Ken Miller still misrepresenting Behe

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: In case anyone is interested, here's a link to a discussion I just got involved in.

http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001759

I would save people the "horror" of having to read stuff over at Infidels, but I don't think "cross posting" lenghty material between sites is smiled upon here.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

What do you think this is, the DNAunion cheering section?

All of your alleged errors on Ken Miller's part do nothing to change the fact that Behe's hypothesis has utterly failed to produce any positive scientific research.

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: What do you think this is, the DNAunion cheering section?

DNAunion: Could you please point out to us where I asked people to cheer me on, or give me high fives?

I merely pointed out a thread of some relevance that is ongoing at another site that people here could check out if they were interested. What's your real problem with that LiveFreeOrDie?

LiveFreeOrDie: All of your alleged errors on Ken Miller's part...

DNAunion: They aren't alleged errors - I demonstrated Miller's errors. If you want, I could pick one or two and start a discussion here about it, and then you could pretend again that what exists doesn't exist.

LiveFreeOrDie: ... do nothing to change the fact that Behe's hypothesis has utterly failed to produce any positive scientific research.

DNAunion: What!!!! I didn't prove a point I wasn't even trying to make. How could that have happened?!?!

Let me point out that your objections to my defense of Behe against the illegitimate attacks waged by Miller does nothing to change the fact that Miller misrepresented several of Behe's key statements - isn't that more of what you should be addressing if you are responding to my statements?

 

[Jerry Smith]

DNA - I read the thread at infidels. I think scigirl might be right in characterizing it as a "he said, she said" sort of complaint. Every time I read what, according to you, Behe never said, I was left wondering what Behe did say. If I/C has none of the meanings that Miller talks about in his essay (which I did read), then what exactly makes I/C an argument against evolution?

Just one for instance - since I don't want to pore over every minute detail of several books and essays to find out if you are accurately representing the facts: I understand that Behe is adamant that the Krebs cycle is not I/C, yet his only means of identifying it as such is that people have already discovered that it works after the removal of what would otherwise seem to be an I/C core component. Unless he presents some more fundamental reason why we would know Krebs was I/C before disovering possible evolutionary pathways that could produce it, then Miller's use of it as a counterexample must stand.

One more... are you sure that the words "molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred" are not the ones that Behe himself used to describe something that biologists had never explained in the literature up to that time? Are you sure Miller wasn't using a direct quote from Behe? You say that (even though Miller gives examples from both before and after Behe's publication) the examples from after Behe's publication are misleading, because Behe could not have known about them when he published. Nevertheless - do they not undermine his foundational premise effectively? If they do, then does not Miller have that motive for including them, and if that is his motive, is that not a valid criticism for Miller to make, regardless of when Behe published? (Using only the examples from before Behe's publication to (in your words) '“demonstrate” how silly Behe’s claim was!?!?! ')

Ok... one more....
You said :

Miller makes a big deal about the fossils having been found “by the end of 1994 when [Behe’s] challenge was published”,
...
Looking at Behe’s actual article (it’s available at ARN), it is copyrighted 1992. So does Ken Miller demand that Behe be clairvoyant?

Who cares when it was copyrighted? When was it actually published? That is the key. You said it was "later" published in a book with other articles - but was it ever published prior to that? Was it published in a form that Miller could have found if he had been looking? Miller obviously believed that it was published in 1994 - it would be disingenuous to assume he was intentionally misrepresenting Behe on this point. Why do you feel you must nitpick such a small thing?

I've read certain of your other threads, and have agreed in part with some things you have said. For a while you did well against Lucaspa in the origin of life thread - though I think the two of you were talking past each other most of the time, and I think you got a little too desperate to convict Fox toward the end. But I think that on the point you are making about Miller & Behe you have wandered far afield and you just seem to be wanting to pick a fight with whoever you can get to rise to your bait.

Am I wrong?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
I merely pointed out a thread of some relevance that is ongoing at another site that people here could check out if they were interested. What's your real problem with that LiveFreeOrDie?

My real problem is your high and mighty attitude, that somehow your opinions are so relevant that the whole world needs to know.

DNAunion: They aren't alleged errors - I demonstrated Miller's errors. If you want, I could pick one or two and start a discussion here about it, and then you could pretend again that what exists doesn't exist.

Your reputation and past history are known to me, thus I don't give your rantings a lot of weight. Just to be fair, though, let's look at the first three:

(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.

Right away you're guilty of the same misrepresentation that you accuse Miller of. Nowhere in the section of Miller you quoted is the word "fool" used or even implied. The whole point Miller was making was to show how Behe was guilty of making the same mistake that critics of evolution before him made:

Critics of evolution have laid down such challenges before, only to seem them backfire when new scientific work provided exactly the evidence they had demanded.

Just because Behe ends up looking like a fool is not Miller's fault.

Let's look at your second critique:

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.

Is this true? Yes. Apparently your brain skipped over the challenge right there in Behe's quote:

Finally, and most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is true there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the mesonychid and the ancient whale: Where are they?

Sounds like a challenge to me.

And finally, your last criticism:

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.

I fail to see why this distinction is even relevant. Behe was asking for transitional forms based on the best theory for whale evolution he knew at the time. What relevance is it that the end points turned out to be different than he thought? The transitional forms were unknown either way.

I could go on with the rest of your criticisms, but they're just more of the same old nonsense. I have better things to do.

In short, your criticisms are groundless and motivated by the same pro-ID bias you have been known for for years. Your claims to be interested in "truth" and "facts" are nothing more than rhetorical flourish.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: They aren't alleged errors - I demonstrated Miller's errors. If you want, I could pick one or two and start a discussion here about it, and then you could pretend again that what exists doesn't exist.

LiveFreeOrDie: Your reputation and past history are known to me, thus I don't give your rantings a lot of weight.

DNAunion: I wouldn’t expect you to take my word on these things, that’s why I explained exactly why Miller was guilty and posted quotes from Behe's original work to back up my statements.

And I did a good enough job to convince Nic Tamzek* that Ken Miller misrepresented Behe on at least some of the things I mentioned.

(1) Blood-clotting system

DNAunion: What a fine example of quoting out of context and distortion [Miller does]!

Here is again a lengthier quote than the words Miller lifted out of context.

****************************************
”Leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well known, the blood-clotting system first the definition of irreducible complexity. … The components of the system (beyond the fork in the road) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Just as none of the parts of the Foghorn [Leghorn] system is used for anything except controlling the fall of the telephone pole, so none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p86)
****************************************

DNAunion: Note that Behe states the blood-clotting system AFTER the fork is irreducibly complex: he doesn’t say that the whole blood-clotting system is. Yet Miller “refutes” Behe by showing that one of the proteins that plays its role BEFORE the fork can be removed and function still retained.

Miller’s mistake is indefensible because not only did Behe specifically name the point after the fork as the system that is IC, he also explicitly listed the components of the system: fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. Note that the protein Miller says can be missing and function retained is NOT in that list.

DNAunion: To which Nic Tamzek replied:

Nic Tamzek: 2) Thanks for pointing out Behe's caveat about the fork on p. 86. I concede the point, Behe did explicitly exclude the stuff before the fork…

DNAunion: Of course Nic then tried to push some blame off onto Behe for this or that. That’s fine with me, I won't sweat the small stuff – my main points stand: (1) Miller misrepresented Behe’s position and (2) his “dolphin blood-clotting system refutation” is no refutation at all.

(2) Cilium
Nic also (again “timidly”) confirmed what I said about Miller’s misrepresentation of Behe on the cilium.

DNAunion:

**********************************************
”Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what they imply. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly required microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally it requires a motor [i.e., dynein], or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, it requires [nexin] linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. …

… All systems that move by paddling – ranging from my daughter’s toy fish to the propeller of a ship – fail if any one of the components is absent. The cilium is a member of this class of swimming systems. The microtubules are paddles, whose surface contacts the water and pushes against it. The dynein arms are the motors, supplying the force to move the system. The nexin arms are the connectors, transmitting the force of the motor from one microtubule to its neighbor.

The complexity of the cilium and other swimming systems is inherent in the task itself.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p64-65)
***************************************

DNAunion: And when Miller “refutes” Behe with his eel-sperm flagellum, does it still have microtubules? Yep. Does it have dynein? Sure does. Does it have nexin linkers? Absolutely. Yep, it had all three. Hardly any refutation of Behe (more like a confirmation!).

Nic Tamzek: 4) We've been over the cilium before, and while it is clear that Behe identifies only the three components as required,…

DNAunion: Yep, that’s all we need to know. Again, Nic goes on to try to push some blame off onto Behe, but once again I won't sweat the small stuff: my maint points - (1) Miller misrepresented Behe yet again, and (2) yet another of Miller's “refutations” of Behe has been shown to be no refutation at all - has been confirmed.




*By the way. I actually feel kind of bad from bringing up Nic Tamzek here. He was honest enough to "concede" a couple points because of their truthfulness, instead of pigheadedly following the party lines as so many others would have done, so Nic should be given a big round of THUMBS UP by all. However, dragging his name into this discussion just doesn't feel completely right - but it is the best evidence I have that my points are valid (since they were valid enough to get an anti-IDist evolutionist to agree that they are correct).

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: DNA - I read the thread at infidels. I think scigirl might be right in characterizing it as a "he said, she said" sort of complaint. Every time I read what, according to you, Behe never said, I was left wondering what Behe did say. If I/C has none of the meanings that Miller talks about in his essay (which I did read), then what exactly makes I/C an argument against evolution?

DNAunion: That's not the issue though. The issue is, did Ken Miller misrepresent Behe?

On the cilium, I showed conclusively that he did. I would be glad to spell it all out here again in full.

On the blood-clotting system, I showed conclusively that he did. I would be glad to spell it all out here again in full.

On one or two other things, I would be glad to discuss them too.

But I won't sweat the small stuff - I think a case can be made that Miller mispresented Behe on the "whale stuff", but I'll simply drop it since it is a less clear-cut case than the others.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
(2) Cilium
Nic also (again “timidly”) confirmed what I said about Miller’s misrepresentation of Behe on the cilium.[/B]

Good for Nic. I think your claim here is worthless, too. You said:

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.

If Behe's claim was not what Miller said it was, then I'm left scratching my head as to what Behe was claiming at all. Behe's quote was:

"...ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors."

Is Behe being exhaustive here in listing the parts, or is he just giving examples? If he's being exhaustive, then his claim is no more profound that me saying "automotive motion does not exist in the absence of an engine, a transmission, and wheels." If this is what you think Behe is saying, then all I can muster in response is "Duh!".

Does Behe imply that the parts he listed are themselves irreducibly complex? Surely he must, for if they weren't, the whole IC argument goes out the window. I think Ken Miller simply made the obvious conclusion given Behe's rather vague statement.

Your next complaint:

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.

Your narrow interpretation of Behe's claim leaves me wondering how it would even be possible to provide a counterexample. After all, a flagellum missing the ENTIRE microtubule, motor, or connector structures wouldn't really resemble a flagellum at all, would it?

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.

Again you're reading into the text something that isn't there. Here's what Miller said:

...and second, biologists have known for years that each of the major components of the cilium, including proteins tubulin, dynein, and actin have distinct functions elsewhere in the cell that are unrelated to ciliary motion.

Simple statement of fact. Any implication of ignorance is due to your own bias.

Now here's where you really go off the deep end. You complain:

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.

This in reference to:

Behe's quote: ".. any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

Miller's quote: "Given these facts, what is one to make of the core argument of biochemical design – namely, that the parts of an irreducibly complex structure have no functions on their own?”

Again, you seem to be interpreting Behe in such a narrow way as to make his claims trivial. Is it really Behe's claim that any precursor to an IC system, missing ONE MAJOR STRUCTURAL PART, is by definition non functional? If that's his claim, again I think it would be greeted by the world with a collective "Duh!".

The only reason why Behe's claims are controversial is because they are NOT this narrow. Behe claims to have discovered a principle that, if true, would require serious changes to major chunks of the biological sciences. The fact that no one can pin him down on just what a "part" is or what "irreducibly complex" really means is the primary indicator of just how wrong his theory is.

Don't blame Ken Miller for making Mike Behe look like a fool.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: In case anyone is interested, here's a link to a discussion I just got involved in.

http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001759

I would save people the "horror" of having to read stuff over at Infidels, but I don't think "cross posting" lenghty material between sites is smiled upon here.

DNA, I've read the thread.  What you did was concentrate on what you considered misquotes by Miller. But you didn't give the quotes Miller used, but different quotes from Behe that you said contradicted what Miller said.

The problem is that Behe contradicts himself over the course of his writings.  Therefore if you are going to criticize Miller, you have to use the same quote Miller used. Did Behe claim that in that particular writing?  For instance, in Darwin's Black Box Behe's thesis is that IC systems can't arise by chance. That's 1995.  But in 1998 Behe writes:
"Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require  several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched.  For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log.  Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum.  If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it.  So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones."  Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems in Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design edited by William A. Dembski, 1998, page 179

Once you get an IC system by chance, even Behe's limited definition of natural selection will allow the pieces to get closely matched and add complexity. So here Behe destroys IC as an argument for ID.

Behe's statement on whale evolution occurred at a symposium held at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 March, 1992.  The proceedings of the symposium were not published until 1994.  That seems to be the confusion surrounding the dates used.  During the symposium, Behe claimed that fossils linking land animals to whales would never be found. 

Remember, theories gain support by correct predictions of knowledge to be found and get refuted by making incorrect predictions.  Here Behe made an incorrect prediction based on ID. In other areas of science, when a theory makes a false prediction, we say the theory is refuted.  According to Behe, those fossils can't possibly be there if ID is true. Therefore, by deductive logic, ID theory has to be false.

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: Behe's statement on whale evolution occurred at a symposium held at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 26-28 March, 1992. The proceedings of the symposium were not published until 1994. That seems to be the confusion surrounding the dates used. During the symposium, Behe claimed that fossils linking land animals to whales would never be found.

DNAunion: Material and references please.

PS: I find that hard to swallow without full support, considering that Behe has explicitly stated multiple times that accepts common descent.

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: Remember, theories gain support by correct predictions of knowledge to be found and get refuted by making incorrect predictions. Here Behe made an incorrect prediction based on ID. In other areas of science, when a theory makes a false prediction, we say the theory is refuted. According to Behe, those fossils can't possibly be there if ID is true. Therefore, by deductive logic, ID theory has to be false.

DNAunion: If you say so, Ken Miller Jr.

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: Again, you seem to be interpreting Behe in such a narrow way as to make his claims trivial. Is it really Behe's claim that any precursor to an IC system, missing ONE MAJOR STRUCTURAL PART, is by definition non functional? If that's his claim, again I think it would be greeted by the world with a collective "Duh!".

DNAunion: Behe explicitly states this is so BY DEFINITION. Of course it's a "well, no duh". So tell me, why do so many people miss it?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Behe explicitly states this is so BY DEFINITION. Of course it's a "well, no duh". So tell me, why do so many people miss it?

Because such a precursor bears no resemblance to anything thought to be part of the evolutionary history of such structures - it's a straw man. Is that the extent of Behe's argument? A big straw man?

 

[ifriit]

DNAunion: DNAunion: If you say so, Ken Miller Jr.

What the... is this kindergarten?

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: But in 1998 Behe writes:

"Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones." Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems in Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design edited by William A. Dembski, 1998, page 179

DNAunion: Let’s look at what Behe said just a wee bit earlier.

Behe: Our second concept is irreducible complexity. An irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning.” (Michael J. Behe, Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems, chapter 7 of Mere Creation, InterVarsity Press, 1999, p178 )

DNAunion: After Behe says that an IC system has to have closely matched parts, he then goes on to “inject a note of caution” about systems whose parts are not well matched: i.e., he’s warning that those systems are not IC (despite his apparent self-contradiction). Note that in the last sentence Lucaspa quoted, where Behe mentions the parts not being closely matched, he uses the term “system” and NOT the term “irreducibly complex system”. Note further that in the first sentence that mentions parts that are not closely matched, Behe also calls them "systems" and NOT "irreducibly complex systems".

Taking everything in context, Behe is still saying that the parts of an IC system have to be closely matched. A simple interpretation that avoids self-contradiction would be something like:

” An irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning. … Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. [You might think that] Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones.”

DNAunion: Now I can’t “prove” that is what Behe was thinking, but I can provide other material from Behe that my interpretation is consistent with Behe’s views of a lever-and-fulcrum system. That is, Behe has stated explicitly that a fulcrum-and-lever is NOT an irreducibly complex system, but is rather just a simple interactive system.

Behe: I disagree that the BZ reaction "satisfies Behe's criteria" for an irreducibly complex system. Although it does have interacting parts that are required for the reaction, the system lacks a crucial feature--the components are not "well-matched." The appearance of the modifier "well-matched" in the definition I constructed (above) reflects the fact that complexity is a quantitative property. A system can be more or less complex, so the likelihood of coming up with any particular interactive system by chance can be more or less probable. As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.

Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated 'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex ('IC'). (http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC Responses&command=view&id=465 )

DNAunion: I don't see Behe as having actually been inconsistent in the passage Lucaspa quoted. If taken 100% literally, then yes. But anytime a 100% literal reading leads to a self-contradiction in someone's statements, the reader should try to read between the lines. And a simple interpretation can easily make that statement fit in with all of Behe's others on that matter.

The farthest I would take it is to say that the statement was something like a "brain fart" that made it into the final copy unnoticed: it's happened to lots of scientists.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: I don't see Behe as having actually been inconsistent in the passage Lucaspa quoted. If taken 100% literally, then yes. But anytime a 100% literal reading leads to a self-contradiction in someone's statements, the reader should try to read between the lines. And a simple interpretation can easily make that statement fit in with all of Behe's others on that matter.

The farthest I would take it is to say that the statement was something like a "brain fart" that made it into the final copy unnoticed: it's happened to lots of scientists.

Let me get this straight...

Mike Behe makes a rather obviously inconsistent statement, and it's hand-waved away as a "brain fart".

Ken Miller discusses what Behe ACTUALLY SAYS and he's "misrepresenting" Mike Behe.

Funny how your double standard works there, DNA boy.

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: Ken Miller discusses what Behe ACTUALLY SAYS and he's "misrepresenting" Mike Behe.

DNAunion: Nope. Try looking at reality for a minute LiveFreeOrDie.

(1) Behe explicitly stated what three parts of the cilium formed the IC system, and then Miller "refuted" Behe while still leaving all three parts.

(2) Behe explicility stated that it was the parts after the fork that formed the IC blood-clotting system, and then Miller "refuted" Behe by removing a part from before the fork.

Now pay attention LiveFreeOrDie. In both cases, Miller did NOT discuss what Behe actually said. Miller constructed strawmen versions of Behe's positions and then knocked down his own distortions while claiming to have refuted Behe.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Behe explicitly states this is so BY DEFINITION. Of course it's a "well, no duh". So tell me, why do so many people miss it?

LiveFreeOrDie: Because such a precursor bears no resemblance to anything thought to be part of the evolutionary history of such structures - it's a straw man. Is that the extent of Behe's argument? A big straw man?

DNAunion: No silly, anything that is true by definition is "no brainer", not a strawman.

 

[DNAunion]

LiveFreeOrDie: Just because Behe ends up looking like a fool is not Miller's fault.

DNAunion: Actually, it's more accurate to state, "Just because Miller ends up looking like a disingenuous fool is not Behe's fault".

 

[DNAunion]

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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: One of these [IC biochemical systems Behe discusses] is the eukaryotic cilium, an intricate whip-like structure that produces movement in cells as diverse as green algae and human sperm. And, . . . .

***********************************
Behe: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
***********************************

Miller: Remember Behe's statement that the removal of any one of the parts of an irreducibly complex system effectively causes the system to stop working? The cilium provides us with a perfect opportunity to test that assertion. If it is correct, then we should be unable to find examples of functional cilia anywhere in nature that lack the cilium's basic parts.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many examples of fully-functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compelling is the eel sperm flagellum (Figure 3), which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: "Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex" (Behe 1996a: 65).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”This leaves us with two points to consider: First, a wide variety of motile systems exist that are missing parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex structure;” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”… and second, biologists have known for years that each of the major components of the cilium, including proteins tubulin, dynein, and actin have distinct functions elsewhere in the cell that are unrelated to ciliary motion.” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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?" ).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”Given these facts [sic], what is one to make of the core argument of biochemical design – namely, that the parts of an irreducibly complex structure have no functions on their own?” (Ken Miller from above URL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller: ”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.

[from a later post]

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.


[and from a later post]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe: ”Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what they imply. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly required microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally it requires a motor [i.e., dynein], or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, it requires [nexin] linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. …

… All systems that move by paddling – ranging from my daughter’s toy fish to the propeller of a ship – fail if any one of the components is absent. The cilium is a member of this class of swimming systems. The microtubules are paddles, whose surface contacts the water and pushes against it. The dynein arms are the motors, supplying the force to move the system. The nexin arms are the connectors, transmitting the force of the motor from one microtubule to its neighbor.

The complexity of the cilium and other swimming systems is inherent in the task itself.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p64-65)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DNAunion: And when Miller “refutes” Behe with his eel-sperm flagellum, does it still have microtubules? Yep. Does it have dynein? Sure does. Does it have nexin linkers? Absolutely. Yep, it had all three. Hardly any refutation of Behe (more like a confirmation!).