Nic Tamzek

The only problem is that you've defined "direct evolution" so narrowly that excludes basically nothing, e.g. all of these known "indirect" natural mechanisms can/have/are producing IC:

- specialization of subsystem followed by loss of part of system (Venus Flytrap lost glue from flypaper trap ancestor) -- aka scaffolding; some versions of modern photosynthesis appear to be a case of this also

- change of function (ubiquitous; PCP degradation, immune system, initial blood-clotting cascade)

- change of mechanism (mammalian inner ear bones, vertebrate camera eye, expansion of blood-clotting cascade -- in fact almost any case of specialization has now been defined to be "indirect")

Therefore *even* cases of "gradually improving the same initial function", what most people would call "direct" -- is not ruled out by IC on your strict interpretation of the Book of Behe.

Therefore IC is essentially meaningless W.R.T. inferring design. You have pretty much conceded this. Therefore there's not much point in beating the dead horse with you any further.

I will grant that you identified some cases of Ken Miller not putting all of Behe's caveats and hedges front-and-center, but then if you take all of Behe's caveats and hedges seriously then Behe hasn't really got an for design, just an argument against a ridiculously and unrealistically narrow class of "direct" evolutionary pathways. I submit that the latter was not what Behe was arguing for in his book.

You have proven this in this thread: e.g., if "missing a part" does not equate to "totally nonfunctional" but only equates to "not the same function as identified for the 'IC' system" then you have no longer got an argument against Darwinian evolution. You might find it in your heart to forgive critics for thinking that Behe was actually proposing an argument against Darwinian evolution, and interpreting his various statements, and the relative importance of his various statements, in that light.

You are aware that the idea "missing a part equates with totally nonfunctional" is by far the most common way the IC argument is put, are you not?

nic

Principia

While I am still having a hard time find what Behe wrote in the last year...
Why, let's just look at some recent ARN threads.
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.ph...3;t=000576;p=2
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.ph...3;t=000575;p=2

Doubting Didymus

Well, quite simply, thats just untrue. Have you seen this page? It demonstrates a gradual evolutionary path that starts with a simple bent wire, and finishes with a complete working mousetrap, which satisfies the IC criteria. If you have the time, invest in reading the entire article. It is the simplest refutation of the idea of IC that I have ever read.

NOTE: I do not suggest that IC does not exist. It obviously does. The question is whether gradual evolution can produce irreducibly complex systems. Intuituon says no, but demonstrations like this one prove that it can, by approaching the end product in a slightly roundabout fashion, produce such IC systems as mousetraps.

Nic Tamzek

Why Principia, are you suggesting that Nelson Alonzo's interpretation of Behe is vastly different than DNAunion's interpretation? That perhaps the two most dedicated Behe scholars on the web define his key concepts completely differently? How can that be, if the concept is so simple and Behe laid it out so clearly?

[/sarcasm]

I submit that perhaps there is no such thing as the "right" interpretation of things like SC and IC, because the authors (Dembski and Behe) of them were themselves inconsistent and/or vague in definition and usage.

pangloss

I deleted my last post because I did not want to be accused of 'starting' something.
The fact is, it appears that the only person concluding that you are "winning" is, not surprisingly, you.

As is most often the case.

And, of course, PZ has it right. Given your history and tendencies, why bother?

DNAunion

DNAunion: Doubting Didymus seems to have a problem with my asking people to read material from another discussion forum. The funny thing is, I wasn’t the one to drag that other forum into the discussions here: LiveFreeOrDie did on 12/12/2002 at 01/:29 AM.

DNAunion: No comment from Doubting Didymus then? That’s odd.

And I wasn’t even the second to reference that other site: Clutch did when he responded to LiveFreeOrDie’s assertion.

DNAunion: Again, no comment from Doubtying Didymus. Gee, I guess it’s only when I reference threads from other discussion sites that it is wrong.

Furthermore, it's not like people like Pangloss, Prinicipia, pz, etc. never drag other discussion forums into threads here.

So I guess it's the same old same old: it's not WHAT is done, but WHO is doing it.

:boohoo: (<-Saved you guys the trouble)

DNAunion

DNAunion: FYI Nic.

DNAunion: The Venus Flytrap system is not IC because it exists well above the cellular level. It’s like the Panda’s thumb that Behe addresses and says that IC/ID are quite compatible with.

DNAunion: Neither of those are IC either.

DNAunion

DNAunion: No one bothered to even address this issue, or they complained because it wasn’t posted at this site. Well, I’ll post it here, then see if anyone will address it. From that other discussion forum…



A common misconception, which seems to be the source of much confusion about Behe’s concept of irreducibly complex systems, needs to be addressed.


Behe’s IC System != Whole System
Behe’s IC System = System’s IC “Core”


One mistake many people – Ken Miller, Lucasps, and other anti-Behe’ians – make is to incorrectly assume that when Behe says a system is IC that he means all parts of the system constitute the IC system. That is incorrect: for many or most systems, some parts of the complete system are simply add-on/accessory/auxiliary parts and are not counted among the required parts that comprise the IC system itself (the IC “core”, as IDists have come to call it). And anyone who actually bothered to read Behe’s book and tried to understand Behe’s position would know this.

For example, consider what Behe states about a watch.

DNAunion: So Behe has explicitly classified a watch as being an irreducibly complex system. If we accepted what many of Behe’s detractors claim, then Behe would be saying that every single part of a watch is required for it to function. But this is clearly not what Behe holds. In fact, on page 216 he points out that Paley should not have discussed the watch cover when arguing design because a watch cover is not part of the (core) IC system itself, but merely a convenience added onto it.

DNAunion: Note that Behe – after stating that a watch is an irreducibly complex system – explicitly says that a watch cover, though surely part of the watch, is not part of the irreducibly complex system. A watch cover (or a wristband, or a nightlight) is a part that is added onto the IC watch system itself – an auxiliary part appended to the “core”. Thus, there is a “core” system within the watch that is IC, onto which accessory/auxiliary parts – such as a watch cover, or a wristband or nightlight, etc. - can be added.

This is an important point. Contrary to what we would be led to believe by Behe’s detractors, we see that the whole system (the whole watch) is not what Behe claims is IC, just a subdivision of it – the “core”. And only the subset of parts that comprise the core are the required parts: the other parts, while surely parts of the system as a whole, are not parts of the IC system itself. So removing such auxiliary/accessory parts and retaining system function does nothing to refute the concept of IC.

We can see Behe’s implicit statements of an IC core in other places in his book. For example, Behe states that swimming systems – such as the cilium and prokaryotic flagellum – are irreducibly complex. He introduces his readers to the subject by discussing a person swimming at a local pool and noting that that person’s swimming system has the same basic parts’ requirements as that of a cilium: a paddle (legs and hands/microtubules), a motor (skeletal muscles/dynein), and connectors (bones/nexin). However, he also points out that for humans, vision, though beneficial to swimming, is not part of the swimming system itself: vision is an auxiliary system that merely improves the swimming system (the former is not required for the latter to function).

DNAunion: As Behe continues his introduction to swimming systems, he again notes that parts that are not required for function can be found in a system as a whole.

DNAunion: Thus one must test to see if any “extra parts” (those other than the ones included in the theoretically minimal set of parts) are required for the system to function: if they aren’t, then they aren’t part of the IC system itself.

Even when Behe is discussing non-IC systems, he still indicates that parts that are not required for the system to function can be found in the system as a whole.

DNAunion: So the other 5 parts of the bombadier beetle’s defensive system are auxiliary parts – add-ons that merely enhance or improve the “core” of the system.

And again, when discussing the vertebrate eye, an integrated system of systems, Behe indicates that one should not confuse everything present as being a single system – there are accessory parts tacked on to the “core”.

DNAunion: Thus, the retina would be the closest thing to the core system here, onto which the other auxiliary parts – a lens, muscles to alter the shape of the lens, etc. – are added. The auxiliary parts would not be required for the core system to perform its function.

Another system that Behe lists only a subset of parts as being the core of the IC system is the cilium. Although the answer is obvious to anyone who actually tried to understand Behe, the following question is at the heart of the controversy: when Behe says that the cilium is irreducibly complex, does he claim that the whole cilium is IC, making all parts present in a typical cilium required for function?

Absolutely not. Behe’s statement about the cilium being irreducibly complex is just like his statement that a watch is irreducibly complex. In both, what he is addressing is the IC “core” itself. Any auxiliary/accessory parts that may be present are not included as parts of the irreducibly complex system itself (the IC “core”), and removing even all of them while retaining function would not refute Behe in the least.

One might wonder, “Does Behe actually limit his statements about the cilium to just a few parts that comprise an IC ‘core’”? Yes. Behe explicitly creates a subset consisting of just three required parts that together form the IC system itself: the microtubule “paddles”, the dynein “motors”, and the nexin “linkers”. A fuller quote can be found in a previous post in this thread – this is a condensed one.

DNAunion: The other parts of a cilium – such as the central pair, central spokes, etc. - are shown in a diagram of a cilium on page 60 of Behe’s book, but they are not listed as being parts of the IC system when Behe creates his explicit list of required parts: the central pair and central spokes aren’t parts of the IC core.

When Behe briefly returns to the cilium in a later chapter, he again lists just the three parts mentioned above.

DNAunion: So twice Behe restricts his list of required parts for a cilium to those three (microtubule “paddles”, dynein “motors”, and nexin “linkers”). They form the IC “core”.

Let’s go back and take another, slightly different, look at what Behe stated on page 57 of his book. Keep in mind the three required parts of the cilium Behe lists in two separate locations, as well as his saying that the cilium is a member of the class of swimming systems.

DNAunion: Here we have two more indications that Behe does not consider the parts that Miller “removed” to be parts of the IC cilium system itself.

Already mentioned:
(1) Behe lists only three parts of the cilium as being part of the IC system itself (microtubule “paddles”, dynein “motors”, and nexin “linkers”)

Two new ones:
(2) Let’s ask ourselves, “What parts are common to all cilia, even the most ‘primitive’”?

Microtubule “paddles”? Yes.
Dynein “motors”? Yes.
Nexin “linkers”? Yes.
Central pair? No.
Central spokes? No.

So in addition to Behe’s explicitly stated subset consisting of just three parts, we have another indication that only the first three parts listed comprise the IC system itself (the “core”) with the other parts being accessory/auxiliary add-ons (and therefore, not parts of the IC system itself).

(3) Let’s ask ourselves, “What parts constitute the theoretical minimum subset of parts required for ciliary function?” Behe already answered this on pages 63-65, listing each of the three required parts and what role each one serves in completing the system function: that minimal theoretical subset consists of just the first three listed above (those with the answer, Yes). Since the central pair and central spokes are not included in the theoretically minimal set of parts required for ciliary action, one would need to test to see if they are required for the system to work. Are they required? No, there are multiple known examples of functional cilia that lack them. So are the central pair and central spokes part of the actual IC system itself? Nope. Thus, another – a third - indication that the central pair and central spokes are not to be considered parts of the IC system.

In summary, the parts of a cilium that Miller “removed” were ones that Behe never, in any way, claimed were required for ciliary function. In addition, at least three lines of evidence indicate that Behe considers those parts that Miller “removed” to not be part of the IC core (the dynein outer arms come close, but no cigar, since the dynein inner arms remained). What Miller “removed” were auxiliary/accessory parts added onto the core IC system itself. As such, Kenneth Miller’s eel-sperm-flagellum counterexample and accompanying “refutation” are to be rejected as invalid misrepresentations of Behe’s position.

Doubting Didymus

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you actually think I have a problem with links to other sites? You were requesting that infidels in THIS THREAD actually write a response to your massive tome, written on a different forum HERE. You need to read things before you respond to them. I also requested that anyone who DID want to go to the bother of responding to you should do so in the appropriate place, which is in your thread there and not this thread here. This is not an unusual request. To link to, or refer to, threads elsewhere is one thing. To drag the entire debate, half completed, to a forum where hardly anyone has been involved is an absurd proposition, that will not be happening.

Doubting Didymus

Again you miss the point. Irreducible complexity exists. That is not in question. The answer is that evolution CAN DEVELOP IC SYSTEMS. You and Behe can point to IC all you like, but the fact is that evolution is not troubled by it. IC evolves all the time. Case closed.