scigirl

Ha ha! I nearly spit my coffee out reading that - wonderful, pz.

Once again, a "he said he said" argument with DNAunion. With a name like that, I would think he'd want to talk about actual genetics like chromosome fusions, or something!

scigirl

Nic Tamzek

Not so fast DNAunion. If you are really interested in accurately representing Behe, then the most correct thing to say is:

Behe is irreconcilably ambiguous at numerous points

That is, Behe says one thing in one place, but something else in another place, thereby belying the kind of precise distinctions of interpretation that you think can be made.

1) Behe's ruling out of the Krebs cycle as an IC system was clearly a post-hoc defensive manuvere. When he thinks the argument goes in hs favor, he is perfectly happy to call a metabolic pathway IC, as is shown by his defense of the lactose metabolism pathway (lac operon) as IC against Miller.

(and besides, at least two of the steps of the Krebs cycle are performed by multi-enzyme conglomerates, which is well-matched and interacting as well as having multiple parts required)

...as I've argued before, the only key criterion for IC is multiple-parts-required. The reason Behe called *certain* metabolic pathways, such as AMP biosynthesis, non-IC in DBB was that they could at least theoretically be performed by a one-part system, to wit an enzyme could convert an environmentally-supplied AMP precursor to AMP.

Notably this does not apply to (1) cycles or (2) catabolic pathways with toxic intermediates (like PCP degradation), which are therefore IC following Behe's *original* AMP logic.


2) DNAunion, How many "parts" does the bacterial flagellum have? Give us the One True Answer, please. Sometimes Behe looks like it's only three, sometimes it's 30-50.

(Ditto on the eukaryotic cilium, is it 3 parts or 200?)

2.5) How can Behe demand a detailed explanation for the origin of a system if it is described in such coarse language? If a flagellum needs only a rotor, stator, and paddle then it's easy:

Stage 1: Secretion system (proto-rotor)
Stage 2: Secretion system with pili attached to outside (proto-paddle added)
Stage 3: Link system to proto-MotAB derived from ExbAB homologs (which link H+ gradients to various energy-requiring tasks in cell membranes). (proto-stator added...MotAB remains still but spins the rest of the system)

Gee, that was hard.

3) Please point out where Behe outlines the concept of "IC core" in DBB (he may actually do this somewhere, so this is a "non-hostile" question if you will).

4) Certainly Behe's argument is just as wrong if his requested peer-reviewed literature is produced before or after 1996.

5) Your whale argument is a huge stretch, considering Behe was leading the class, and considering that Mesonycids are still (IIRC) considered the next sister-group to whales outside of primitive ungulates.

Nic Tamzek

Oh yeah:

6) Read what Behe says about "minimal function" being satisfied being an additional requirement for having an system being considered "functional", and reconcile this with Behe's assertion later on that hemoglobin is not IC.

Could humans really survive, even minimally, with only the equivalent of myoglobin and none of the cooperative oxygen binding performed by the four-part hemoglobin? No? Then it's IC under Behe's minimal function criterion. And yet he says that hemoglobin is not IC, probably because there's gads of evidence on how and when it evolved.

nic

PS: Won't you concede, DNA, that Behe left numerous puzzles such as this and that therefore his critics are stuck with trying to figure out what he most-probably-meant or what he is most-usually-claimed-to-prove?

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Nic Tamzek ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: The problem is not with me, it's with you and the others who fail to grasp why I would defend Behe against the onslaught of illegitimate attacks that have been launched at his ideas - and even him, personally - over the last 6 years. Let me spell it out again - I am more interested in the truth (or as close as we can get to it), honesty, and fairness than in playing "party politics".

You show yourself to be incapable of understanding what it means to fight for fairness, truth, and honesty. Instead, everything you speak must fall completely in line with your camp's anti-ID position, and completely out of line with the opposing ID camp's position, no matter how correct or incorrect the statements themselves are. You (and any others) are playing "party line politics" instead of hearing out the evidences and making an impartial, unbiased, fair decision/argument.

We see this even in this thread. Ken Miller grossly misrepresented several key concepts of Behe's position, and I rightfully pointed out several of them (some stronger than others). But the anti-IDists here simply can't accept that - not because it isn't true, but because it shows someone in their anti-IDist camp to be a lowlife (or stupid, take your pick). So they have a kneejerk reaction and try to defend Miller's indefensible distortion tactics.

DNAunion

DNAunion: No. My defense of Behe pertains directly to MISREPRESENTATIONS of his key concepts.

It is only because of your lowlife characteristics and/or your overwhelming need to follow party-line politics that you refuse to accept this as being the right thing to do.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

pz

Ah, yes. There goes DNAUnion, taking the High Road to the Moral High Ground, always ready to defend Truth, Justice, Freedom, and the Principles of Science against the slavelike hordes of Evil.

Say, do you happen to know Peter Nyikos?

DNAunion

DNAunion: You are missing the point. Behe defined the parts. Miller quoted him. Miller implicitly accepted Behe's list of parts by not objecting to any of them. There we've got it - the parts have been specified.

Miller then removed stuff but left the three parts Behe stated were essential for function, but claimed to have removed parts of the IC system. Microtubules were still left; dynein motors were still left; and nexin linkers were still left.

DNAunion: Nope. Behe spelled it out clearly. Miller quoted him. Miller did not object or offer any alternatives. The part list was established. Miller then made claims to have removed the parts Behe stated are needed, yet all three remained.

How many times do I have to repeat this to you before it gets through your thick skull?

DNAunion

DNAunion: Did you even look at the "single-piece" mousetrap? Do you not see the bottom portion that rests on the floor and functions as the base?

pz

I understand completely. Behe is the hierophant of IC, who gets to dictate the proper interpretation of Parts. The modern-day reading of entrails has progressed to the molecular level, I see.

Do you understand yet that that is not legitimate within science?

Principia

Ah, 2nd time you've evaded the question. What truth are you interested in that Behe has to offer?

BTW, you are the one here with no credibility. One only has to look at the irrational numbers thread to see just how long it takes for you to understand simple facts. So you are only compounding your display of ignorance.