The Tyranny of Evidence: Do Scientists Use Dogma?
Posted By: admin | 2009.11.19
issues of science? Why can’t we teach both sides? Isn’t that good science pedagogy? Here’s some links to additional information 1. [Neutral] Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH) en.wikipedia.org 2. Critical of AAH www.aquaticape.org 3. Favorable of AAH www.primitivism.com 4. [Neutral] Endosymbiotic Theory (EST) en.wikipedia.org 5. Critical of EST www.origin-of-mitochondria.net 6. Favorable of EST www.bio-medicine.org 7. [Neutral] for Intelligent Design en.wikipedia.org 8. Critical of Intelligent …
25 Comments:
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 3:05 am
Yes, but this is not a definition of irreducible complexity. It is a definition of inter-dependent. The whole is not irreducibly complex, under this definition, you could argue that a Reeses cup was IC, when it was obviously the result of two components being mixed. Likewise, a clock is irreducibly complex, in spite of being made of material that are used for other purposes.
His definition, in short, is so vague as to be pointless. And you failed to give any examples.
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 3:17 am
Sloppy word choice on my part. Not divergent, diversifying. Not convergent, but merging. Same meanings, but I’m trying to avoid being misunderstood.
Evolution produces more diverse biological forms which are “pruned” by environmental factors.
Behe, in his commentary, falls into a Hoyle fallacy. He argues that the asymmetrical role of ratcheting works in both the past and future. What he is obviously blind to is the difference between a particular protein doing a particular function
(1/2)
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 3:22 am
(2/2)
changing back to a particular moment in time once other mechanisms have come to rely on it, and the reverse situation. What is the chance that ANY protein does a particular function in ANY way.
For example, glucocorticoid receptor. It can’t alter function without causing strong effects in the cell, but a related gene, pseudogene, or non-coding sequence could.
His mistake is in presuming that a SPECIFIC set of events is the ONLY set of events that can lead to a given outcome.
IDtaksovr / October 14, 2009 8:02 pm
C0nc0rdance
“this is not a definition of irreducible complexity.”
This is BEHES definition. i.e. the CORRECTdefinition. The bacterial flagellum is IC. Removal of any one of the 40 or so proteins involved in it;s construction causes the flagellum either not to get built, or not to function.
Miller created a strawman definition of IC and attempts to cloud the issue further by pointing out that a protein pumping mechanism can be built from ten of the parts. This is clutching at straws.
IDtaksovr / October 14, 2009 8:09 pm
C0nc0rdance
“Behe, in his commentary, falls into a Hoyle fallacy.”
I’m scratching my head as to why random mutations should not be able to appear in reverse, if the environment goes through a reversal.
I think Behe is on to something. Darwinists are happy to point out the impassible hurdles that exist in trying to reverse an evolutionary process, but they just “know” that these hurdles must not have existed on the original forward route.
This is clearly a naturalistic article of faith.
IDtaksovr / October 14, 2009 8:21 pm
C0nc0rd
“changing back …..in time once other mechanisms have come to rely on it”
Darwinists are eager to speculate on the existence of “indirect pathways”, by which IC structure such as the flagellum could have arisen in the first place. Indeed they “know” that such pathways must have existed, or the flagellum wouldn’t be here, right?
They are also happy to accept the reality of improbable leaps between functioning assemblies of proteins, but only when considering the REVERSE process.
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 10:58 pm
You are scratching your head because you do not understand selection.
The point of the paper is that a series of neutral events preceded a positive selection event. To go in reverse, we need exactly the same neutral events to occur, but there is nothing to favor their formation.
It COULD happen, but it’s not probabilistically as likely because neutral events are selected for or against.
Do you understand why it is called a ratchet, ID? It sounds like you don’t understand the principle.
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 11:03 pm
Irreducible complexity is just a term, then, with no meaning.
It’s not irreducible if the parts have their own functions, is it? It’s just an interdependent system that stops when you take a part away. It’s hard to imagine any biological system made of one functional part, so it’s an all-inclusive, meaningless term.
That’s not the same as “a system that cannot arise from simpler sub-components that have their own independent function”. That was falsified many, many times.
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 11:07 pm
Yes, speculation is part of science. So is testing. If you were attempting to needle me with the word, you failed.
We know the mechanisms of gene fusion, recombination, and translocations. Mechanisms that lead to the addition of new function by combining existing features/domains. We know that one of the ways new proteins are made is from combining genes.
The existence of all the parts of a new structure in a cell certainly suggests a mechanism by which it arises.
IDtaksovr / October 14, 2009 11:29 pm
C0nc
“we need exactly the same neutral events to occur, but there is nothing to favor their formation.”
Before I criticise this comment, I would prefer you to explain what you mean. If the environment goes through a reversal, why should the “neutral events” be any less likely to turn up in the opposite direction.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree that reversing the RM and NS process is highly improbable in most cases, because I believe that the process is equally improbable in the forward direction
IDtaksovr / October 14, 2009 11:47 pm
C0nc
“IC…a term….with no meaning.”
IC has a clear and simple meaning. If you check Behe’s definition (given below) and memorize it, it will save a lot of time.
IC is something we can test for. We do this by identifying and knocking out the genes involved in the construction of a molecular machine, biochemical process etc, one at a time.
If the machine/system fails to function or get built, then it is IC.
Darwinists then have to speculate over an improbable indirect evolutionary path.
arshsingh1984 / October 14, 2009 11:50 pm
I propose a 3rd category called “Just Plain Stupid”. ID fits in that one quite nicely. At least the AA hypothesis is intriguing.
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 11:51 pm
What happened was a general receptor for several cortisol-like molecules became more specialized through a series of random mutations that led up to a key amino acid change, resulting in a new conformation.
For it to go backwards, to the general form, AT ALL THE SAME LOCATIONS, there would need to be a series of random mutations that are unselected. This is unlikely because there is nothing to enrich for the reverse mutants.
But a new receptor could arise from a pseudogene to do the job.
IDtaksovr / October 14, 2009 11:54 pm
C0nc0rdance
“a system that cannot arise from simpler sub-components”
The above is Millers straw man. He looks for any part of the entire system that can have an independent function, finds one, and then baldly asserts that a complete mutation by beneficial mutation pathway must exist from the protein pump to the flagellum. Or is it the other way around?
This is hopelessly inadequte as a refutation of Behes hypothesis, that RM and NS are insufficient to build complex cellular machinery.
C0nc0rdance / October 14, 2009 11:57 pm
That was an evasive answer. Is something irreducible if the parts of it have functions on their own? Is a Reese’s cup irreducible or not, by Behe’s definition?
If so, why would that be a roadblock to the normal mechanisms of fusing, associating, and co-regulating? You can’t have it both ways. Either you “can’t get there from here”, or you can.
We don’t have to speculate about gene fusions or gene families. We can observe that occurring in the present.
C0nc0rdance / October 15, 2009 12:03 am
It’s not a strawman. It’s what the word irreducible MEANS. “Impossible to be made smaller or simpler.” He’s using it in place of “interdependent”.
What force prevents two genes from fusing? What keeps a nuclear GTPase from fusing with a transmembrane domain? If four parts of a new structure are already present, and we know these things fuse or transpose all the time, the real question to Behe is what force prevents the observed, natural process from happening?
IDtaksovr / October 15, 2009 6:20 pm
C0nc0rd
“Is something irreducible if the parts of it have functions on their own?”
If removal of one of the parts causes the sytem not to work, or get built, THEN it is IC. The fact that subsytems may have a function is interesting, but irrelevant, unless a detailed pathway can be mapped out from one to the other.
Gene fusion, recombination, etc. are all perfectly uncontroversial. The have been shown to be able to tinker with existing functions in “the edge of evolution”, but not much more.
IDtaksovr / October 15, 2009 6:27 pm
C0nc0rd
Take the flagellum. If you could find a possible precursor that could function in it’s own right, providing some benefit to the organism, that could undergo a probable mutation to get to the flagellum of today, then you would be on to something.
Unless Darwinism can start to piece together detailed step by step, mutation by mutation pathways, then it will remain a story.
I hardly need to remind you that Darwinist are already claiming to have shown that all life evolved in this way.
IDtaksovr / October 15, 2009 7:09 pm
C0nc0
I see how you got the wrong idea about the meaning of “irreducible”, but it’s not Behes definition.
Behe is arguing for is the idea that the gaps between functioning subsystems are unbridgeable by RM and NS at the molecular level.
If we cannot show how molecular machines can be evolved in a stepwise fashion, then we know practically nothing about how evolution works.
The”Nature” article indicates that the scientific community is getting close to exploring this possibility.
IDtaksovr / October 15, 2009 7:24 pm
C0nc0
Sorry. I just got your message. I was given a copy of the NewScientist article you are referring to ages ago. I urge you to read between the lines, as this article confirmed for me that, the Darwinists have nothing.
They completely over sell what has actually been shown. They mention Millers argument, which does not adress the issue. Very little of the article actually adresses what it claims to address.
I would be happy to go through this article, step by step, to show how bad it is.
Ramshobraja / October 17, 2009 7:41 am
We can go to god of the gaps argument. Ic is seemingly valid since we can say how does something as complex as vitamin b12 get synthesized. How does rhis evolve? This is a gap. But then trying to fill it in with a god is commiting an error. What if we then do figure out the mechanism for evolution of it. Is there no designer? Also, evidence of a god is not evidence for a religion like christianity by any stretch.
Wuscar / November 8, 2009 8:39 pm
Hello C0nc0rdance.
Just curious, are you an molecular geneticist, or just an molecular biologist. Have an nice day.
C0nc0rdance / November 8, 2009 8:52 pm
I’m not sure there is a sharp line between those two terms. I work with DNA, RNA, and sometimes protein. The techniques I use are molecular biology methods, and the goals are either viral or cancer related. I don’t have the same level of specialization or control that an academic researcher would. I work on projects assigned to me that usually result in a diagnostic test. Sometimes I participate in team research or development, or optimize methods for others.
Atheistflow / November 9, 2009 7:50 am
well put
michalchik / November 9, 2009 11:17 pm
Actually, intelligent design falsl into a third category. A theory which has been falsified in many many ways and which rests upon contradicting fundamental scientific principles that have been demonstrated.