Ken Miller still misrepresenting Behe

[Jerry Smith]

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…

There is a need to. Unless his definition of I/C has nothing to do with an argument against evolution (and in fact has no application to science whatsoever), then his statements about which parts compose the I/C "core" of a system cannot be arbitrary. He must provide criteria by which anyone can successfully identify the "parts" of an I/C system.

Whether or not he explicitly states what parts should be considered I/C is completely irrelevant, since others can use his theory to generate their own lists!

 
Any "parts" identified by those criteria should be subject to review and criticism, not merely those which Behe lists. The first and principle researcher in a discipline does get some latitude in how he directs his work, but he does not acquire the power of divine fiat. If his theory requires dynein, microtubules, and nexin linkers to be I/C parts, then by the same virtue it may require central microtubules, spokes to the outer doublets, and linking arms between the outer doublets to be as well.

In fact, it may be only one or the other. Since Behe seems to have a sliding standard that makes Kreb's reducible and blood clotting not, Miller may well have been covering his bases. He shows that the assemblies (the doublet arms, etc) are not I/C by demonstrating that the eel flagellum works without them, and he shows that the chemical "parts" are not I/C by demonstrating that they can be selected for individually and independently. That way, he is sure to have refuted the argument from the eukaryotic cilium no matter which way Behe "slides" it. When dealing with a slippery opponent, too many bullets is sometimes better than none. As far as "misrepresentation" is concerned, given Behe's deliberate vagueness, I think Miller could only be accussed of misrepresentation if he actually misrepresented what Behe said. His use of counterexamples not approved by Behe cannnot qualify, since they are necessarily going to miss some part of Behe's point in order to cover what his point might have been or should have been.

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, please cool it with the reposts. It is much better form to refer back to the post# where the information you would like to have reviewed can be found. You can even link to the old post.

 

[DNAunion]

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.

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

DNAunion: You’ve obviously never read Behe’s book (and you apparently didn’t read through the thread at Infidels that you claimed to have). Here, let me show you what I said over there at Infidels when Nic asked me a similar question.

DNAunion: For this first quote, keep in mind my last post about Behe's statements about the 3 parts required for ciliary action - and the cilium being a member of the class of swimming mechanisms - when reading this.

*********************************************
"Mechanical examples of swimming systems are easy to find. My youngest daughter has a toy wind-up fish that wiggles its tail, propelling itself somewhat awkwardly through the bathtub. The tail of the toy fish is the paddle surface, the wound spring is the energy source, and a connecting rod transmits the energy. If one of the components - the paddle, motor, or connector - is missing, then the fish goes nowhere. ...

Keep in mind that we are discussing only the parts common to all swimming systems - even the most primitive. Additional complexity is frequently seen. ... Unlike the eye of a swimmer, such extra gears are indeed part of the system - removing them causes the whole setup to grind to a halt. When a real-life system has more than the theoretically minimum number of parts, then you have to check each of the other parts to see if they're required for the system to work." (Michael Behe, DBB, Free Press, 1996, p57).
*********************************************

DNAunion: I'm getting tired of typing so much, so this next quote might be choppy. But I will provide page numbers so people can read the whole thing, if they want.

************************************************
"The problems start when Paley digresses from systems of necessarily interacting components to talk about arrangements that simply fit his idea of the way things ought to be. The first hint of trouble comes in Paley's opening paragraph, when he mentions that the watch's wheels are made of brass to prevent rust. The problem is that the exact material, brass, is not required for the watch to function. It might help, but a watch can function with wheels made of almost any hard material - probably even wood or bone. Things only get worse when Paley mentions the glass cover of the watch. Not only is the exact material not required, but the whole component is dispensable: a cover is not necessary for the function of the watch. A watch cover is simply a convenience that has been attached to an irreducibly complex system, not a part of the system itself." (Michael Behe, DBB, Free Press, 1996, p216).
*******************************************

DNAunion: That should be enough to demonstrate that Behe does hold that you can have an IC core to a system with additional parts added on. The accessory parts are not part of the IC system itself, and can be removed without loss of function.

DNAunion: To which Nic Tamzek replied:

Nic Tamzek: 1) Thanks for the notes on IC core. I didn't think Behe had used the term, but I agree that it falls out quite readily once one is talking about required parts and unrequired parts.

DNAunion: Behe lists the three parts of the “IC core”: that is, the actual IC system itself. They are, the microtubules “paddles”, the dynein “motor”, and the nexin “linkers”. And despite Miller’s claim of refuting Behe with the eel sperm flagellum, we can all see that all three of the parts of the “IC core” Behe explicitly listed were still present. In other words, there’s no getting around it - Miller misrepresented Behe.

Well LiveFreeOrDie, since you seem to need this repeated over and over, I'll next post the proof of Miller’s misrepresentation once again. See the next post.

 

[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]

DNAunion: Here's a little anology.

Behe: 2 + 2 = 4.

Miller: Unfortunately for Behe, 2 + 3 = 5, not 4. Behe's refuted.

DNAunion: Note how Miller misrepresents Behe. Behe explicitly stated 2 + 2 = 4, yet Miller then claims to have refuted him by showing that 2 + 3 is not equal to 4.

LiveFreeOrDie: How can you call that a misrepresentation. Behe was too vague.

DNAunion: Pretty darn good analogy, if I must say so myself!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Behe lists the three parts of the “IC core”: that is, the actual IC system itself. They are, the microtubules “paddles”, the dynein “motor”, and the nexin “linkers”. And despite Miller’s claim of refuting Behe with the eel sperm flagellum, we can all see that all three of the parts of the “IC core” Behe explicitly listed were still present. In other words, there’s no getting around it - Miller misrepresented Behe.

Even if we stipulate, for the purpose of discussion, that Behe was clear on the concept of "IC core" (he wasn't), then how can you accuse Miller of misrepresentation? At worst, Miller simply failed to refute Behe's claim. There's nothing dishonest about that.

Well LiveFreeOrDie, since you seem to need this repeated over and over, I'll next post the proof of Miller’s misrepresentation once again.

The number of times you repeat something will not improve the likelihood that your statements are true.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Here's a better analogy:

Behe: 2 + 2 = 4

Miller: Unfortunately for Behe, 2 + (1 + 1) = 4. Behe is refuted.

LFOD: Note how Miller demonstrates that 2 + 2 is not IC.

DNAunion: But Behe didn't say you could use parentheses! Miller is dishonest!

DNAunion: But Behe didn't say you could use parentheses! Miller is dishonest!

DNAunion: But Behe didn't say you could use parentheses! Miller is dishonest!

DNAunion: But Behe didn't say you could use parentheses! Miller is dishonest!

 

[Jerry Smith]

ahem - did Behe, for instance, prove that the parts Miller showed were unnecessary (in his eel flagellum example) could be determined to be NOT I/C? Could you tell me what would happen if you took those components out of the eubacterial cilia? Would they, or would they not - still work?

This is the key that you and Behe seem not to want to address head on, and probably the reason why you claim that Miller's refuation is faulty... By the way, a faulty refutation is not necessarily equal to a misrepresentation. Miller never portrays Behe as specifically listing the parts that are missing from the eel flagellum as being I/C. He does point out that, while they give the appearance of I/C in the same way the parts described by Miller do, they obviously fail to disprove evolution.

Miller is constructing a loose dillemma for Behe on the issue of the cilium.

This is HORN 1 (not the whole refutation) -- HORN 2 is that the parts Behe does mention are present and functional in other parts of the cell. The construction is designed to eliminate wiggle room, and that is very important in any refutation of Behe (again I ask: how would you do it???)...

So, your claim that the refutation is faulty lies in our ability to identify whether the "missing parts" would be considered I/C by an analysis of the system that they appear in according to whatever rules Behe is using this week to identify I/C. Lets have an answer from somebody - you, Miller, Behe - I don't care. Until that is settled, your arguments fall on deaf ears.

Your claim that Miller misrepresents Behe (now) rests pretty much entirely on the premise that Miller's refutation is poor.

This:

A) Does not follow from the premise and
B) Requires you to demonstrate that the premise Miller's refutation is poor (as above) anyway.

If there was anything new in post #44, then I've missed it. There are only so many volumes of your prose I can drag myself through. The only new thing I am looking for from you is a succint explanation of why we should think Miller's refutation on this point fails, and why we should think that failure amounts to misrepresentation. Anything else and you would be doing us all a favor to post it to your recycle bin, especially if it is thirty pages long.

 

[Jerry Smith]

LFOD - LOL!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: Even if we stipulate, for the purpose of discussion, that Behe was clear on the concept of "IC core" (he wasn't)...

DNAunion: Get real. Behe was crystal clear on exactly which 3 parts were required for ciliary action. There's no "for the purpose of discussion" about it. Do you really need me to post the evidence again?

LiveFreeOrDie: .. then how can you accuse Miller of misrepresentation?

DNAunion: Because Miller claimed to have refuted Behe by removing parts of the cilium that Behe did not list as being required.

Must I really spell this out to you again?

Here, I'll try to simplify this for you. The following is a ficticious exchange that highlights the key points.

Behe: The three parts of the cilium that are required for ciliary action are the microtubule "paddles", the dynein "motors", and the nexin "linkers". Remove any one of the those three and the IC cilium system will cease functioning.

Miller: Unfortunately for Behe, that is not true. Here we have the eel sperm flagellum, and it doesn't have the central doublet, the central spokes, or the outer dynein arms: yet it still functions. How can that be? It can't be, if we believe Behe - yet, there it is.

DNAunion: Note how Miller misrepresents Behe. Behe specifically listed the 3 parts that were required for the IC system to function - the microtubule "paddles", the dynein "motors", and the nexin "linkers" - and yet Miller claims to have refuted Behe by presenting the eel sprem flagellum. But it still possess all three of the required parts Behe listed, so it is no refutation at all, despite Miller's assertion.

LiveFreeOrDie: That's not a misrepresentation - Behe was too vague. Don't blame Miller.

DNAunion: Now, it that "in a nutshell" version can you spot the errors you and Miller make? If not, must I repost the actual material once again for you?

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: Here's a better analogy:

DNAunion: No, yours doesn't accurately reflect the facts. Mine is better.

 

[Jerry Smith]

NO NEED TO REPOST. WE HAVE ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT BLUE JILLION PAGES OF IT ALREADY!!!!

Refer us to message numbers - please!!

The point is, that
1) This is not a conversation: Miller's remarks about the missing doublets were not directed at Behe's remarks about paddleboats.
2) It does not matter which parts Behe lists as being core I/C: It only matters which part an examination of a system using some clear definition of I/C reveals to fit the category!!
3) Miller is too vague about how we can identify I/C without waiting on the real scientists to do it by process of elimination. He is crystal clear that he only wants this bit and that bit considered. He is extremely vague about what the definition is - a crucial piece of information for someone who needs to check his theory - not his rigged examples...

Do you get it?

Please don't repost!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Because Miller claimed to have refuted Behe by removing parts of the cilium that Behe did not list as being required.

Then at worst Miller has constructed a poor refutation. Nothing dishonest there.

The following is a ficticious exchange that highlights the key points.

If you have to invent fictitious exchanges to prove your point, then you've really stooped to a new low.

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: 1) This is not a conversation: Miller's remarks about the missing doublets were not directed at Behe's remarks about paddleboats.

DNAunion: Miller's remarks were directed at Behe's statements on the IC cilium. And Miller's remarks are misrepresentations of Behe's statements on the IC cilium. It's really quite simple.

Jerry Smith: 2) It does not matter which parts Behe lists as being core I/C...

DNAunion: LOL!!! Here, let's all refute you.

Everyone: No Jerry Smith, Ken Miller isn't an IDist -you're refuted.

DNAunion: Of course it doesn't matter that you never said Ken Miller was an IDist - no one cares what you actually said. No, people don't need to bother with that kind of stuff, right? Everyone can just make up claims for the other guy, stuff them in his mouth, then refute those imaginary claims. What a great idea Jerry Smith! <giggle> With morals like that, no wonder you don't consider Miller to have done anything wrong.

Jerry Smith: It only matters which part an examination of a system using some clear definition of I/C reveals to fit the category!!

DNAunion: And the fact that Miller showed parts - that is, other than the three Behe specified as being required - can be absent yet the system still retain its ciliary function CONFIRMS, if anything, Behe's statements about what three parts are the ones required. Your own "debunking" of Behe/me actually supports Behe! Great job! Keep it up!

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: If you have to invent fictitious exchanges to prove your point, then you've really stooped to a new low.

DNAunion: The fact that you have pigheadedly refused to accept the obvious and unavoidable - for days - has already demonstrated that you are the one stooping to new lows.

And the only reason I created the fictitious exchanges was at your request. But hey, now that you want me to go back to showing the real evidence, fine. Here you go - at your request.


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!).

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

I see -- So when you have nothing new to add, repeat something you said in a previous post. Eventually your opponents will give up from exhaustion I guess.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: I see, when I show the actual stuff that refutes you, you gripe. When I reexpress it in simpler form, you gripe. When I go back to the original method, since you griped about the new method, you gripe.

Great debating tactics LiveFreeOrDie. Too bad your arguments are worthless, though. None of your continual griping about how I present the evidence that refutes you changes the unavoidable fact that Ken Miller misrepresented Behe.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Last word.

 

[Jerry Smith]

DNAunion: Miller's remarks were directed at Behe's statements on the IC cilium.

Yes, these remarks were among those Miller directed at Behe's statements on the eukaryotic cilium. He also specifically addressed Behe's "list" of parts of the I/C core (by showing that each of those parts exists and functions separate from the cilium).

And Miller's remarks are misrepresentations of Behe's statements on the IC cilium. It's really quite simple.

This is the part that we, so far, have to just take your word for!!!! 3 gazillion pages of posts &amp; reposts, yet you have yet to make a case to support this accusation. It is really quite simple.

Jerry Smith: 2) It does not matter which parts Behe lists as being core I/C...

DNAunion: LOL!!! Here, let's all refute you.


Everyone: No Jerry Smith, Ken Miller isn't an IDist -you're refuted.

So you must first accept ID in order to use the definition of I/C to determine whether a certain part of a cell fits that definition or not? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that once you accept I/C (or promote it), you are qualified to just arbitrarily make comprehensive lists of what is I/C based on pretty much on just what you want to have considered?

If Behe hopes to be taken seriously, then he must provide a definition that anyone (IDist or not) can use - one that is not circular, and one that will allow his claims to be tested. Otherwise, how will we ever know whether any new system that is discovered is I/C if its discovery comes after Behe's death?? Will that be a case of "Behe didn't say it was I/C so therefore it isn't?"

DNAunion: And the fact that Miller showed parts - that is, other than the three Behe specified as being required - can be absent yet the system still retain its ciliary function CONFIRMS, if anything, Behe's statements about what three parts are the ones required. Your own "debunking" of Behe/me actually supports Behe! Great job! Keep it up!

If anything it demonstrates that the only two methods we have for determining whether a system or a part is or is not I/C are:

1) Checking Behe's lists of I/C things and/or
2) Process of elimination, using the efforts of non-IDists.

If you can show us how Behe arrived at his list, and by what criteria he showed that the "missing parts" (of the eel sperm flagellum) do not meet the definition of I/C (so as to be sure not to include them on his list) - then we have a good reason not to consider them a falsification of IC/ID.

Again I ask you: how would you refute Behe??? You haven't answered that yet... Just on the cilium issue: how would you refute him?

Again I ask you: how does "misrepresentation" follow from "poor refutation" (if it turns out that this tiny part of Miller's refutation is indeed poor)?

&nbsp;

edit:

By the way, we never really determined whether the "missing parts" from the eel sperm flagellum should be considered I/C except by showing that a system simpler than the eukaryotic cilium does not possess them. You neglected to answer my question&nbsp;- the only question I think could be used to test whether they belong in the category or not. The question I'm talking about is perhaps the only one that Behe has given us that we can use to check his theory. If you remove the hub, spokes, and linking arms from the eubacterial cilia - does it, or does it not, continue to function?? Unless you can give us a pretty good reason to believe that it does continue to function, your whole book is based on a premise not in evidence. If it does not function, then Miller is quite right to treat them as part of the I/C core of the cilium, and his refutation is then very strong (and the charge of misrepresentation moves into the fast lane of the sewer line).

I honestly don't know if the eubacterial cilium could function without one or more of those complex and interdependant parts. I supsect that it could not, and that your tome o' rants is based nothing on your desire to pick fights.

I could be wrong. If the eubacterial cilium could function without those parts, then, at least on this point, Miller's refutation is poor - and it remains to you only to demonstrate that his poor refutation is evidence of misrepresentation.

Second edit:

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 didn't accuse him of claiming that.

No, Behe knows better than to do that. What he should have realized and did not, is that the fact that the parts of an IC biochemical system can have functions on their own destroys the premise that IC biochemical systems are unevolvable..

Miller does a good job of pointing this out. An analogy (since you like them):

Bob's premise: that no-one without an electric motor can get to the roof of the house

Bob: In order to get to the roof of the house, your elevator must have an electric motor. Otherwise, it does not go up.

Sue: Fred got to the roof of the house&nbsp;without an electric motor. He used a non-electric ladder.&nbsp;Bob is clearly wrong.

DNAUnion: See how Sue is misrepresenting Bob! Bob didn't say that ladders must have electric motors! He clearly doesn't think so because he talks about ladders without electricity all the time!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by 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.

This is one instance where Behe says different things in different places.

For instance, go to page 72 in Darwin's Black Box:

"Above I noted that the cilium contains tubulin, dynein, nexin, and several other connector proteins.&nbsp; If you take these and inject them into a cell that lacks a cilium, however, they do not assemble to give a functioning cilium"

So, it's not just the 3 proteins that constitute the "irreducible complexity" of the system.&nbsp; Provide those and you don't have the cilium, which is the irreducibly complex system, not just the 3 proteins.&nbsp; Instead, you have to have the complete structure of the cilium, which includes all the parts in Figure 3-2.&nbsp; Now, since Behe defines an IC system "I mean a single system which is composed&nbsp; of several well-matched,interacting parts that contribute to the&nbsp; basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes&nbsp; the system to effectively cease functioning."&nbsp; -Michael J. Behe "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference"
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/behefig1.gif&nbsp;, it is reasonable to conclude that all the parts in Figure 3-2 are necessary since Behe claims the entire cilium is IC.

What you are trying to do in defending Behe is to use one part of Behe to limit his liability to 3 proteins.&nbsp; But that isn't what Behe is claiming, because those 3 proteins are not, in themselves, sufficient to make a cilium.&nbsp; If the whole cilium or flagellum is an IC system, as Behe claims, then all the parts have to be necessary because that is how Behe defines an IC system.&nbsp; So when Miller can find cilia and flagella without some of the components, that contradicts Behe's claims.