FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2002, 04:14 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: California
Posts: 646
Post New Ken Miller essays

Our buddy Ken Miller has some new essays up:

<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html</a>


"The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of Irreducible Complexity."
Scientific studies of ID's "poster child," the bacterial flagellum, have destroyed this "icon" of the anti-evolution movement.
<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html</a>


"Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design"
The ID movement pretends that its biochemical arguments against evolution are new, novel, and scientific. In fact, they are nothing of the sort.
<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html</a>
Nic Tamzek is offline  
Old 12-04-2002, 05:24 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,427
Thumbs up

Cool, thanks for the links.
bluefugue is offline  
Old 12-05-2002, 02:00 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ecuador
Posts: 738
Post

Nic,

You ought to post these for Ahmad over on evcforum. He thinks the eubacterial rotor is proof of design.
Quetzal is offline  
Old 12-05-2002, 09:37 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,504
Post

Excellent. I particularly liked this bit:
Quote:
There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the "argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. [b]Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms.[b]
Peez
Peez is offline  
Old 12-05-2002, 02:34 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Post

Nic,

Thanks for the links. I've posted the flagellum one over at evc in it's own thread, but like Morpho, I'm also hoping to get Ahmad involved.

Morpho, is there a South American deity/bird lurking behind that pseudonym? I may have you mixed with somebody else, so sorry if I'm blathering

Mark
mark24 is offline  
Old 12-05-2002, 11:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ecuador
Posts: 738
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
<strong>Nic,

Thanks for the links. I've posted the flagellum one over at evc in it's own thread, but like Morpho, I'm also hoping to get Ahmad involved.

Morpho, is there a South American deity/bird lurking behind that pseudonym? I may have you mixed with somebody else, so sorry if I'm blathering

Mark</strong>
No, but there's a Central American bird lurking (Pharomacrus mocinno), just like there's a Central American butterfly (Morpho peleides) lurking here. Someone who's really paranoid might think there was a connection...
Quetzal is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 05:11 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,072
Post

Quote:
Nic: Our buddy Ken Miller has some new essays up:

<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html[/QUOTE" target="_blank">]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html
</a>

DNAunion: Too bad the first one is full of dishonest manipulations and strawmen. Here's one point worth noting...if I find time, I will post about at least one other major misrepresentation Miller makes.

Quote:
”As [Be]he realizes, however, the mere existence of structures and pathways that have not yet been given step-by-step Darwinian explanation does not make much of a case against evolution. Critics of evolution have laid down such challenges before, only to seem them backfire when new scientific work provided exactly the evidence they had demanded. Behe himself once made a similar claim when he challenged evolutionists to produce transitional fossils linking the first fossil whales with their supposed land-based ancestors (Behe 1994: 61). Ironically, not one, not two, but three transitional species between whales and land-dwelling Eocene mammals had been discovered by the end of 1994 when his challenge was published (Gould 1994: 8-15).
DNAunion: Several points to bear in mind.

(1) Miller makes a big deal about the fossils having been found “by the end of 1994 when [Behe’s] challenge was published”, trying to make Behe look like a fool for making confident claims that were known by everyone else to be wrong. But is Miller's claim accurate? No.

1a) Looking at Behe’s actual article (it’s available at ARN), it is copyrighted 1992. So does Ken Miller demand that Behe be clairvoyant?

What Miller is looking at - instead of the original article of interest itself - is an edited book that contained articles from different authors, and Behe’s preexisting article was one of those that had been included.

1b) Furthermore, in Behe’s article, it is stated that Behe and others DID know of intermediate species (hardly what one would gather from reading Miller's statements).

Quote:
”It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found.” (Michael Behe, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other, copyright 1992)
2) Miller claims that in the article of interest, “[Be]he challenged evolutionists to produce transitional fossils linking the first fossil whales with their supposed land-based ancestors”. Is this true? No.

Behe did not challenge evolutionists to produce any fossils linking mesonychids to whales. Behe was clearly relaying to the reader what his STUDENTS said after THEY critically examined an article in the Post about whale evolution. And even then, there is not challenge to evolutionists.

Quote:
The students themselves, after reading the Post’s article, pointed out that … For the same reason, the students noted, … Finally, and most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is true there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the mesonychid and the ancient whale: Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found. The students concluded that the fossil whale, although a fascinating discovery for natural history, was no evidence for the Post’s evolutionary scenario.” (bold added, (Michael Behe, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other, copyright 1992)
3) Miller also conveniently leaves out the fact that Behe was discussing a particular hypothetical evolutionary series: specifically, mesonychid to Zeuglodon whale, as mentioned in the Post article that Behe had his students examine. And as late as 1999 (and even today?), there is strong scientific reason to doubt that whales actually did evolve from the mesonychid ancestors that were assumed by the Post article: DNA evidence points to different ancestors – artiodactyls - than the fossil evidence does.

**************************

So why is it that if evolutionists have all the data on their side, and everything is so clearly black and white, that they so frequently resort to misrepresentating their opponents' positions, such as Miller did here?

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>
DNAunion is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 06:06 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,072
Post

DNAunion: In the first URL, Miller even does a bit of quoting out of context and twisting his opponent’s positions to suit his own need.

Quote:
”What of the statement [made by Behe] that there is no publication anywhere describing how the "molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred?" Simply put, that statement is not correct.

In 1996, Enrique Meléndez-Hevia and his colleagues published, in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, a paper entitled "The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution." (Meléndez-Hevia et al 1996) The Krebs cycle is real, complex, and biochemical, and this paper does exactly what Behe says cannot be done, even in principle…” (Ken Miller from above URL)
DNAunion: No, it doesn’t do what Behe says cannot be done. Behe’s original statement that Miller lifts was clearly referring to IC biochemical systems, not merely complex ones (keep in mind that Behe gives examples of very complex biochemical systems – such as that used in the biosynthesis of AMP – that are NOT IC). And Behe has stated, both implicitly and explicitly, years ago, that the Krebs/citric acid cycle is NOT an IC biochemical system. Anti-IDists have been aware of Behe’s position on this for years, so why does Miller still act a though it is a valid counterexample?

And note how Miller continues.

Quote:
”These are not isolated examples. Recently Martino Rizzotti published a series of detailed, step-by-step hypotheses for the evolution of a wide variety of cellular structures, including the bacterial flagellum and the eukaryotic cilium (Rizzotti 2000). I do not claim, even for a moment, that each and every one of Rizzotti 's explanations represent the final word on the evolution of these structures. Nonetheless, any validity one might have attached to the claim that the literature lacks such explanations vanishes upon inspection. “ (Ken Miller from URL)
DNAunion: Once again Miller demands that Behe be clairvoyant.

Behe wrote his statement about a lack of published detailed explanations for the origin of IC biochemical systems back in 1996, and here Miller uses an article published in 2000 to “demonstrate” how silly Behe’s claim was!?!?! What a clown that Miller is!

Also, note that Behe – in 1996 - was well aware that there were conceptual evolutionary explanations out there, but Behe makes it clear that he is demanding – and his search was looking for – in-depth, detailed, step-by-step, molecular-level, explanations: you know, the kind that basically WOULD be the final word on the matter.

Quote:
” What all of this means, of course, is that two principal claims of the intelligent design movement are disproved, namely that it is impossible to present a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of a complex biochemical system, and that no such papers appear in the scientific literature. It is possible, and such papers do exist.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
DNAunion: Uhm, nope.

Miller sets up a strawman. Note the several misleading components of Miller’s statement, “[Behe* claims] that it is impossible to present a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of a complex biochemical system”. That’s not accurate.

(1) Behe’s claims deal specifically with IC biochemical systems, not just complex ones. But Miller cannot legitimately say “… the evolution of an irreducibly complex biochemical system” because he did not demonstrate that the example he used to make his point was IC (and the Krebs cycle – one example he cited as a counterexample for another claim, is in fact NOT IC). Miller is trying to manipulate things to get the benefit of knocking out IC without actually having to demonstrate IC at first, and then here without specifically saying IC; he’s misleading the readers and hoping that they will infer what he is leading them to infer.

(2) Behe is well aware that it is very possible “to present a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of a complex biochemical system”. In fact, Behe mentions Darwin’s explanation for the evolution of the camera-type eye: clearly a set of complex of biochemical systems (but not an IC one). Furthermore, Behe is well aware that one can even present a Darwinian explanation for an IC biochemical system, such as the cilium, and he even presents one for the this in his book (and for other systems). Miller has again misrepresented Behe.

Miller setup a (multi-part) strawman and then knocked it down.

(3) And Miller struck out both times on his counter examples about articles that Behe claims “can’t exist”. The first one doesn’t even deal with an IC biochemical system, and the second one was published 4 years after Behe wrote his book.
DNAunion is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 06:37 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,072
Post

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

Quote:
” . 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, . . . .

***********************************
"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).
***********************************

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.

Quote:
”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.
Quote:
"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.

Quote:
”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.

Quote:
”… 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?" ).

Quote:
”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.

Quote:
”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.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>
DNAunion is offline  
Old 12-06-2002, 06:49 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,072
Post

DNAunion: One more for the night.

Quote:
”In fact, Prof. John McDonald of the University of Delaware has taken this several steps further, posting drawings on a web site that show how a mousetrap may be constructed with just three, two, or even just one part. McDonald's mousetrap plans are available at: <a href="http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html" target="_blank">http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html</a> “ (Ken Miller from above URL)
DNAunion: Oh yes, McDonald. Anyone remember his laughable “single-piece mousetrap” he used to “refute” Behe? It was convincingly refuted years ago at ARN (here’s a hint – it still posseses all the parts Behe says are required for function, just melded into a single complex piece). I even wrote McDonald and showed him his error – years ago – but he didn’t remove it.

Just looked and, believe it or not, McDonald finally DID drop the single-piece mousetrap “refutation” from his site.

No wait, I checked and he still has it up, just somewhere else:
<a href="http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html" target="_blank">http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html</a>

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>
DNAunion is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:18 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.