Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Behe Refutes Yet Another Attempt to Refute Him

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.

Comments
Gaz:
The defect of the concept of irreducible complexity is that something is either irreducibly complex, and hence could not have evolved, or it isn’t irreducibly complex.
It is NOT about evolution! It is about blind watchmaker-type processes. Why is it that anti-IDists have a difficult time understanding that simple concept?Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
camanintx, Kem Miller's nonsense and misrepresentations do not refute anything, let alone the mousetrap example. However he does provide some insight into his alleged "christianity".Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Gaz, What scientific data demonstrates the venus fly-trap "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Ya see Dr Behe doesn't argue against evolution. He argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.Joseph
September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Caman, Narrow? You might want to re-read my post starting with "The distinction..." and ending with "...laugh"Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Gaz, without information organizing inanimate matter, DNA life wouldn't exist at all - and neither would the venus flytrap.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, #26
Caman, Thanks for the implicit admission. The bottom line is that Behe was correct – in living tissue we find critical structures and processes that are irreducibly complex. Not parts may be removed and have the function remain.
If you are going to use such a narrow definition of "irreducibly complex" then you are not going to have much success disproving evolution with it.camanintx
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
UprightBiped (26), "The bottom line is that Behe was correct – in living tissue we find critical structures and processes that are irreducibly complex. Not parts may be removed and have the function remain." So does this mean that the Venus fly-trap evolved or not? I keep asking this question but no-one - least of all Mike Behe - seems willing to answer.Gaz
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
.......need a system that adds functionality to the "snap" mechanism? snap.CannuckianYankee
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Caman, Thanks for the implicit admission. The bottom line is that Behe was correct - in living tissue we find critical structures and processes that are irreducibly complex. Not parts may be removed and have the function remain. The distinction you make is that all these irreducibly complex structures and processes simply snapped into place once random mutations had built their component parts. Those fortuitous random mutations would be taking place within the organism’s system of heredity so that each mutation could be passed to their progeny and steadily accumulate into awe-inspiring future novelty. In fact, it was an unknown series of fortuitous random mutations that snapped them together as well. Until they snapped into place, organisms that use the mobility afforded to them by flagella, simply did not have such mobility, instead they had a bag of tricks that would lead to their mobile someday. Organisms that required a system to inject toxins into their prey, simply did not inject toxins into their prey until their bag of tricks assembled to a point to where became possible. Organisms that use a system of interrelated parts to rid themselves of waste and contaminants simply did not rid themselves of waste and contaminants until it was perhaps inevitable that they could do so. Organisms that became damaged and required a system to mediate the loss of fluids and repair damage, simply did not mediate the loss of fluids and repair damage. Need vision? snap Want hearing? snap Have a desire to distribute energy? snap Want to pursue homeostasis? snap snap snap In short, surely nothing novel happened until the bag of tricks assembled with enough diversity of components for something to happen. Then (and apparently only then) a fortuitous random mutation took place within the system of heredity - by which the bag of tricks was to accumulate and be passed down to offspring – which led to novelty. And what of the hereditary system itself? Need RNA to do the work of proteins? snap Need a structure to record information? snap Need a symbol system to map meaning? snap Need an unknown means to upload the data? snap Need a system to translate it back? snappity snap snap Thanks Caman, I needed a laugh.Upright BiPed
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
camanintx, I won't pick apart your illustration of the arch, because I get that it's an analogy. But it's a strawman argument because no one has suggested that an arch is irreducibly complex or employed any logic that does. The concept of exaptation (or co-option) is well established in biology. Exaptation is a speculation with no specifics, an explanation with no explanation. It amounts to saying that one thing became another somehow, maybe. It's an expression of what you think or hope might be possible, not of any scientific evidence.ScottAndrews
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
CIT: Let's just say that unless a part of a car is just right for a new job [including fitting with the other required parts], it does not matter that it does another job just fine. Sometimes, even when it looks the same and sits in the same plastic mould down to the mould number, it is STILL wrong. Despite what "works like" parts substitutes may say. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
camanintx (#22) You write:
Evolution does not say that a flagellum must have always been a flagellum or that a mousetrap must have always been a mousetrap. The concept of exaptation (or co-option) is well established in biology. Using your logic, arches can never result from natural processes because they are irreducibly complex, yet we find them everywhere.
This is old news. ID proponents are well aware of exaption (or cooption). Please have a look at these articles: "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum" by Casey Luskin (last edited October 25, 2006) at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=747 Irreducible Complexity Revisited by Dr. William Dembski. Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller by Dr. William Dembski.vjtorley
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, #16
Miller is not able to show how his analogy refutes irrecucible complexity. He has not shown how removing a vital functional part of a mousetrap allows the moustrap to continue functioning as a mousetrap.
Upright BiPed, #17
I am sorry, that was not a red herring – it was a question based on your seeming assertion that the issue had been refuted.
Yes, it is a red herring, because the Theory of Evolution does not say that a flagellum must have always been a flagellum or that a mousetrap must have always been a mousetrap. The concept of exaptation (or co-option) is well established in biology. Using your logic, arches can never result from natural processes because they are irreducibly complex, yet we find them everywhere. The key to understanding how this happens is to realize that they weren't always arches.camanintx
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
jerry (10), "There are many mouse traps, not just the spring loaded one that Behe uses and it is does not have an analogue in nature unless one wants to use the word trap as the connection. The mouse traps I use are glue traps which I find more effective. I can easily imagine a glue trap in nature and one may probably exists. I see no connection between the spring loaded mouse trap and the venus fly trap or whether it has anything to do with IC. Both may be IC but for very different reasons." It's the mousetrap Behe uses that's the analogue to the Venus fly-trap - your glue ones aren't really relevant to the discussion (though if we were talking sundews etc they may be).Gaz
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Cannuckian Yankee (18), The defect of the concept of irreducible complexity is that something is either irreducibly complex, and hence could not have evolved, or it isn't irreducibly complex. Whether that is at the cellular level or the organism level is irrelevant. And anyway, as I understood "Edge of Evolution", he seemed to be implying that the "edge" was round about the genus/species level (I think) so he clearly envisaged any higher groupings (families, orders etc) as not being evolvable because getting there involves overcoming the irredcuible complexity barrier.Gaz
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
Cam @15 In the Matzke paper that you referenced, what impresses you about its findings and the manner in which Matzke arrived at those findings? There are many papers out there, many with serious defects or with valid refutations, or worse, with spurious data. I would like your conclusion of the Matzke paper... BTW, Behe is careful to admit to the possibility of anything. His opponents are anal about that. Personally, I have to admit to the possibility of a gold-plated asteroid striking me tonight. Even so, the probability is not enough to send me underground for bedtime.SpitfireIXA
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Gaz, "The fact that Behe has made no attempt at all to claim the Venus could not evolve, because it is irredicibly complex, speaks volumes about his actual lack of confidence about irreducible complexity in nature." You seem to think that Behe is claiming that every organism in nature that has complexity and function is necessarily irreducibly complex. He is not saying this at all. He accepts common descent, so somewhere down the line he has to accept some Darwinian processes. Behe is very careful in specifying organisms and/or systems that do show irreducible complexity. Behe believes that his idea of IC is only scientifically applicable at the cellular level. Thus, the "Black Box" in his book 'Darwin's Black Box' is the cell. Darwin could not have known in his time about the immense complexity inside the cell. This is why Behe does not discuss the venus fly-trap; it is not an example of IC at the cellular level.CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
Caman, I am sorry, that was not a red herring - it was a question based on your seeming assertion that the issue had been refuted. Now, answer the question: Of the 40+ constituent parts of the flagella, which of them can be removed and the organism remain motive?Upright BiPed
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
camanintx, "And how well did that work out for him?" Ken Miller: "Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain." Miller is not able to show how his analogy refutes irrecucible complexity. He has not shown how removing a vital functional part of a mousetrap allows the moustrap to continue functioning as a mousetrap. To state that the reamaining parts could be used as a tie clip is a rather silly attempt at a refutation. I could use the parts in any way I choose, but that does not detract from the fact that what is left simply cannot function as a moustrap. Furthermore, Behe has answered his critics on this kind of 'refutation,' as far back as 2000. Were they paying attention? http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm Behe: "...as I tried to emphasize in my book, the point that is relevant to Darwinian evolution is not whether one can make variant structures, but whether those structures lead, step-by-excruciatingly-tedious-Darwinian-step, to the structure I showed." Are they paying attention now? You bet, because they are still attempting to refute it unsuccessfully, and this is why we continue to see this issue raised.CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, #14
How well did it work out? You tell me. Which of the parts of the flagella can be removed and the organism remains motive? Please be specific and remain concurrent to the actual question asked.
Nice red herring. Even Behe admitted that you cannot rule out the possibility of evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function.camanintx
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
How well did it work out? You tell me. Which of the parts of the flagella can be removed and the organism remains motive? Please be specific and remain concurrent to the actual question asked.Upright BiPed
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, #5
The moustrap merely serves to illustrate the point of irreducible complexity, and nothing more.
And how well did that work out for him?camanintx
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
"Behe probably used the mousetrap as opposed to a watch, because it has fewer parts, and as such, it is easier to see what he means by irreducible complexity." I should also add that there may be parts of a watch, which are not vital to its function.CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Gaz, "You miss the point entirely. Behe didn’t pick a stapler, he picked a moustrap which happens to have an anlogue in nature – said Venus fly-trap." No, I didn't miss the point. Behe did not use the moustrap because it was anlogous to anything in nature. He used it to demonstrate a designed mechanism, whose various parts are vital to its function. That's the only use for the analogy. It is the bacterial flagellum (for one) that Behe refers to as a biological example of irreducible complexity, not because it is anything like a moustrap other than that it contains parts that are also vital to its function. Paley refered to a pocket watch. Does this mean that Paley thought that dogs are walking assortments of gears and springs? Of course not. This is because analogies can only go so far. Behe probably used the mousetrap as opposed to a watch, because it has fewer parts, and as such, it is easier to see what he means by irreducible complexity.CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
"You miss the point entirely. Behe didn’t pick a stapler, he picked a moustrap which happens to have an anlogue in nature – said Venus fly-trap" There are many mouse traps, not just the spring loaded one that Behe uses and it is does not have an analogue in nature unless one wants to use the word trap as the connection. The mouse traps I use are glue traps which I find more effective. I can easily imagine a glue trap in nature and one may probably exists. I see no connection between the spring loaded mouse trap and the venus fly trap or whether it has anything to do with IC. Both may be IC but for very different reasons.jerry
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Cannuckian Yankee (5), "Given that he could have used any mechanical device, such as, say a stapler, renders your argument ridiculous, and irrelevant." You miss the point entirely. Behe didn't pick a stapler, he picked a moustrap which happens to have an anlogue in nature - said Venus fly-trap. That means we can do a direct comparison from his example to nature to assess the validity of the concept of irreducible complexity. The fact that Behe has made no attempt at all to claim the Venus could not evolve, because it is irredicibly complex, speaks volumes about his actual lack of confidence about irreducible complexity in nature.Gaz
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Nick Matzke had some interesting ideas on insectiverous plant evolution here: http://www.bacps.org/2005Spring.html#utrictrapDave Wisker
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Here is the link to two comments by a poster named Acquiesce about the Venus Flytrap. They are right after each other in the thread https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-wells-on-the-contemporary-state-of-evo-devo/#comment-110242 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-wells-on-the-contemporary-state-of-evo-devo/#comment-110246jerry
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
There was someone who commented here a couple years ago who discussed the Venus Fly Trap. As I remember it did not have any logical predecessors. If so then it was irreducible. We also had a commentator called the Venus Mousetrap who combined the two concepts of a mouse trap in nature. Maybe we will get a detailed analysis of the Venus mousetrap. By the way there is a plant in Southeast Asia that can trap a rat and digest it so I would assume a mouse is within its capabilities. It is called Audrey III.jerry
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Gaz, Behe referred to a moustrap as an example of irreducible complexity because it was designed by a human mind. He could have used any other mechanical device designed by a human just as easily, but the mousetrap seemed to fit, and is a simple mechanism, which illustrates his point best. The moustrap merely serves to illustrate the point of irreducible complexity, and nothing more. Given that he could have used any mechanical device, such as, say a stapler, renders your argument ridiculous, and irrelevant.CannuckianYankee
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply