, and go on from there, not cleaving to the selective view that Behe used to give the illusion of I/C as an insoluble problem. That isn't misrepresentation. That is debate.

This isn't misrepresentation or debate. This is he-said/she-said nonsense. Anyone educated in biochemistry can discern the differences between Behe's arguments and Miller's counterarguments and can tell for themselves whether there is misrepresentation. They don't need a self-appointed messiah to come and show them the true path by nit-picking good arguments simply because they aren't self-limiting in ways that favor intelligent design.

 

[JesusServant]

No offense LFOD, but your name cracks me up. LiveFreeOrDie. Wouldn't you be dead then?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Depends on what I'm trying to live free of, doesn't it?

 

[DNAunion]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”A number of proteins are involved in this complex pathway, as described by Behe:


***********************************************
Behe: When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII) sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. (Behe 1996a, 84)
************************************************

Miller: How important are each of these proteins? In line with the dogma of irreducible complexity, Behe argues that each and every component must be in place before the system will work, and he is perfectly clear on this point:


*************************************************
Behe: . . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails. (Behe 1996a, 86)
**************************************************


Miller: As we have seen, the claim that every one of the components must be present for clotting to work is central to the "evidence" for design. One of those components, as these quotations indicate, is Factor XII, which initiates the cascade. Once again, however, a nasty little fact gets in the way of intelligent design theory. Dolphins lack Factor XII (Robinson, Kasting, and Aggeler 1969), and yet their blood clots perfectly well. How can this be if the clotting cascade is indeed irreducibly complex?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: What a fine example of quoting out of context and distortion!

Here is again a lengthier quote than the words Miller lifted out of context.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well known, the blood-clotting system first the definition of irreducible complexity. … The components of the system (beyond the fork in the road) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Just as none of the parts of the Foghorn [Leghorn] system is used for anything except controlling the fall of the telephone pole, so none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p86)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Note that Behe states the blood-clotting system AFTER the fork is irreducibly complex: he doesn’t say that the whole blood-clotting system is. Yet Miller “refutes” Behe by showing that one of the proteins that plays its role BEFORE the fork can be removed and function still retained.

Miller’s mistake is indefensible because not only did Behe specifically name the point after the fork as the system that is IC, he also explicitly listed the components of the system: fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Note that the protein Miller says can be missing and function retained is NOT in that list.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ” Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Compound strawman.

First, the ID claim is not that each and every novelty of life was designed by an intelligence. That’s nothing more than an exaggerated distortion of an opponent’s position.

Second, ID doesn’t claim that the designing or instantiation of the design has to violate natural laws. [To explain the point by analogy:] A desktop computer contains systems that are IC: a computer will not form by natural laws alone: yet computers do exist, and without any of the laws of nature being violated. Intelligence directing a process can achieve things quickly and easily that spontaneous natural processes either can’t or won’t.

Finally, do we have any idea what might motivate Ken Miller to use underhanded tactics in an attempt to shoot down ID, instead of sticking to facts? Yes, we do. ID doesn’t fit his religious ideas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Here’s more of Miller twisting Behe’s statements beyond recognition.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: One of these [IC biochemical systems Behe discusses] is the eukaryotic cilium, an intricate whip-like structure that produces movement in cells as diverse as green algae and human sperm. And, . . . .

***********************************
Behe: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
***********************************

Miller: Remember Behe's statement that the removal of any one of the parts of an irreducibly complex system effectively causes the system to stop working? The cilium provides us with a perfect opportunity to test that assertion. If it is correct, then we should be unable to find examples of functional cilia anywhere in nature that lack the cilium's basic parts.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Wrong! That is not Behe’s claim. What Miller goes on to show is that some accessory structures can be removed without loss of function. What Miller basically does is show that although a company logo is found on almost all mouse traps, there are some that don’t have that “basic part”. That’s great, but a logo is not one of the essential parts of the IC mousetrap system – it is merely an add-on that can clearly be removed without loss of function.

So once again Miller has his way with Behe’s statements, instead of sticking to what Behe actually says.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many examples of fully-functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compelling is the eel sperm flagellum (Figure 3), which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: So what? The first two are accessory parts, not even mentioned by Behe as being any of the required parts of the IC biochemical system. Remember what words of Behe Miller himself just quoted above? Look again.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion. Removing the central doublet and the central spokes still leaves the eel flagellum with microtubles - those that allow the system to preform its usual function. And note that only the OUTER dynein arms are absent – which means the INNER dynein arms are still present. So the eel flagellum still has all three parts Behe says are mandatory for ciliary function.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”This leaves us with two points to consider: First, a wide variety of motile systems exist that are missing parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex structure;” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: Really? He sure didn’t demonstrate that. The example he used has all three parts Behe states are required for ciliary function.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”… and second, biologists have known for years that each of the major components of the cilium, including proteins tubulin, dynein, and actin have distinct functions elsewhere in the cell that are unrelated to ciliary motion.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: Indeed, biologists like Behe have known this for years. Behe even explains some of the other functions of tubulin and dynein in the cell when he discusses the cilium in his 1996 book. Yet Miller would have us believe that anyone who knows this is FORCED to reject ID. A tactic to again try to show Behe ignorant (“Since Behe accepts ID, does he even know that tubulin and dynein have other functions in cells?" ).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Given these facts [sic], what is one to make of the core argument of biochemical design – namely, that the parts of an irreducibly complex structure have no functions on their own?” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: What in the world is this nut case talking about? He’s completely misrepresenting Behe’s argument. Nowhere does Behe claim that the individual parts of an IC biochemical system can’t have functions on their own. Behe even explains what roles tubulin plays in the cell other than in relation to cilia.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”The key element of the claim was that: ".. any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." But the individual parts of the cilium, including tubulin, the motor protein dynein, and the contractile protein actin are fully-functional elsewhere in the cell.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

That is not AT ALL what Behe is saying in the partial sentence Miller disingenuously lifts. Yet another strawman version of Behe’s actual argument concocted by Miller.

[from a later post]

Behe was talking about a functional precursor system that would be in a direct evolutionary route – i.e., perform the same function by the same mechanism - to the final IC biochemical system: context is important. Miller selects a fraction of the whole quote and then misrepresents Behe, trying to change Behe into talking about any single part, even if it is part of a circuitous evolutionary route and never appears in the final system until the very end. Two very different meanings.


[and from a later post]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what they imply. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly required microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally it requires a motor [i.e., dynein], or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, it requires [nexin] linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. …

… All systems that move by paddling – ranging from my daughter’s toy fish to the propeller of a ship – fail if any one of the components is absent. The cilium is a member of this class of swimming systems. The microtubules are paddles, whose surface contacts the water and pushes against it. The dynein arms are the motors, supplying the force to move the system. The nexin arms are the connectors, transmitting the force of the motor from one microtubule to its neighbor.

The complexity of the cilium and other swimming systems is inherent in the task itself.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p64-65)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: And when Miller “refutes” Behe with his eel-sperm flagellum, does it still have microtubules? Yep. Does it have dynein? Sure does. Does it have nexin linkers? Absolutely. Yep, it had all three. Hardly any refutation of Behe (more like a confirmation!).

 

[Jerry Smith]

Is there an echo in here?

Or is it just the sound of the flagellation (not flagellum) of an equid that has use only in the industry of producing adhesives?

Seriously, read the replies. We read your thread starter (or non-starter, as the case may be)... turn about is fair play.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Obviously you didn't UNDERSTAND the posts the first time I made them. Therefore, I posted them again. Read them. Study them. Understand the misrepresentations Miller made of Behe's position. Accept the truth.

Here, I'll post them again for you to read...

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Here’s more of Miller twisting Behe’s statements beyond recognition.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: One of these [IC biochemical systems Behe discusses] is the eukaryotic cilium, an intricate whip-like structure that produces movement in cells as diverse as green algae and human sperm. And, . . . .

***********************************
Behe: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
***********************************

Miller: Remember Behe's statement that the removal of any one of the parts of an irreducibly complex system effectively causes the system to stop working? The cilium provides us with a perfect opportunity to test that assertion. If it is correct, then we should be unable to find examples of functional cilia anywhere in nature that lack the cilium's basic parts.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Wrong! That is not Behe’s claim. What Miller goes on to show is that some accessory structures can be removed without loss of function. What Miller basically does is show that although a company logo is found on almost all mouse traps, there are some that don’t have that “basic part”. That’s great, but a logo is not one of the essential parts of the IC mousetrap system – it is merely an add-on that can clearly be removed without loss of function.

So once again Miller has his way with Behe’s statements, instead of sticking to what Behe actually says.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many examples of fully-functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compelling is the eel sperm flagellum (Figure 3), which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: So what? The first two are accessory parts, not even mentioned by Behe as being any of the required parts of the IC biochemical system. Remember what words of Behe Miller himself just quoted above? Look again.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion. Removing the central doublet and the central spokes still leaves the eel flagellum with microtubles - those that allow the system to preform its usual function. And note that only the OUTER dynein arms are absent – which means the INNER dynein arms are still present. So the eel flagellum still has all three parts Behe says are mandatory for ciliary function.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”This leaves us with two points to consider: First, a wide variety of motile systems exist that are missing parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex structure;” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: Really? He sure didn’t demonstrate that. The example he used has all three parts Behe states are required for ciliary function.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”… and second, biologists have known for years that each of the major components of the cilium, including proteins tubulin, dynein, and actin have distinct functions elsewhere in the cell that are unrelated to ciliary motion.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: Indeed, biologists like Behe have known this for years. Behe even explains some of the other functions of tubulin and dynein in the cell when he discusses the cilium in his 1996 book. Yet Miller would have us believe that anyone who knows this is FORCED to reject ID. A tactic to again try to show Behe ignorant (“Since Behe accepts ID, does he even know that tubulin and dynein have other functions in cells?" ).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Given these facts [sic], what is one to make of the core argument of biochemical design – namely, that the parts of an irreducibly complex structure have no functions on their own?” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: What in the world is this nut case talking about? He’s completely misrepresenting Behe’s argument. Nowhere does Behe claim that the individual parts of an IC biochemical system can’t have functions on their own. Behe even explains what roles tubulin plays in the cell other than in relation to cilia.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”The key element of the claim was that: ".. any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." But the individual parts of the cilium, including tubulin, the motor protein dynein, and the contractile protein actin are fully-functional elsewhere in the cell.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

That is not AT ALL what Behe is saying in the partial sentence Miller disingenuously lifts. Yet another strawman version of Behe’s actual argument concocted by Miller.

[from a later post]

Behe was talking about a functional precursor system that would be in a direct evolutionary route – i.e., perform the same function by the same mechanism - to the final IC biochemical system: context is important. Miller selects a fraction of the whole quote and then misrepresents Behe, trying to change Behe into talking about any single part, even if it is part of a circuitous evolutionary route and never appears in the final system until the very end. Two very different meanings.


[and from a later post]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what they imply. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly required microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally it requires a motor [i.e., dynein], or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, it requires [nexin] linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. …

… All systems that move by paddling – ranging from my daughter’s toy fish to the propeller of a ship – fail if any one of the components is absent. The cilium is a member of this class of swimming systems. The microtubules are paddles, whose surface contacts the water and pushes against it. The dynein arms are the motors, supplying the force to move the system. The nexin arms are the connectors, transmitting the force of the motor from one microtubule to its neighbor.

The complexity of the cilium and other swimming systems is inherent in the task itself.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p64-65)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: And when Miller “refutes” Behe with his eel-sperm flagellum, does it still have microtubules? Yep. Does it have dynein? Sure does. Does it have nexin linkers? Absolutely. Yep, it had all three. Hardly any refutation of Behe (more like a confirmation!).

 

[DNAunion]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”A number of proteins are involved in this complex pathway, as described by Behe:


***********************************************
Behe: When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII) sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. (Behe 1996a, 84)
************************************************

Miller: How important are each of these proteins? In line with the dogma of irreducible complexity, Behe argues that each and every component must be in place before the system will work, and he is perfectly clear on this point:


*************************************************
Behe: . . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails. (Behe 1996a, 86)
**************************************************


Miller: As we have seen, the claim that every one of the components must be present for clotting to work is central to the "evidence" for design. One of those components, as these quotations indicate, is Factor XII, which initiates the cascade. Once again, however, a nasty little fact gets in the way of intelligent design theory. Dolphins lack Factor XII (Robinson, Kasting, and Aggeler 1969), and yet their blood clots perfectly well. How can this be if the clotting cascade is indeed irreducibly complex?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DNAunion: What a fine example of quoting out of context and distortion!

Here is again a lengthier quote than the words Miller lifted out of context.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well known, the blood-clotting system first the definition of irreducible complexity. … The components of the system (beyond the fork in the road) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Just as none of the parts of the Foghorn [Leghorn] system is used for anything except controlling the fall of the telephone pole, so none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p86)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Note that Behe states the blood-clotting system AFTER the fork is irreducibly complex: he doesn’t say that the whole blood-clotting system is. Yet Miller “refutes” Behe by showing that one of the proteins that plays its role BEFORE the fork can be removed and function still retained.

Miller’s mistake is indefensible because not only did Behe specifically name the point after the fork as the system that is IC, he also explicitly listed the components of the system: fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Note that the protein Miller says can be missing and function retained is NOT in that list.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ” Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: Compound strawman.

First, the ID claim is not that each and every novelty of life was designed by an intelligence. That’s nothing more than an exaggerated distortion of an opponent’s position.

Second, ID doesn’t claim that the designing or instantiation of the design has to violate natural laws. [To explain the point by analogy:] A desktop computer contains systems that are IC: a computer will not form by natural laws alone: yet computers do exist, and without any of the laws of nature being violated. Intelligence directing a process can achieve things quickly and easily that spontaneous natural processes either can’t or won’t.

Finally, do we have any idea what might motivate Ken Miller to use underhanded tactics in an attempt to shoot down ID, instead of sticking to facts? Yes, we do. ID doesn’t fit his religious ideas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jerry Smith]

This is OBVIOUS because I haven't come to agree with you? Or what?

There are other possibilities that would explain why I haven't come to agree with you. Consider them. And consider also that you have written enough text to fill a small book. Those who will be convinced by your arguments will almost certainly have already been convinced. The rest probably don't care to wade through your pages & pages again to see if there was a nugget in there that they missed the first time..

 

edited to add: I noticed no new material in the last two posts you added to this thread when I skimmed it. You are adding words without adding information - that makes it very difficult for us to want to read any of it. Repeating yourself is probably more interesting to you than it is to anyone listening.. Please be considerate.

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: This is OBVIOUS because I haven't come to agree with you? Or what?

DNAunion: No, because you reject the obvious and unavoidable - that Miller misrepresented Behe.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Please re-read post#25 on this thread (it was my post). That should explain why I haven't come to agree with you. I won't repost it, it's still there.

Having read that, I hope you will understand that I have read your posts and examined them to the best of my ability given my limited knowledge of Behe's extensive writing and Miller's essays. You are wrong to conclude that I didn't read them simply because I don't see the conclusions you draw as being "obvious fact."

By the way, how do you refute Behe's premises?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Just rememberd something relevant.

At Inifidels Nic pointed me (for other reasons) to a July 2000 page written by Behe. And guess what - even Behe states Miller misrepresents him.

Brown University cell biologist Kenneth Miller has written a book recently defending Darwinism from a variety of critics, including me. In a chapter devoted to rebutting Darwin's Black Box, he marshals an array of examples which, he asserts, tell against claims of irreducible complexity. However, for all of his counterexamples I either disagree that he is dealing with irreducibly complex systems, disagree that he is focusing on the irreducibly complex aspects of a system, or disagree that his brief scenarios successfully answer the challenge of irreducible complexity (for an example, see my critique on this website of his blood clotting scenario). In this section I focus on his most serious claim--that an experiment has shown natural selection can construct an irreducibly complex system.
(Michael Behe, http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC Responses&command=view&id=441 )

DNAunion: That Miller misrepresents Behe is nothing new – he’s been doing it for years. It doesn't take a genious to figure that out.

 

[Jerry Smith]

LOL. Behe says he disagrees with Miller's claims to a refutation. How suprising.

It doesn't take a genious to figure that out.

Are you saying Behe isn't all that bright?

Get a little distance between you and the subject... Think about the possibilities. Think about whether Behe ever showed that central pairs of microtubules, spokes linking them to outer doublets, and arms linking the doublets together should have been considered I/C by the same reasoning that he does suggest makes cilia I/C.... Think about whether it matters if the components of an I/C system have functional precursors in systems that perform the same function - or whether functional precursors of any kind should be disallowed (by any useful definition of I/C)...

Did you read post #25 again? What did you think?

And how would you refute Behe? Can you put together a quick refutation from the literature and let us see what it looks like?

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: Think about whether Behe ever showed that central pairs of microtubules, spokes linking them to outer doublets, and arms linking the doublets together should have been considered I/C by the same reasoning that he does suggest makes cilia I/C.

DNAunion: There’s no need to. Behe explicitly stated what the parts of the IC system were. Here, let me post it for you again…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what they imply. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly required microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally it requires a motor [i.e., dynein], or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, it requires [nexin] linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. …

… All systems that move by paddling – ranging from my daughter’s toy fish to the propeller of a ship – fail if any one of the components is absent. The cilium is a member of this class of swimming systems. The microtubules are paddles, whose surface contacts the water and pushes against it. The dynein arms are the motors, supplying the force to move the system. The nexin arms are the connectors, transmitting the force of the motor from one microtubule to its neighbor.

The complexity of the cilium and other swimming systems is inherent in the task itself.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p64-65)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNAunion: And looky looky what Miller quoted of Behe:


***********************************
Behe: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
***********************************


DNAunion: Same page – same paragraph. Miller must have known exactly what 3 parts Behe was talking about – either that, or Miller was disingenuous or just flat out stupid. I usually go for the lesser of two evils and consider someone as being disingenuous. But if you want to consider Miller as being flat out stupid - seeing as how you refuse to accept that he was disingenuous- feel free.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
Miller: Remember Behe's statement that the removal of any one of the parts of an irreducibly complex system effectively causes the system to stop working?

DNAunion: Wrong! That is not Behe’s claim.

Funny, here's what Behe said:

...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Behe never qualifies this by saying "key part" or "major part". Heck, he never even defines what a "part" is. Given Behe's vagueness on the subject, how can you possibly call Ken Miller's statement a "misrepresentation"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many examples of fully-functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compelling is the eel sperm flagellum (Figure 3), which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNAunion: So what? The first two are accessory parts, not even mentioned by Behe as being any of the required parts of the IC biochemical system. Remember what words of Behe Miller himself just quoted above? Look again.

Where does Behe define the term "accessory part"? Where does he spell out the difference between a "key part" and an "accessory part"?

And Miller never claims his counterexample is missing the exact parts Behe specifies. All he states is that the eel sperm flagellum is missing "key parts". Now maybe you want to argue with Dr. Miller over whether the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arms are "key parts", but given Behe's lack of definition on the topic, who's to say who is right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNAunion. Removing the central doublet and the central spokes still leaves the eel flagellum with microtubles - those that allow the system to preform its usual function. And note that only the OUTER dynein arms are absent – which means the INNER dynein arms are still present. So the eel flagellum still has all three parts Behe says are mandatory for ciliary function.

Yes, but Ken Miller is still correct in his claim that the eel sperm flagellum is missing "key parts". And this directly refutes Behe's earlier claim that "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." Clearly the eel sperm flagellum is missing "parts", is it not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”This leaves us with two points to consider: First, a wide variety of motile systems exist that are missing parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex structure;” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNAunion: Really? He sure didn’t demonstrate that. The example he used has all three parts Behe states are required for ciliary function.

Behe's definition of an IC system is a system such that "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." Ken Miller provided an example of a still-functional ciliary system that is missing several "parts". Therefore, by Behe's own definition, the cilium is not IC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”… and second, biologists have known for years that each of the major components of the cilium, including proteins tubulin, dynein, and actin have distinct functions elsewhere in the cell that are unrelated to ciliary motion.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNAunion: Indeed, biologists like Behe have known this for years. Behe even explains some of the other functions of tubulin and dynein in the cell when he discusses the cilium in his 1996 book. Yet Miller would have us believe that anyone who knows this is FORCED to reject ID. A tactic to again try to show Behe ignorant (“Since Behe accepts ID, does he even know that tubulin and dynein have other functions in cells?" ).

How you can read so much into a simple statement of fact by Dr. Miller is beyond me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Given these facts, what is one to make of the core argument of biochemical design – namely, that the parts of an irreducibly complex structure have no functions on their own?” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNAunion: What in the world is this nut case talking about? He’s completely misrepresenting Behe’s argument. Nowhere does Behe claim that the individual parts of an IC biochemical system can’t have functions on their own.

Yes he does, but you're too thick to see it. Remember, Behe defines an IC system as a system such that "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." Note that Behe uses the word "nonfunctional". He doesn't say that the precursor by definition can't perform it's original function. He just says the precursor is nonfunctional. There's a reason he has to say that: if the precursor has any function at all, then natural selection, and thus evolution, can operate on it. And that's precisely where Miller shows Behe's claim that the cilium is an IC system to be wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”The key element of the claim was that: ".. any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." But the individual parts of the cilium, including tubulin, the motor protein dynein, and the contractile protein actin are fully-functional elsewhere in the cell.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

That is not AT ALL what Behe is saying in the partial sentence Miller disingenuously lifts. Yet another strawman version of Behe’s actual argument concocted by Miller.

But it IS what Behe is saying, because it is a logical consequence of his definition.

Behe was talking about a functional precursor system that would be in a direct evolutionary route – i.e., perform the same function by the same mechanism - to the final IC biochemical system: context is important. Miller selects a fraction of the whole quote and then misrepresents Behe, trying to change Behe into talking about any single part, even if it is part of a circuitous evolutionary route and never appears in the final system until the very end. Two very different meanings.

You're trying to patch a sinking ship here. Behe's definition of IC simply says the precursor must be "nonfunctional". No qualifiers are given as to the scope of the term "nonfunctional". As I stated previously, he HAS to phrase it this way. If he allows the precursors to have ANY function at all, then natural selection is free to operate and IC falls apart.

DNAunion: And when Miller “refutes” Behe with his eel-sperm flagellum, does it still have microtubules? Yep. Does it have dynein? Sure does. Does it have nexin linkers? Absolutely.

Is it missing "parts"? Yep. Is it still functional? Absolutely. Does the cilium therefore match the definition of an IC system? Nope.