Ken Miller still misrepresenting Behe

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by DNAunion
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.

Again, you have to look at all of Behe's comments. By saying "leaving aside the system before the fork" Behe is not claiming that the system before the fork is not IC. In fact, on page 87 Behe writes "Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducible complex, but so is each step in the pathway." pg 87.

So, while you are concentrating only on the paragraph Miller quotes, Miller's actual argument is valid because a page later Behe says the entire blood-clotting system -- including factor XII -- is IC. Which, by Behe's definition of IC, means that removal of one of the components caused malfunction.  So when Miller points out that dolphins don't have Factor XII, this data does indeed refute Behe's claim about the blood clotting system.

Your defense of Behe is spirited, but it is also selective quoting of Behe.  You are ignoring what Behe actually writes and the implications of it, concentrating only on what you want to see.  Yes, Behe tries CYA, but that CYA contradicts his other statements. 

 

[DNAunion]

****************************************************
Jerry Smith: Again I ask you: how would you refute Behe??? You haven't answered that yet…
****************************************************

DNAunion: I have CHOSEN not to respond to several of your questions because it’s a waste of time to respond to silly and/or irrelevant questions.

This thread that I started is not about whether or not Behe is refutable, it’s about the fact that Miller misrepresented Behe. All I need is one example to show this, and I have it in the cilium. And I have no burden of trying to refute Behe or come up with a plan to refute Behe in order to show that Miller misrepresented him.

****************************************************
Jerry Smith:... Just on the cilium issue: how would you refute him?
****************************************************

DNAunion: The only relevant formulation of your question would be along the lines of, “How should Miller have tried to refute Behe on his claim about the cilium being IC?”. That I will address.

It’s simple. Miller should have tried to find a cilium that is functional yet lacks at least one of the three required parts that Behe listed – microtubule “paddles”, dynein “motors”, and nexin “linkers”.

To try to refute Behe by removing parts OTHER than the three Behe explicitly listed, while leaving all three of the parts Behe listed, indicates, basically, that Miller is being dishonest, or is being stupid, or at the least, is trying to refute a position he doesn’t understand (which would still make him disingenuous since he states his incorrect statements as though they were scientific facts, leverages his position as a biology professor to get his misrepresentations published, etc.).

 

[DNAunion]

*****************************************************
Jerry Smith: 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)?
*****************************************************

DNAunion: Another of your questions I have CHOSEN not to respond earlier (it's not like it stumped me).

I did not state that Miller is guilty of misrepresenting Behe simply because his refutation is fatally flawed. I said he misrepresented Behe because, well, because he misrepresented Behe. Here, let me go back to a simple fictitious exchange I made earlier to show the difference.

Just a flawed refutation

Behe: 2 + 2 = 4.

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

DNAunion: If something analogous to that were the case, then Miller would not be guilty of misrepresenting Behe. However, that is not analogous to what happened. The following is.

Flawed refutation AND Misrepresentation

Behe: 2 + 2 = 4.

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

DNAunion: Note how in the second example 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. Unlike the first one, Miller’s math is flawless. However, it doesn’t address the math that Behe used, so doesn’t refute Behe and misrepresents Behe.

Now let’s see a more involved, but more related (since it deals with the IC cilium instead of math) fictitious exchange I posted before.

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.

DNAunion: Can you see the relation between the first example of misrepresentation (math) and the second (cilium), how the underlying principle is the same?

If not, let me give one more fictitious exchange. This one uses the IC cilium but shows Miller only making a flawed refutation (i.e., accurately representing Behe).

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 X-creature flagellum, and it has no dynein arms at all, yet it still functions. How can that be? It can't be, if we believe Behe - yet, there it is.

Behe: It was found that the dynein arms are present in the X-creature's cilia - just the original specimen studied had them broken off by improper manipulation.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
Now let’s see a more involved, but more related (since it deals with the IC cilium instead of math) fictitious exchange I posted before.

Let me get this straight: You carp on Ken Miller for allegedly misrepresenting Mike Behe, and to prove your point you rely on a fictitious exchange that never actually happened?

I think my irony meter just blew a gasket.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Well, it's not my fault that you guys are incapable of grasping the real exchanges. So if I am to try to communicate with you, I am forced to dumb things down to your level. So I eliminate things like dynein arms and rely on really simple stuff like 2 + 2 = 4; stuff I feel you can handle. Then, once you understand the principle, I ease you into the biology, but again not all of it. Then, once you can understand that, maybe you can understand the original statements.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Well, it's not my fault that you guys are incapable of grasping the real exchanges. So if I am to try to communicate with you, I am forced to dumb things down to your level.

Ad hominem. You lose.

 

[DNAunion]

*********************************
LiveFreeOrDie: ... and to prove your point you rely on a fictitious exchange that never actually happened?

I think my irony meter just blew a gasket.
*********************************

DNAunion: I think my redundancy meter just blew a gasket.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: I think my redundancy meter just blew a gasket.

Most likely that was due to your excessive reposting of the same material.

 

[DNAunion]

*************************
LiveFreeOrDie: Most likely that was due to your excessive reposting of the same material.
*************************

DNAunion: Gee, my redundancy meter just blew a gasket again!

 

[Jerry Smith]

While you are busy ignoring Lucaspa (aren't page numbers a Witch?!), I'm going to bed.. I'll come back to your posts tomorrow sometimes. I really didn't think you would want to prolong this thing more after today's exchanges, so I let it get to be bedtime without checking on the thread. I'll see you tomorrow.

 

(Meantime, you might avail yourself of the opportunity to read through the thread. When you get through, if you think you haven't already lost then I'll be back tomorrow. If you see that you have already lost, just post a comment to that effect & we can all go home happy.)

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Of course, there is a difference.

I'm not the one who is forced to keep trying to come up with new ways of boring through the opponent's rock-solid position because all previous attempts have failed. Unlike you guys, I can stick with one position and still be victorious. The original statements about the IC cilium that I keep posting are legitimate counters to the many easily rejected "counters" you guys have put forth; I don't really need anything else.

That is, I wouldn't need anthying else if you guys could understand the issues. But it looks like things like inner dynein arms and central doublets are not in your vocabulary, so you can't handle the details of the original topic. So, as I said before, in order to try to communicate with you, I dumb it all down by eliminating the biology "stuff" and using elementary math (2 + 2 = 4); something surely simple enough for you to understand. We have to have a common base of understanding if we are to communicate.

So, once you understand the principles I spelled out in the 2 + 2 = 4 examples, just let me know, and then we can take it up a notch.

 

[DNAunion]

******************************
Jerry Smith: If you can show us how Behe arrived at his list…
******************************

DNAunion: Gee, I’ve already posted the main part for you a dozen times. But I guess you aren't satisfied with sufficient - you want more.

Before the part I keep quoting, Behe explains briefly the experiments that showed what happens when dynein or nexin is removed (of course, if microtubules are eliminated, there’s no cilium – so no experiments need to be performed to test what happens in the absence of them).

On page 63 Behe briefly discusses an experiment that showed that the “motor” of the cilium is part of the cilium itself (isolate a cilium from the cell, add ATP, and it will beat). Thus, it is different than the bacterial flagellum.

On page 63 Behe states that experiments showed that removal of the dynein arms – while retaining everything else - leaves the cilium “paralyzed”, so to speak. Add dynein back and the cilium begins moving again.

On pages 63-64 Behe states that experiments showed that digestion of the nexin linker by a protease – while leaving the rest of the system intact – causes the cilium to not bend but to instead, basically, unravel.

Then, Behe reviews what he just went over …

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 requires 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: Behe (1) identified the three-part IC core of the cilium, (2) explained why each of those three parts is required, and (3) showed that with just those three parts the core is conceptually complete (for example, the inner doublet is not required to perform any function in order for there to be ciliary action because all of the functions needed for ciliary action are already accounted for by the three parts of the IC core. Another reason Behe gives for not considering the inner doublet as being part of the IC core is that he says we must consider only what is common to all versions of a system under consideration - since some cilia don't have inner doublets, then they cannot be considered parts of the IC core).

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Since Jerry Smith felt it appropriate to tell us when he was quitting for the day...

I've spent about 5 hours at this site tonight and it is now late - bedtime. In those 5 hours I (a single person debating 3 people who each make many replies, some long) have managed to work my way up through most of page 6. And that's about it for a while (that goes for all threads for all sites).

As I mentioned at Infidels a little over a week, school is out and I don't have easy access to a computer now. The one I have been using since then requires me to drive for many miles and I have to spend many hours posting to make it worthwhile. But I get my two sons for Christmas vacation starting tomorrow so I probably won't have any free time then to make the journey (nor do I wish to torture them by making them sit there and watch me as I type for hours). So it will probably be a couple weeks before I can respond to anything else (that goes for this thread and all others - here, at Infidels, etc.)

Lucaspa, I will respond to your posts in this thread next. At least yours look like legitimate attempts to counter what I am saying.

 

[Jerry Smith]

DNA:

I have little new to add either.

The "new" point:
You showed where Behe decided (arbitrarily) to check three parts of the cilium for whether they are parts of an I/C core, and found that that they were on the basis that they cannot be removed and preserve functionality. You did not show where Behe checked the "missing parts" from Miller's counterexample to show that they could not be considered I/C by the same criteria. Until you do that, then you cannot say that Miller's refutation fails.

An analogy again:
Behe: A watch is I/HtM. Specifically, it needs a battery, a motor, and "hands" for showing the time. Unless these parts can be manufactured or already exist, then you cannot build a watch. Therefore a watch is Irreducibly Hard to Make. Other parts are unnecessary improvements. You can remove the glass cover and the watch still continues to function correctly.

Miller (in a rebuttal piece): Batteries, hands, and motors are all readily available and easily manufactured. Therefore, the watch is not Irreducibly Hard to Make.

Miller (later in the same piece): Watches exist that use springs instead of crystals. So the crystals that you cannot remove without causing a failure of the watch (and should therefore make it IHtM if they are out of supply) fail the IHtM test as well.

Reminders:
Your exchange was fictitious: It attempts to portray Miller's comments about central doublets, spokes, etc as though they are directed against Behe's incomplete 3-part "list" of the I/C core. In reality, Miller addresses the 3-part list separately. Therefore, as you should already know, your "math" analogy is badly wrong.

Furthermore, even if your math analogy is right, it is still not an example of misrepresentation.

Here's an example of what would be misrepresentation:

Bob: Bob: All number sentences like "a + b = c" can be evaulated as boolean statements with a value of either True, False, or the numeric value of C. Because of that the sentence "1+0=1" has a value of True (or 1).

Fred: According to Bob, a + b = a - b. But 1 + 1 != 1 - 1. Bob is a loser.

Here is an example of a poor refutation that Fred could make that would be wrong, but still not a misrepresentation.:

Bob: Bob: All number sentences like "a + b = c" can be evaulated as boolean statements with a value of either True, False, or the numeric value of C. Because of that the sentence "1+0=1" has a value of True (or 1).

Seymour: According to Bob, "0 + 0 = 1" would have a value of True (or 0)

And example of a good refutation that is also not misreprentation...

Bob: All number sentences like "a + b = c" can be evaulated as boolean statements with a value of either True, False, or the numeric value of C. Because of that the sentence "1+0=1" has a value of True (or 1).

Pablo: "1 + -1 = 0" This evaluates to true, but not to 0.

You may convince me that Miller's refutation is no better than Seymours (even though now I think it is as good as Pablo's). You will have to show some actual logic to show how it is that Miller's refuation is a misrepresentation like Fred's.

 

[Morat]

He's not fooling Jerry. He's not fooling Lucaspa. He's not fooling LFoD. If I'm any guide to the lurkers, he's not fooling me.

Is he fooling himself?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Started a new thread on just the cilium stuff.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/31780-1.html