Michael Behe wrote among other books "The Edge of Evolution". Via mathematical calculations using the malaria parasite, he demonstrates, in my mind quite convincingly, how limited genetic mutations and variations are in producing various types of changes. There are some things that can happen, and some things that just cannot happen, as in -- zero percent chance. ZERO.
When you listen to evolutionists discussing books that try to shoot down macro-evolution, you end up getting comments like: "This and that book was so stupid, I just could not get through it." "Oh, Behe's book is already in soft cover, it never sold well." "They've discussed this and that so many times, it's not worth rolling out the argument again." It's not so easy to hear anyone refute the mathematics, etc.
I will be glad to read more about it in the places suggested by the folks at Proving the Negative. I would like to see what can be said against Behe's arguments that has any substance.
But, I do have to say, whatever may be just spiritual about Genesis, I just cannot believe that humans came down from one-celled organisms. It seems to me the ultimate in preposterous--especially after looking at the three dimensional model of a protein and studying cell biology. If one little group on the protein is rearranged the whole thing does not work. And the the whole fancy chain reaction does not work. And then nothing works right...
13 comments:
ERV took Behe to task on his misconceptions very convincingly. For more examples, see just about any college-level text on paleontology, molecular biology, or evo-devo. Behe has no legs to stand on. Specific examples of his (such as the malaria one and the infamous bacterial flagellum) have been debunked repeatedly. He does not demonstrate anything except for the limits of his imagination, as well as ignorance of history: what he describes as "irreducible conmplexity" has been proposed in the 1920's as one of the logical consequences of evolution by natural selection, and was called then "interlocking complexity".
And yes, I made it through both of his books; he is, in all fairness, a good and engaging writer, and "Darwin's Black Box" at least, raised some questions. Those have been answered since then, and Edge is nothing but a retread of old territory, ignoring all criticism. Arguably quite dishonest.
Dear Jorgon: this is just more of the same kind of stuff. Where is a substantive sentence? You are just not saying anything convincing. "It's all been debunked." I've heard this so many times now.
Sorry, who or what is ERV?
endogenous retrovirus. She blogs at sceinceblogs. Search for Behe...worth a laugh, just for his reaction...
Thanks. I see. I think I have seen her in conversation with PZ Meyers, or rather in a "love-in". In regard to intelligent design, I just heard a bunch of ridicule from the both of them, nothing convincing, in that broadcast.
Uncommon Descent showed in a blog post how she did not know what she was talking about and how PZ Meyers had to correct her--ever so gently. No ridicule for a fellow anti-ID.
Sorry, Uncommon Descent does not merit much in my book. The degree of ignorance--of both logic and basic science--exhibited there is nothing short of startling. And I speak only of those fields I have some expertise in...The problem with the ridicule--and I agree, sometimes it seems to be a bit over the top--is that ID'ers and creationists drag out the same old arguments. My comment on "repeatedly debunked" was well-considered, with "repeatedly" being a key word. Why would anyone owant to repeat the process? A waste of time. Better to point one's fingers and guffaw.
I am not familiar with the specific incident you are referring to; but ERV's criticism of Behe was absolutely correct and accepted as such by everyone concerned, including many professional biologists, and finally, after much hand-waving and evasion, Behe himself.
One of my comments disappeared...
"but ERV's criticism of Behe was absolutely correct and accepted as such by everyone concerned, including many professional biologists, and finally, after much hand-waving and evasion, Behe himself."
I think I've just read what you're talking about: a debutant's rebuttal, or something. I can't find your missing comment.
In terms of the rebuttal we are talking about, I'm afraid I don't know if Abbie's knowledge is perfect, but I'll assume so. However, the Edge of Evolution was not so much about HIV. It's her specialty and she's probably right and Behe was probably ignorant.
In my mind it does not change the fact that there are "edges", or limits, to what can happen. We can try to map them out. The principle that is being explored, strikes me as important.
Of course, there may be edges in that sense. The problem is that Behe failed to demonstrate that they actually do exist. Every example he uses is invalidated, either by his own ignorance of the subject (he claimed that there were no research papers on the evolution of blood-clotting, when a search of BioMed gives you literally hundreds of hits on that specific subject) or by specific rebuttals. Like I said in my first post, his "irreducible complexity" is nothing new: it has first been proposed by Muller in 1939 (sorry, not the 1920's--my bad) as a specific phenomenon we should observe as a consequence of evolution by natural selection. No outside agent required.
"irreducible complexity" is nothing new: it has first been proposed by Muller in 1939 (sorry, not the 1920's--my bad) as a specific phenomenon we should observe as a consequence of evolution by natural selection. No outside agent required.
Sorry, that does not make much sense to me. What did Muller actually demonstrate? "Irreducible complexity" is not something you can just declare a result of natural selection. Natural selection does not create complexity.
Natural selection does indeed create information, by gene duplication, for example, in all practical senses f the word information. The evolution of citrate-processing capability in bacteria that did not have it before is only one of the newest examples. "Interlocking complexity" is a natural result of mosaic evolutionary patterns; it *appears* to be irreducible but is, in fact, a simple consequence of differing rates of evolution and pre-adaptations (or exaptations as Gould called them). You are guilty of a bit of circular reasoning here: you claim that evolution does not produce new information, because new information cannot be the result of natural selection. That is the point of contention, after all, and my claim is that not only has the impossibility of it not been demonstrated, but that we have specific examples of observed mutations leading to new function. Google for "interlocking complexit" and "Muller"; talkorigins.org has a nice article about it.
"You are guilty of a bit of circular reasoning here: you claim that evolution does not produce new information, because new information cannot be the result of natural selection."
I did not say that evolution does not produce new information.
I said that natural selection itself does not produce complexity. If there is going to be new information it will not be simply from selection.
"we have specific examples of observed mutations leading to new function. Google for "interlocking complexit" and "Muller"; talkorigins.org has a nice article about it"
I will have a look. Not tonight anymore.
My young adults have been coming and going all evening, without saying much about where and when... It's going to be minus 30 (Celsius), but they have their cell phones to phone each other. I'll be putting in my ear plugs and heading to bed after the news. I am adapting to this stage of life and learning not to worry about them overly (after I pray for them :) ).
G'night! -30, eh? Sounds awesome! Over here it dropped to -7 last week, and filled me with nostalgia for colder climes. At least I got to eat some icecream while walking through a snowstorm! :D
-30, yup. It's colder than I remember. The air just takes my breath away. The clutch really sticks in the car. There seems to be plenty of moisture and the roads are slick.
I couldn't get onto talkorigins today. Must be busy.
"Interlocking complexity" has not yet yielded much reading that I find coherent. Somehow Muller gets "credited" with discovering "interlocking complexity" which is supposed to be practically the same as "irreducible complexity". Everybody seems to use different dates from him doing so ranging within two decades. I gather that's supposed to happen via small genetic changes. That's all I've got.
Can you summarize it better, yourself? And how this has something to do with current science?
Post a Comment