Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 12-06-2002, 07:10 PM

For someone who has given up on IDism/creationism, you sure do get awfully worked up and defensive about Behe.

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
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.

So who gets to decide which part is a logo and which part is essential? Who decides what a "part" is? Why can't someone just say the whole shebang is a "part"?

This is the problem. Behe has made a set of claims that he pretends are specific and scientific, yet every one turns out to be this sloppy mush that his backers willingly distort as they will to evade any criticism.

Quote:

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.

Again, define "parts". It's clear that flagella have considerable latitude in their precise structure. On the one hand, Behe wants to argue that these things are these incredibly intricate "molecular machines", he publishes these cartoony diagrams, and wants to pretend that they are "engineered"; but when push comes to shove and real biologists start taking these apart, showing the variation and slop in the system, he starts backing off and claiming he was discussing generalities. It's phony and misleading.

Quote:

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.

No, this is a good example. The heart of Behe's argument is that the complete assemblage is dissoluble, that breaking it apart destroys the function for which the structure was selected. Miller is making a telling point. The bits and pieces all have known, autonomous functions. Breaking it apart does destroy the flagellar function...but other functions are unimpaired. The evolutionist reply to Behe has always been that the final function evolved indirectly, via intermediates that have other functions, and voila, there they are: the evolutionist argument is vindicated. Behe has been confirmed in nothing but a singular lack of imagination.

DNAunion · 12-06-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

pz: So who gets to decide which part is a logo and which part is essential? Who decides what a "part" is? Why can't someone just say the whole shebang is a "part"?

DNAunion: Behe DID state what the parts of the IC cilium were, and Miller even quoted Behe's statements about what the parts were, and Miller didn't raise any objections to the parts Behe identified.

Then, Miller turned around and removed other parts or only "subcomponents" of a part (which is NOT the same as removing the part).

Quote:

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:

pz: Again, define "parts".

DNAunion: Again, Behe did define the parts; Miller quoted him; Miller did not object; then Miller didn't remove those parts but claimed to have removed the parts of the IC system.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 12-06-2002, 07:44 PM

Quote:

pz: For someone who has given up on IDism/creationism, you sure do get awfully worked up and defensive about Behe.

DNAunion: But if you will note, I was not defending Behe's position from any valid counters, just against those that involved distortions. I am still more interested in truth (or as close as we can get), fact, and fairness than in party lines.

PS: At the ChristianForums site, I do point out errors in the "Creationists" arguments.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

Principia · 12-06-2002, 07:54 PM

Quote:

But if you will note, I was not defending Behe's position from any valid counters, just against those that involved distortions.

If there are any valid counters against Behe's position, then why bother defending it at all?

PZ is right. Admit it, [Personal info removed. -Pomp]. You want to go home to ARN.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

[Edited to remove personal information. -Pomp]

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pomp ]

DNAunion · 12-06-2002, 08:08 PM

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)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

pz: No, this is a good example.

DNAunion: No it’s not. Behe was talking about a functional precursor system that would be in a direct evolutionary route – i.e., perform the same function by the same mechanism - to the final IC biochemical system: context is important. Miller selects a fraction of the whole quote and then misrepresents Behe, trying to change Behe into talking about any single part, even if it is part of a circuitous evolutionary route and never appears in the final system until the very end. Two very different meanings.

Quote:

pz: The heart of Behe's argument is that the complete assemblage is dissoluble, that breaking it apart destroys the function for which the structure was selected.

DNAunion: I disagree. Behe doesn’t say a complete assemblage is dissoluble in that if it is taken apart that any of the resulting parts couldn’t perform any other function whatsoever. Again, look at Behe discussing the other roles in the cell that tubulin and dynein play (in addition to being components of cilia).

Quote:

pz: Miller is making a telling point. The bits and pieces all have known, autonomous functions. Breaking it apart does destroy the flagellar function...but other functions are unimpaired.

DNAunion: Which Behe is aware of – again, look at what he says about the multiple roles of tubulin and dynein.

Quote:

pz: The evolutionist reply to Behe has always been that the final function evolved indirectly, via intermediates that have other functions, and voila, there they are: the evolutionist argument is vindicated.

DNAunion: I disagree – that vindicates it only conceptual form. I can easily say something like:

There was A. Then B got added to form AB. Somewhere else, there was C. D got added, then E got added, forming CDE. Then E, which performed a given function, was co-opted by AB to form ABE which had a completely new overall function and in which every part – A, and B, and E – were required.

But that is not the kind of detailed, in-depth, step-by-step, molecular-level, concrete explanation Behe asks for (he wants the level of explanation we have for the biochemistry of vision).

DNAunion · 12-06-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Principia: If there are any valid counters against Behe's position, then why bother defending it at all?

DNAunion: Why do you guys bother defending Darwin?

Let's see....Darwin thought that acquired traits could be inherited; Darwin lacked any understanding of how traits are transmitted from generation to generation (i.e., Mendel's "unit factors"); Darwin thought that traits were blended; Darwin made racial comments that would be get him sued these days; and other scientific stuff that any biologists these days know to be wrong or sorely lacking in knowledge. So we KNOW that Darwin was wrong about a lot of stuff.

So why both defending Darwin when a Creationist says that his theory leads directly to things like Nazi eugenics, or that Darwinism leads to atheism, etc.?

I would think that you would defend Darwin against illegitimate attacks, but allow the legitimate ones to go without response. No?

Principia · 12-06-2002, 08:22 PM

No, the point is that we all choose to pick our battles. Darwin's contribution to evolution is defensible. Dedekind's theory of irrational numbers is defensible. They are defensible because they contribute something positive to our understanding of the world. The question for you is why you choose to defend Behe?

Principia · 12-06-2002, 08:32 PM

Quote:

I would think that you would defend Darwin against illegitimate attacks, but allow the legitimate ones to go without response. No?

No. I would have no problems crticizing Darwin for his other ideas that were peripheral at best to his theory of evolution. I, and many others, can do so because we know that they are irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, your defense of Behe pertains directly to his main thesis. If, as pz pointed out, you had given up on IDism, then just what is it about Behe's thesis on IC you find defensible?

pz · 12-07-2002, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:

DNAunion: Again, Behe did define the parts; Miller quoted him; Miller did not object; then Miller didn't remove those parts but claimed to have removed the parts of the IC system.

You are missing the point. Who gets to define the parts? Does Behe have some special authority in this matter? It's obvious that this is one of those malleable, subjective things, and that one person could define the parts to support the contention that a system is IC, while another could define a different set of parts for which the system is not IC.

You have even mocked McDonald for using a different definition of part than you do. "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)." That is ridiculous. Behe says, for instance, that the base is part of the system; McDonald physically removes the base, and then you claim that he hasn't, that because another part fills that role, the base is still there. That is a stunning and damning revelation. I tells me that "part" is a concept that you've removed from any physical instantiation and turned into a blurry metaphysical bit of fluff, so you can wave your hands and transmogrify anything into anything else that will fit your theory.

It's not science, that's for sure.

pz · 12-07-2002, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:


DNAunion: I disagree – that vindicates it only conceptual form. I can easily say something like:

There was A. Then B got added to form AB. Somewhere else, there was C. D got added, then E got added, forming CDE. Then E, which performed a given function, was co-opted by AB to form ABE which had a completely new overall function and in which every part – A, and B, and E – were required.

But that is not the kind of detailed, in-depth, step-by-step, molecular-level, concrete explanation Behe asks for (he wants the level of explanation we have for the biochemistry of vision).

But Behe's argument is only in "conceptual form"! You are advocating a double-standard: IDists get to mumble vaguely about things they understand poorly, and that counts as a refutation of evolution; evolutionists have to respond with "detailed, in-depth, step-by-step, molecular-level, concrete explanations", or you'll claim that they've failed.

The answer to that one is simply, "bullshit".

Behe's conceptual argument, that irreducibly complex systems are obstacles to evolution, has been thoroughly demolished. Complexity is no barrier to evolution. We've known that since Muller. The entire core of his book is one big flop.

To demand a "detailed, in-depth, step-by-step, molecular-level, concrete explanation" for everything is a goal of evolutionary biology, not ID. ID and Behe have failed to provide any explanation with a comparable level of detail for ANYTHING. Behe's argument consists of "you haven't explained this, therefore I get to sit on my butt and claim credit for it". Science doesn't work that way. You want detailed explanations for your pet theory, you get to go make them.

So where is that ID research program, huh?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2002, 08:22 PM	#17
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	No, the point is that we all choose to pick our battles. Darwin's contribution to evolution is defensible. Dedekind's theory of irrational numbers is defensible. They are defensible because they contribute something positive to our understanding of the world. The question for you is why you choose to defend Behe?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.