Nic Tamzek

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>

bluefugue

Cool, thanks for the links.

Quetzal

Nic,

You ought to post these for Ahmad over on evcforum. He thinks the eubacterial rotor is proof of design.

Peez

Excellent. I particularly liked this bit: Peez

mark24

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

Quetzal

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...

DNAunion

</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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.
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.

DNAunion: Really? He sure didn’t demonstrate that. The example he used has all three parts Behe states are required for ciliary function.

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?" ).

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.

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

DNAunion: One more for the night.

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>