tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3104181131706389304..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Barry Arrington Explains Irreducible ComplexityLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79288027796627055752011-12-27T20:03:18.541-05:002011-12-27T20:03:18.541-05:00Here's the referenced letter from 2009:
====...Here's the referenced letter from 2009:<br /><br /><br />====================<br />Science 24 July 2009:<br />Vol. 325 no. 5939 p. 393<br />DOI: 10.1126/science.325_393a<br /><br /> Letters<br /><br />Immune System: “Big Bang” in Question<br /><br />J. Travis's News Focus story “On the origin of the immune system” (1 May, p. 580) strengthens the idea that there exists a “Big Bang” in the evolution of the immune system, namely the move from innate to adaptive immunity. Yet evidence accumulated during the past 10 years has shown that this idea requires caution, for at least three reasons: (i) Immune memory, supposedly a characteristic of adaptive immunity and therefore of higher vertebrates, does in fact exist in invertebrates (1, 2). (ii) Nonvertebrate immunity no longer appears to be “unspecific”; many forms of immune specificity exist in animals, and even in plants (3). (iii) The adaptive immune system never works on its own [a little-known fact first revealed 20 years ago (4) but subsequently neglected]. An antigen that is recognized by the adaptive immune system but not by the innate immune system will not, in general, trigger an immune response (5).<br /><br />These studies show that immunity is ubiquitous in nature and that the boundary between adaptive and innate immunity is not as clear cut as has been claimed for decades (6). In light of these results, looking for evidence for the immunological “Big Bang” is probably an inadequate strategy for studying the evolution of immunology.<br /><br /> Thomas Pradeu<br /><br /> Institut d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris-Sorbonne University, Paris, 75006, France.<br /><br /> E-mail: thomas.pradeu@paris-sorbonne.fr<br /><br />References<br /><br /> ↵<br /> J. Kurtz,<br /> K. Franz<br /> , Nature 425, 37 (2003).<br /> UC-eLinksCrossRefMedline<br /> ↵<br /> K. Kurtz,<br /> S. A. O. Armitage<br /> , Trends Immunol. 27, 493 (2006).<br /> UC-eLinksCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science<br /> ↵<br /> B. J. DeYoung,<br /> R. W. Innes<br /> , Nat. Immunol. 7, 1243 (2006).<br /> UC-eLinksCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science<br /> ↵<br /> C. A. Janeway<br /> , Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 54, 1 (1989).<br /> Abstract/FREE Full Text<br /> ↵<br /> R. M. Steinman,<br /> D. Hawiger,<br /> M. C. Nussenzweig<br /> , Annu. Rev. Immunol. 21, 685 (2003).<br /> UC-eLinksCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science<br /> ↵<br /> E. Vivier,<br /> B. Malissen<br /> , Nat. Immunol. 6, 17 (2005).<br /><br />====================<br /><br />Which is in reply to Travis's (2009) popular article in Science, on the history of research into the evolution of the immune system. (And it favorably cites the Dover immune cross)<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5927/580.fullNickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67622511830562160712011-12-27T18:13:06.783-05:002011-12-27T18:13:06.783-05:00Ugh -- neither side of the "big bang in (vert...Ugh -- neither side of the "big bang in (vertebrate) immune system evolution" question doubts that the immune system evolved, nor that there are numerous known relatives of the vertebrate immune system proteins in invertebrates, nor that the key RAG genes are derived ultimately from transposons, nor hundreds of more detailed established facts about the evolutionary origins of the vertebrate immune system.<br /><br />The "big bang" idea basically suggested that the transposon insertion event was the key event in the whole process, which kicked off a whole cascade of evolutionary events producing modern-ish vertebrate immune systems in the ancestors of sharks + higher vertebrates.<br /><br />The criticism of the "big bang" idea is that the immune system is really about a lot more than the RAG gene adaptive system, and that many/most/virtually all of these other components can be found in more distant relatives. If this is the case, the "big bang" language seems to be an inaccurate description, so criticism of it has increased in recent years.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure, Lee, that you would be completely unable to explain even the basics of this debate, and you are simply relying on Behe's word on this, and that he would be similarly unable to describe what this debate is about and why it constitutes evidence that evolutionary theory is completely unable to explain something like the immune system. The kind of silliness from ID guys will never, ever impress serious scientists.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81236468949677777672011-12-22T23:15:41.070-05:002011-12-22T23:15:41.070-05:00> Negative Entropy: So you can't clarify wh...> Negative Entropy: So you can't clarify what those terms meant in K & N's paper, and you still think that the quote means something?<br /><br />Well, <a href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=big%20bang%20of%20immunity&IncludeBlogs=7" rel="nofollow">from here</a> it seems we're talking about animals at the base of the evolutionary tree, just past multicellular organisms. So quickly, on a timescale relative to all of life's history, which yet might be millions of years.<br /><br />But the point is that there is disagreement about fundamentals in evolution of the immune system. This is not quibbling about details. A search just turned up: Immune System: "Big Bang" in Question, Pradeu, T.,<br />Science, vol. 325, issue 5939, pp. 393-393, four years after the Dover trial.<br /><br />> How on Earth does a quote with neither clarifications as of what those terms mean, nor the data that support (or not) the quote...<br /><br />But none of these questions pertain to my view here. What makes you think that for instance, I believe Miller and Doolittle wrote everything on this subject?<br /><br />> From "there is nothing indicating the evolution of this system" to "but what about this detail?"<br /><br />Well, here, let me propose to you that I have written a history of the development of the motorcycle, but I only mark out plainly the development of the engine.<br /><br />You might suggest that my history would be lacking. The question is whether control of amplification is a critical aspect of the system, clearly it is, like the brakes and the throttle on a motorbike.<br /><br />Happy holidays,<br />Leelee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6781184807642486542011-12-21T18:16:15.899-05:002011-12-21T18:16:15.899-05:00Negative Entropy: "Yet again, since we have c...<b>Negative Entropy</b>: "<i>Yet again, since we have clear examples, I don't see why we should propose that the unclear ones need an "intelligent designer," ....</i><br /><br />Which clear examples do we have?<br /><br />Best holidays to you, also, NE.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42663729013295828692011-12-21T18:06:05.734-05:002011-12-21T18:06:05.734-05:00Is that all that is involved in the auditory syste...<i>Is that all that is involved in the auditory system?</i><br /><br />Certainly not, and that's irrelevant*, but if I sidetrack to explain why, I find much more interesting point.<br /><br />A "subsystem" is as much of a proper system as the whole system. Let's be reminded that a "system" is a subset of all the structures and interactions that's arbitrarily delimited by us for explanatory purposes. There is not a single "correct" way of breaking apart an organism into systems. And there is not a single "correct" way of breaking a system into parts either**. So the identification of IC is dependant on the way we chose to describe things. Isn't this a problem?<br /><br />* TomS specifically mentioned the mammalian middle ear, not the whole auditory system.<br /><br />** There might be more appropriate ways of breaking things apart depending on the problem at hand. If that's the case for IC, I'd like to know what are the criteria.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14600689710647267132011-12-20T21:55:51.297-05:002011-12-20T21:55:51.297-05:00Lee,
Well, no, the point is that Miller's sce...Lee,<br /><br /><i>Well, no, the point is that Miller's scenario is inadequate if he leaves this aspect out.</i><br /><br />It is only inadequate if you expect Miller to cover each and every detail you care to toss at him. It is much easier to come up with further questions than to answer them. Just how much research do you think it took to figure out the kinds of clotting cascades existing across organisms? Just in humans? It is thus bullshitting around to think that because you can come up with detail questions that Miller did not answer it means that IC carries any weight as an argument for creationism (by whichever name you want to call it). You are showing it to be nothing but a god-of-the-gaps argument.<br /><br /><i>Especially after Behe has pointed out the problem, then to present this as a solution borders on deception.</i><br /><br />No. Because then all Behe has to do is continue moving the goalposts. From "there is nothing indicating the evolution of this system" to "but what about this detail?" to "what about this other detail?" Until Behe stands on "that does not explain the atomic detail behind every mutation." Thus because Miller's explanations will always "fall short" of Behe's capacity to continue demanding detail, you will conclude that it is Miller who is wrong there? I would say that the strategy of moving the goal posts is what "borders on deception."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50285622146065842002011-12-20T21:35:24.865-05:002011-12-20T21:35:24.865-05:00Bilbo,
So now you move the goal posts? I agree th...Bilbo,<br /><br />So now you move the goal posts? I agree that the question as to how those proteins go from one system to form another is important and interesting. Don;t get me wrong. But can we say that your first "problem," the hypothetical case where we might not know where those ten protein came from, was answered?<br /><br />As to how proteins are recruited from one system into another. There are several clues. But it would take me a good while to explain here. I can tell you, without pretending that my words will convince you, but so that you understand my stance, that some examples are clear cut. Some more complicated than others, and so on. Not all cases are clear. Sure there must be other clear but complicated cases that have been solved and I have not read about. But I bet there are many for which we might never have a clue of how they evolved. Yet again, since we have clear examples, I don't see why we should propose that the unclear ones need an "intelligent designer," rather than propose that the evolutionary steps leading to those systems might have been lost in the confines of the history of life on Earth. Do you understand why I see your IC stuff as nothing but a god-of-the-gaps argument?<br /><br />Best for your holidays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5055566693833623762011-12-20T21:16:57.684-05:002011-12-20T21:16:57.684-05:00Lee,
I asked:
Can you clarify what those terms me...Lee,<br /><br />I asked:<br /><i>Can you clarify what those terms meant in K & N's paper?</i><br /><br />You answer:<br /><i>Well, Behe's point is that the Doolittle scenario is being rejected by some authors. The matter is a matter of some dispute, thus "all these papers" won't carry the day.</i><br /><br />So you can't clarify what those terms meant in K & N's paper, and you still think that the quote means something? <br /><br />How on Earth does a quote with neither clarifications as of what those terms mean, nor the data that support (or not) the quote, can be construed to mean that some authors don't agree with Doolittle? Who said that all those papers were written by Doolittle? Do you really think that the research on the evolution of any system is done by putting together meaningless quotes with no data nor evidence whatsoever? Do you really think that whatever Miller writes, or Doolittle, is all there is to the current understanding of how those systems have evolved?<br /><br />I should not be surprised. But I am.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64767853539592971092011-12-20T19:03:06.228-05:002011-12-20T19:03:06.228-05:00Allan Miller: "But to demonstrate IC, one wou...<b>Allan Miller</b>: "<i>But to demonstrate IC, one would have to eliminate the possibility of such 'lost' intermediate states.</i>"<br /><br />How do we go about eliminating possibilities, exactly? <br /><br /><b>qetzal</b>: "<i>Proving whether any given system DID evolve by such a mechanism is a different discussion. An interesting one, no doubt, but not one I care to engage at the moment.</i>"<br /><br />Let me know if you decide to engage in it.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36566837435566877952011-12-20T10:33:07.826-05:002011-12-20T10:33:07.826-05:00Bilbo: But the original scaffolding was already an...<b>Bilbo:</b> <i>But the original scaffolding was already an arch. If you can show that an IC system was made from a simpler system that accomplished the same purpose, and then was replaced, part by part, by the new IC system, then, yes, you have succeeded in showing how an IC system can evolve directly. Do you know of such a biological system?</i><br /><br />The original scaffolding need not be an arch. It could be two separate scaffolds, each supporting one side of the nascent arch.<br /><br />In any case, you seem to be missing the point. Whoever wrote the original piece made a positive claim about IC systems - that they can't be made in stepwise fashion (and therefore couldn't be generated by conventional evolution). I was simply showing that their claim is trivially wrong, and therefore does not disprove evolution.<br /><br />I'm not trying to argue that existing biological IC systems evolved by the particular stepwise mechanism you're suggesting, or by any other. I'm merely arguing that there ARE stepwise mechanisms by which a biological system could, at least hypothetically, evolve to be "IC" without having to come together all at once. Proving whether any given system DID evolve by such a mechanism is a different discussion. An interesting one, no doubt, but not one I care to engage at the moment.qetzalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36618860537855147152011-12-20T09:16:41.059-05:002011-12-20T09:16:41.059-05:00> Lee: Well, no, the point is that Miller's...> Lee: Well, no, the point is that Miller's scenario is inadequate if he leaves this aspect out.<br /><br />I need to correct my comment, Miller's book leaves this out, Miller's expanded <a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html" rel="nofollow">article</a> discusses controlling the clotting:<br /><br />"... just as soon as the occasional clot becomes large enough to present health risks, natural selection would favor the evolution of systems to keep clot formation in check. And where would these systems come from? From pre-existing proteins, of course, duplicated and modified. The tissues of the body produce a protein known as a1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues and keeps them in check. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a working protease inhibitor that could then evolve into antithrombin, a similar inhibitor that today blocks the action of the primary fibrinogen-cleaving protease, thrombin."<br /><br />Right, these components are in place, but how do you evolve them as a system? This is the complexity that presents the problem, too much clotting is very important to control, and the control has to evolve together with the clotting amplification. And an added level of amplification would provide a quantum leap in clotting, as indeed Miller says, this means control would be rather urgent.<br /><br />"In similar fashion, plasminogen, the precursor to a powerful clot-dissolving protein now found in plasma, would have been generated from duplicates of existing protease genes, just as soon as it became advantageous to develop clot-dissolving capability."<br /><br />But all this takes time. If my clotting is out of control, I'm going to have trouble waiting for a gene duplication and a fortuitous mutation.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5029685312891834482011-12-20T08:05:57.142-05:002011-12-20T08:05:57.142-05:00But the original scaffolding was already an arch.
...<i>But the original scaffolding was already an arch.</i><br /><br />No ... it was a hump. It only becomes an arch if there is a gap beneath. Consider a simple hill of solid rock. If you drive a tunnel through it, you have also made an arch. Alternatively, if you lay blocks over the hill surface and then remove all the original rock, you have used the hill as support during the construction of a separate arch. In neither case was it 'already an arch' - it became one upon removal of support.<br /><br /><i>If you can show that an IC system was made from a simpler system that accomplished the same purpose, and then was replaced, part by part, by the new IC system, then, yes, you have succeeded in showing how an IC system can evolve directly. Do you know of such a biological system? </i><br /><br />Do you know of any IC biological system? The point of arch analogies is to show that lost information - the removed rock in the above example - forms a vital part of the evolutionary pathway. ID proponents insist that the burden of proof lies with the mainstream to show what the nature of such 'lost' information is. But to <i>demonstrate</i> IC, one would have to eliminate the possibility of such 'lost' intermediate states.Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40194290971007900672011-12-19T23:43:47.696-05:002011-12-19T23:43:47.696-05:00> Negative Entropy: Can you clarify what those ...> Negative Entropy: Can you clarify what those terms meant in K & N's paper?<br /><br />Well, Behe's point is that the Doolittle scenario is being rejected by some authors. The matter is a matter of some dispute, thus "all these papers" won't carry the day.<br /><br />> Lee: For example, it still does not address the critical tuning of blood clotting amplification.<br />><br />> NE: If any detail is not explained by Miller it must mean that there is no successful research on the evolution of blood clotting whatsoever, and that evolution could not do it!<br /><br />Well, no, the point is that Miller's scenario is inadequate if he leaves this aspect out.<br /><br />Especially after Behe has pointed out the problem, then to present this as a solution borders on deception.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4085698039113358632011-12-19T23:31:27.382-05:002011-12-19T23:31:27.382-05:00> Jud: Lee, you'll find the discussion of t...> Jud: Lee, you'll find the discussion of the puffer fish during Behe's cross-examination here...<br /><br />So here is the result of the discussion:<br /><br />Q. Well, you spent a lot of time trashing Dr. Doolittle and his work, his article in the Boston Review. Your mistake here is quite a bit more substantial than misinterpreting a mice study, isn't it?<br /><br />A. I'm not even quite sure what you are referring to as my mistake.<br /><br />Q. I'll withdraw that question, Professor Behe.<br /><br />> Jud: Thus Behe quite clearly said at trial the books and articles weren't relevant...<br /><br />But the point you were making was seeming to imply that's all he did, and it wasn't. He addressed Miller's points. Are were the books and articles relevant? If so, which ones?lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45975642897050256802011-12-19T19:44:36.725-05:002011-12-19T19:44:36.725-05:00Sorry for not getting back sooner. I couldn't...Sorry for not getting back sooner. I couldn't get to a library this weekend, where I use the computer to go online. I forget who brought up the lobster example, but Miller admits that they are different proteins than are used in the human blood-clotting cascade. So I think Behe is right in claiming that there isn't much relevance. <br /><br /><b>qetzal</b>: "<i>Note that an arch made of stone blocks perfectly meets point (2). Remove any single block, and it collapses. Yet such arches clearly can be produced in stepwise fashion. Thus, (3) does not follow from (2).</i>"<br /><br />But the original scaffolding was already an arch. If you can show that an IC system was made from a simpler system that accomplished the same purpose, and then was replaced, part by part, by the new IC system, then, yes, you have succeeded in showing how an IC system can evolve directly. Do you know of such a biological system? <br /><br /><b>Negative Entropy</b>: "<i>Ten proteins with no homologs anywhere so far found. The challenge is not for "naturalistic" evolution. The challenge is for us to ever be able to figure out how that particular system evolved. That's it. After all, other systems, similar to ancestral systems, using those proteins might have gone extinct, or might be there in some organism we have not looked at yet. So, with plenty of clear examples, why doubt that the unclear ones did evolve just as naturally?</i>"<br /><br />Even if we have homologous proteins, the problem is figuring out how they became part of a new IC system. Was it one at a time? Then what use were they until all were in place? Was it in one fell swoop? That sounds possible, but what would the probability be of that happening? <br /><br /><i>"Have fun reading Miller's book. I have not read it. Nor do I think I will."</i><br /><br />I read it a number of years ago. I think Miller offered a very good way to reconcile Darwinian evolution with Christianity. But I don't think his arguments against Behe were very good. <br /><br /><b>TomS</b>: <i>"Do you have an example of a difference which is "irreducibly complex", a difference between the human body and the body of a chimp, or of any other ape, a difference to which the IC argument shows that there is no likelihood of common descent with modification?"</i><br /><br />Behe accepts and even argues in favor of common descent (in his second book). What he argues against is that all of the modifications are by random mutations. He argues that at least some of them are non-random. <br /><br /><b>Jud</b>: <i>"You don't have to go to Ken Miller's book, just read Dr. Behe's own cross examination in Kitzmiller.</i>"<br /><br />When I get a chance. You wouldn't have a link, would you? <br /><br /><b>Lee</b>: Thanks for the links. <br /><br /><b>Geoxus</b>: "<i>Could you identify at least two of the IC systems involved in the transmission of vibrations from the tympanum to the fenestra ovalis?</i>"<br /><br />Is that all that is involved in the auditory system? <br /><br /><b>Jud</b>: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html<br /><br />Thanks for the link, Jud.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67376936016113332352011-12-19T09:27:56.423-05:002011-12-19T09:27:56.423-05:00Whoops, looks like Moran made another boo boo.
La...Whoops, looks like Moran made another boo boo.<br /><br />Larry Moran: "I'm a Darwinist and I speak for all Canadians"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75055193489105174912011-12-18T20:51:31.779-05:002011-12-18T20:51:31.779-05:00lee merrill,
You are but typing unless and inept ...lee merrill,<br /><br />You are but typing unless and inept noise.<br /><br /><i>the adaptive immune system arose suddenly, within a relatively short time interval</i><br /><br />Creationists don't seem prone to check the meaning of "suddenly" and of "relatively short interval." They assume these to mean a couple seconds, while for scientists talking about evolution it can easily mean millions of years. Can you clarify what those terms meant in K & N's paper? Can you also clarify how such a quotation changes anything about Behe ignoring all the data on the evolution of the immune system? <br /><br />----<br /><i>For example, it still does not address the critical tuning of blood clotting amplification. Too little, and we bleed to death, too much, and all our blood clots.</i><br /><br />Really? Wow, add me to the list of new converts! If any detail is not explained by Miller it must mean that there is no successful research on the evolution of blood clotting whatsoever, and that evolution could not do it! There! And I was here concluding that ID was merely a god-of-the-gaps argument ... wait! It is a god-of-the-gaps argument!<br /><br />Once Miller explains to you about such "critical tuning" (after all, "critical tuning" is not defined by creationists either, who prefer to leave them alone for rhetorical effect), will you deny the possibility because he did not explain to you the evolution of these processes at the atomic detail?<br /><br />Please. Think then type.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89023727011437481732011-12-18T20:16:20.402-05:002011-12-18T20:16:20.402-05:00lee merrill says Behe denied on Amazon.com that he...lee merrill says Behe denied on Amazon.com that he said the books and articles he was asked about during cross examination (amounting to a two foot high pile) were irrelevant.<br /><br />Here is a quote from Behe's cross examination during the afternoon of day 12 of the trial:<br /><br />"Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?<br /><br />"A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. <i>However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.</i>"<br /><br />Thus Behe quite clearly said at trial the books and articles weren't relevant, regardless of the explanations/justifications he chose to offer at Amazon when not under oath and not subject to cross examination.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41170445365582618022011-12-18T20:03:43.945-05:002011-12-18T20:03:43.945-05:00lee merrill writes:
Reference, please? I'm fi...lee merrill writes:<br /><br /><i>Reference, please? I'm finding no mention of puffer fish here.</i><br /><br />Lee, you'll find the discussion of the puffer fish during Behe's cross-examination here:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.htmlJudnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56360942600492549442011-12-18T13:28:05.247-05:002011-12-18T13:28:05.247-05:00Bilbo,
According to Behe, a compound system is on...Bilbo,<br /><br />According to Behe, a compound system is one that it is made up of more than a single IC system. Could you identify at least two of the IC systems involved in the transmission of vibrations from the tympanum to the fenestra ovalis?Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77181642335965628002011-12-17T21:33:56.443-05:002011-12-17T21:33:56.443-05:00> Regarding the clotting cascade, in his cross-...> Regarding the clotting cascade, in his cross-examination in Kitzmiller Dr. Behe could not even consistently pin down the components of the clotting cascade that were supposed to be IC, admitting if the system were reduced to the components he'd named in Darwin's Black Box that in fact it would not function in humans, but on the other hand it would function in puffer fish.<br /><br />Reference, please? I'm finding no mention of puffer fish <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />> Jud: It was regarding the immune system where during cross-examination in Kitzmiller Dr. Behe said over 100 articles in the peer reviewed literature plus textbooks, together amounting to a pile about two feet high, were all irrelevant.<br /><br />And here is Behe's response from (I believe) his erstwhile Amazon.com blog about the pile of papers:<br /><br />The point was "here is this mound of evidence confronting Professor Behe". But something does not jive here … I talked a great deal about the immune system … I pointed out that a paper published in 2005 ["The Descent of the … Immune System by Gradual Evolution" – Kline and Nicholaidis], and I showed that in the paper, the authors say that "according to a currently popular view, the 'big bang' hypothesis, the adaptive immune system arose suddenly, within a relatively short time interval, in association with the postulated genome-wide duplication." I pointed out to the court that here was a paper published in 2005, which says that the standard view of how the immune system came about, in a rapid burst, in a rapid appearance, was wrong, and that instead, they were proposing a different view of how the immune system might have come about. … and I was directly addressing the testimony of the other side [e.g. Kenneth Miller]."<br /><br />So did Behe produce an argument here? it seems he did, instead of just saying "irrelevant!"lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90303515299667813362011-12-17T21:00:47.924-05:002011-12-17T21:00:47.924-05:00> The immunological cascade in humans, which Be...> The immunological cascade in humans, which Behe called IC, was shown to be performed with some of the steps removed in (if memory serves) lobsters.<br /><br />For those who are interested, <a href="" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a reply by Behe to critics of his book, and <a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a development by Miller of his immune-system argument.<br /><br />"Although embedded in a lengthy description of how blood clotting and other systems work, Professor Miller's actual explanation for how the vertebrate clotting cascade evolved consists of one paragraph. It is a just-so story that doesn't deal with any of the difficulties the evolution of such an intricate system would face." (Behe)<br /><br />It does seem that even Miller's detailed scenario has this problem. For example, it still does not address the critical tuning of blood clotting amplification. Too little, and we bleed to death, too much, and all our blood clots.<br /><br />"But why would natural selection favor a mutation like this in B's active site? Simple: it would increase the efficiency of the clotting process by producing a 2-level cascade." (Miller)<br /><br />It's simple? Only if we leave out control of the system, it seems.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66945424132347038422011-12-17T10:38:12.411-05:002011-12-17T10:38:12.411-05:00Bilbo writes:
I think the lobster example was off...Bilbo writes:<br /><br /><i>I think the lobster example was offered by Ken Miller, and I think (though I'm not sure) it was the blood-clotting cascade. I think Behe's response was that it was irrelevant to the human blood-clotting cascade. If most or all of the parts in the lobster's system are the same as the human system, then I think there would be quite a bit of relevance. I'll have to go back and look through Miller's book (Finding Darwin's God).</i><br /><br />Sorry, clotting cascade and immune system. It was regarding the immune system where during cross-examination in Kitzmiller Dr. Behe said over 100 articles in the peer reviewed literature plus textbooks, together amounting to a pile about two feet high, were all irrelevant. <br /><br />Regarding the clotting cascade, in his cross-examination in Kitzmiller Dr. Behe could not even consistently pin down the components of the clotting cascade that were supposed to be IC, admitting if the system were reduced to the components he'd named in Darwin's Black Box that in fact it would not function in humans, but on the other hand it would function in puffer fish.<br /><br />You don't have to go to Ken Miller's book, just read Dr. Behe's own cross examination in Kitzmiller.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14529797287047480542011-12-17T07:05:04.716-05:002011-12-17T07:05:04.716-05:00@Bilbo:Yes, but the bones are just one of several ...@Bilbo:<i>Yes, but the bones are just one of several systems involved in the auditory system. Behe defines IC systems as strictly involving one single system. He's more interested in biochemical systems, at the cellular or intra-cellular level. </i><br />I am interested in systems which leave behind a fossil record, because there the traces of the intermediate forms are more likely to be preserved in a way that is obvious to the layperson. <br />To go back to what I had to say: Do you have an example of a difference which is "irreducibly complex", a difference between the human body and the body of a chimp, or of any other ape, a difference to which the IC argument shows that there is no likelihood of common descent with modification? Something to which "irreducibly complex" applies more appropriately than the definitive mammalian middle ear?<br />Or, again to repreat myself, do you have an example better than those given by the 18th century advocates of preformation?<br /><br />TomSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24204154397459850452011-12-16T20:45:24.103-05:002011-12-16T20:45:24.103-05:00Bilbo,
suppose the difference between the two sys...Bilbo,<br /><br /><i>suppose the difference between the two systems is not two proteins, but ten. And there do not appear to be any intermediate systems using any of the additional proteins. Now, I think, the challenge becomes more severe. And that, in a nutshell, is Behe's point.</i><br /><br />Then Behe's point is but a god-of-the-gaps argument compounded with ignorance. Note this: we have plenty of systems, and I mean plenty, where we might as well suppose, for the sake of argument, that they are all IC as they stand. Yet, we see the proteins "shared" among systems so much, that taking a bunch from one system to work in another, does not seem like a problem whatsoever. So, suppose we have one as the one you describe. Ten proteins with no homologs anywhere so far found. The challenge is not for "naturalistic" evolution. The challenge is for us to ever be able to figure out how that particular system evolved. That's it. After all, other systems, similar to ancestral systems, using those proteins might have gone extinct, or might be there in some organism we have not looked at yet. So, with plenty of clear examples, why doubt that the unclear ones did evolve just as naturally?<br /><br />Have fun reading Miller's book. I have not read it. Nor do I think I will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com