Is the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe the end of evolution?

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**Just because the system falls apart with the removal of one element doesn’t mean that it could never have developed progressively, any more than the fact that a skyscraper will fall down if you remove a key support proves that it never could have gone up in the first place (what you are missing is the original support scaffolding which was later removed).[italics added] **

Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve in his book Vital Dust makes the same point as that italicized above and states that biochemical traces of the “scaffolding” can be found in today’s organisms.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha *
Example? Sure: I submit (provisionally) that Darwin’s response here is simply a means of immunizing evolutionary theory against a possible falsifier. To be honest, Darwin, your response is a little unfair against the Prof: he was challenged to present a “sound” reason for challenging evolution, and provided one. Unless you can debunk the specific example above, of course.

And I submit that your are mistaken. My response was exactly what it was: a rebuttal to the idea that what is not known in any way dismantles what is known. Pray tell how natural selection, or any other evolutionary mechanism is falsified by an inability to answer Prof Unditas ’ question? And my response was quite fair. An example of an unknown is not “sound” reason for challenging evolution. If it were, then all of theology could be brought down by simply asking “where did God come from”. It is just as “unknown” at this time, and is, all things considered, unknowable. And yet it cannot be rationally argued that just because the answer to that question is not known God cannot exist.

The way to challenge evolution is not by pointing to what we don’t know. It is to find alternative explanations for what we observe that are themselves falsifiable, and provide more accurate predictive power than do existing theories. In what way, then, would IC (and ID) be superior to the existing explanation for what is known?

Interestingly, by contrast, ID theory is imminently falsifiable. Nature is resplendent with stupid designs; I saw a list once on the boards at talk origins. (By the way, please don’t misconstrue this post as argument in favor of Behe. To be honest, I’m hijacking this discussion shamelessly.)

Again, you are mistaken. ID is not falsifiable, as it depends on a supernatural metaphysic. IC is falsifiable in that only one pathway need be found to counter it. Intelligent Design is more encompassing than IC – the two are not synonymous.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by Prof Unditas *
**You assume wrong. But I would like for you to point out where, until now, I referenced Darwin specifically. I spoke of Neo-Darwinism, which is not exactly the same thing.

As for “nothing in evolution says intelligent intevention is impossible” (to answer you on your own level) I assume you haven’t read the Neo-Darwinians. Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker by acknowledging that “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Francis Crick, also a fervent Darwinist and atheist, says in his memoirs that “**iologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Dawkins and Crick, like other scientific materialists, do not give serious consideration to the possibility that organisms look designed because there really is a designer. They exclude that possibility because they think science is by definition committed to explaining the history of life solely by natural–i.e., unintelligent–causes. Along comes Behe who tries to make a case for why intelligent interbvention might well be required and he gets hacked from multiple angles by people who haven’t taken the time to read his book (see above.)
**

I have in fact read all of Dawkins’ books. The appearance of design does not mean intelligent design, that is indeed the theme of the Blind Watchmaker. neo-Darwinists hardly refute the existence of animal breeding, after all, so I don’t really get your point. Saying that there is no evidence for intelligent design, since all apparently designed features can be explained through evolution, is not the same thing as stating the absurd premise that intelligent design is impossible. My question stands - if there is an intelligent designer, when and how did he do it?

**

Once, at least. At the very beginning. Are you admitting that the interventions took place then?
**

How did the intelligent designer manage to design an irreducibly complex human eye, say, when all there were on earth were one celled creatures? Are you claiming everything started at once? And I am not claiming that there were any interventions at all - I’m just curious about the response of those who say there were. The model of the designer is a lot different if you say he crafted DNA, threw it in the ocean, and left, rather than designing specific features throughout a billion years of the development of life. Maybe we are all descendents from some alien’s trash - that does not disprove evolution, and is at least possible.

**
Always? You are much given to impressions and assumptions. Wrong ones.
**

I have yet to find a counterexample. Including now. I admit that science must look pretty exclusive to the boobs with their perpetual motion machines, proofs of squaring the circle, and arguments for creationism. People with good arguments get listened to.

**
Are you really so enamored of the your side’s alleged objectivity that you think the Nobel Committee, that paragon of neutrality that would never, ever, ever have its own agenda cough, chortle, snort, would admit that such a thing had ever been proven? **

They sure would. A disproof of evolution would be nothing compared to relativity. Newton’s laws were as close to gospel truth as we’re ever going to see, but when the experimental evidence showed that Einstein was more correct, they were superceded with amazing speed. Note that Einstein didn’t publish popular books and go on the lecture circuit - he made a prediction that would determine if he was correct. That’s how real science is done.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch *
**Again, you are mistaken. ID is not falsifiable, as it depends on a supernatural metaphysic. IC is falsifiable in that only one pathway need be found to counter it. Intelligent Design is more encompassing than IC – the two are not synonymous. **

Incorrect. As long as assertions are made about the nature of the intelligence and its design, ID can be falsified. The problem with IDers is that they start with the world and claim that whatever’s present in it is part of the design, thus making it impossible to ever falsify.

Of course, when such a tack is taken, ID loses all predictive power, making it utterly meaningless as science.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**At the talk I attended, Behe made it very clear that he only believes in microevolution. Although his book deals only with biochemical systems, in the talk he presented an argument claiming that even the evolution of a single protein is impossible. (In fact, he actually presented an argument to the effect that even a single disulfide bond is fantastically unlikely to have evolved.) Behe thus believes in pretty much constant intervention throughout history, in every detail of the genome, because he believes that macroevolution is impossible.

**

Thanks, Ben. Did he happen to give a research program for the detection of this designer, who must be working now? (You don’t have to bother to answer - I know it.)

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**Incorrect. As long as assertions are made about the nature of the intelligence and its design, ID can be falsified. **

How, then, does one falsify a claim that “God did it”? Or even that space aliens created us in a cosmic laboratory?

[TVAA]

The same way you falsify a claim that anything was done by anyone.

It’s no different from any other historical question.

[John_Mace]

TVAA: I’m w/ Darwin on this one. Demonstrate for us how you falsify “God did it”. Details, please.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

tomndebb:

Hmmm…

You know, the annoying thing about you is that you’re always right.

• Nope. We can look at the development (and loss) of specific bone structures in the fossil record. No bone structure found at one level in a undeveloped state will be found in an earlier level at a fully developed state….

This is not a matter of saying “here is their order” but of being able to predict that certain structures are developing (and being lost) through time. This is a clear prediction.*

To be honest, I’m not quite sure what to make of this argument. It seems right, but let me ask you this: if we were to find hypsodont molars in the fossil record prior to the development of brachydont molars, would you consider this a clear falsification of evolutionary theory, and abandon it?

Or perhaps, more to the point: would it be possible to look at the fossil record and, with only brachydont molars to hand, predict the evolution of hypsodont molars specifically – such that, if hypsodont molars failed to appear, evolution would be falsified?

I guess I should pick up Popper’s essay on this and skim through it; he must surely have been aware of such potential counter-examples. As is, my lack of technical knowledge on this point leaves me fumbling a bit; but it’s my general sense that paleontology has not advanced through the gear-work of “conjecture and refutation” Popper describes. Rather, I thought it relied more on the “consilience of inductions” originally promoted by Whewell. After inspecting the fossil record, and putting together an enormous amount of data, evolutionary scientists are able to guess at the probable sequence of development of a given species; but what sort of specific predictions can the theory produce? If a previously unknown horse with three toes were to be discovered in the late fossil record tomorrow, would that categorically falsify evolutionary theory?

• From your quoting of Behe, an example of his disingenuous use of the language…He mixes the use of “evidence against” and “falsifiability.” There is evidence against his claim that a particular process had to have been inserted into the evolutionary record when researchers have discovered alternative methods for a process to have occurred that contradict his claims. However, he has not provided a falsifiable statement, because he made no prediction to be refuted.*

Here, I’m afraid, I’m going to have to disagree with you. Behe may be a disingenuous quack, but as far as I can tell, this particular observation holds water, with one caveat: he mixes his critics.

In other words, there are some critics of Behe’s work who claim that it is unfalsifiable. There are others who claim that it is false, because they have evidence against it (i.e, that falsifies it). Behe gives specific examples of both kinds of criticism, and then defends himself against his critics. He even notes specifically what sort of evidence he would consider to be a strong falsification of his theory:

** Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)….

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.**

The underlined section above is the specific observation statement implied by Behe’s ID thesis. Whether or not Behe actually lives up to it, he is nevertheless stating publicly what sort of evidence would be required to falsify his theory.

• If anyone has created a “theory” that cannot be disproven (or tested), it is Behe.*

In addition to Behe’s own statements, I personally find the examples of stupid design to be pretty powerful falsifiers of Behe’s theory. In fact, I was under the impression that most of his work had been taken apart, and hence falsified, already. Am I wrong?

• Darwin’s prediction was that the land was at least old enough to support his theory and Lord Kelvin’s claim was that Darwin was too short by a factor of 15. Darwin’s prediction was falsifiable and the setting of the age of the sun to be several orders of magnitude older than Lord Kelvin’s calculations, along with the discovery that Darwin’s terminus ad quem was very conservative bolstered Darwin’s theory rather than harming it.

That is how a theory is falsifiable.*

Again, there’s something about this example that I’m not comfortable with, but that I find hard to set my finger on. I have no doubt that evidence from one field of study can serve to bolster or debunk theories in another field, of course, which seems to be the case here…

But let us say that this particular prediction of Darwin’s was falsifiable. Had Darwin’s prediction turned out to be false – let us say, the Weald was only 250,000,000 years old – would that, in its turn, have falsified evolutionary theory?
Mr. Finch:

Sorry, hope I didn’t* ruffle your feathers*…

Get it? Ruffle your feathers…

God, I just slay myself.

Okay, back to the debate:

• And I submit that your are mistaken. My response was exactly what it was: a rebuttal to the idea that what is not known in any way dismantles what is known. Pray tell how natural selection, or any other evolutionary mechanism is falsified by an inability to answer Prof Unditas ’ question?*

Actually, what the Prof is pointing to, if I understand correctly, is something known – that these specific chemicals are incompatible except in the very specific conditions of a cell, and that this poses a quandary, since in order for the cell to develop, these chemicals must be combined first. At the very least, since evolutionary theory is supposed explain things like the origin and development of cells, this problem (provided he’s not just making it up as he goes along, of course) must be considered to be something of anomaly.

As far as I can tell, your response is to claim that such an anomaly doesn’t really serve as a potential falsifier – implying, further, that evolutionary theory can’t be falsified by known anomalies, as far as I can tell.

• The way to challenge evolution is not by pointing to what we don’t know. It is to find alternative explanations for what we observe that are themselves falsifiable, and provide more accurate predictive power than do existing theories.*

I would agree with this generally, except for the falsification part. That bit’s so – I don’t know – 1950s, don’t you think so?

• In what way, then, would IC (and ID) be superior to the existing explanation for what is known?*

In absolutely no way, as far as I can see. As I’ve tried to make clear, I consider evolutionary theory to be far superior to Behe’s ID.

Finally, see the Vorlan Ambassador’s Aide’s response to your last point, as well as my reply to tomndebb, above.
Voyager:

• Note that Einstein didn’t publish popular books and go on the lecture circuit - he made a prediction that would determine if he was correct.*

Really? What prediction was that, exactly?

[TVAA]

First, you’re mistaken in what I claimed: I didn’t say I can do it, I said it can be done.

Secondly, what do you actually mean by saying “God did it”?

If you’re claiming that an entity that we would recognize as an intelligence designed and created the world, what characteristics would that entity have? How did it create the world? What are the supposed characteristics of its design? How can we determine whether this entity was or is intervening in any given event?

[RaftPeople]

Ben:
If Behe believes in micro-evolution, what does he think prevents
small changes from accumulating into large changes over time?
Try drawing a straight line 3 miles long.

Mr. Svinlesha:
Judging a design as good/bad can only be done by comparing the set of goals to the outcome, but because we don’t know the goals of the “designer” it’s probably not the best argument against ID.

Voyager:
I like your argument. ID implies complex structures existed from the beginning.
Although one could argue, our DNA contained the capability to produce these complex structures from the beginning but some mechanism prevented their expression until the appropriate time.

On “If it’s not a scientific theory, how can biologists refute it?”:
Testable<>Refutable
Many statements that have nothing to do with science are illogical, contradictory, not supported by evidence.

[andros]

You know, the annoying thing about you is that you’re always right.

I’ve thought that about Tom~ for a long time.

[John_Mace]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**First, you’re mistaken in what I claimed: I didn’t say I can do it, I said it can be done.

Secondly, what do you actually mean by saying “God did it”?

If you’re claiming that an entity that we would recognize as an intelligence designed and created the world, what characteristics would that entity have? How did it create the world? What are the supposed characteristics of its design? How can we determine whether this entity was or is intervening in any given event? **

Can you point us to cite that has done it? If I try to falsify the claim that “Mr. Mustard did it”, I can at least assume that Mr. Mustard must obey the laws of physics. Since God is capable of doing anything at any time for any reason, it is simply impossible to disprive that “God did it”.

If you want to propose that Space Aliens created the Human race thru genetic engieering, then this is something that could presumably be proved or disproved.

But if you didn’t claim that “God did it” can be falsified, go back and read the post from Darwin and your response. Perhaps you mispoke, but there is really no other way to interpret your post. Unless you, in fact, are God…?

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
**Can you point us to cite that has done it? If I try to falsify the claim that “Mr. Mustard did it”, I can at least assume that Mr. Mustard must obey the laws of physics. Since God is capable of doing anything at any time for any reason, it is simply impossible to disprive that “God did it”.

** Incorrect. That line of reasoning quickly leads to paradoxes involving rocks too heavy to lift and burritos too spicy to eat.

If you want to propose that Space Aliens created the Human race thru genetic engieering, then this is something that could presumably be proved or disproved.

In theory, yes, regardless of how powerful these hypothetical aliens are. The only difference with a god is that you use the word “god” instead of “alien”.

**But if you didn’t claim that “God did it” can be falsified, go back and read the post from Darwin and your response. Perhaps you mispoke, but there is really no other way to interpret your post. Unless you, in fact, are God…? **

It can, in theory, be falsified, as long as “God” refers to a meaningful concept. If it doesn’t, it can’t – but the statement was meaningless to begin with. It doesn’t follow that I personally have the capacity to disprove it, any more than I can personally disprove that Caesar was stabbed thirty-seven times with a herring.

[John_Mace]

TVAA:

But when talking about creationists, I think it is safe to assume that God refers to a supernatural being who is not subject to the laws of physics ( or logic, for matter). Paradoxes like “rocks too large to move” can be dismissed as limitation of the human mind.

As for a less-than-God-like Intelligent designer, one might postulate that this IDer created the earth and everything on it. But unless one is willing to then postulate that a supernatural God created the IDer, then you are left with the problem of how that IDer came into existence other than thru evolution. At some point, a natural (non-intelligent) process must have been the cause if it was not supernatural.

[TVAA]

How does attributing things to supernatural events explain things better than attributing them to natural events?

If God isn’t subject to logic, then God can’t have feelings, thoughts, emotions, desires, etc. because those things are all limited by logic.

God would then be described by Borges’ Library, and what good does that do?

[John_Mace]

How does attributing things to supernatural events explain things better than attributing them to natural events?

I don’t think it does. It wasn’t my intent to imply that. I was taking a devil’s advocate (no pun) position from a creationist’s view. I have no religious beliefs myself.

As for the disproving the statement “God did it”, are we talking about 2 different versions of God? You mention a “meaningful” concept of God. I can’t think of one. But to me God is not God if he is not supernatural. A material God is just another natural being. We use the word “God” to refer to the concept of something supernatural. No?

[tomndebb]

It seems right, but let me ask you this: if we were to find hypsodont molars in the fossil record prior to the development of brachydont molars, would you consider this a clear falsification of evolutionary theory, and abandon it?

Or perhaps, more to the point: would it be possible to look at the fossil record and, with only brachydont molars to hand, predict the evolution of hypsodont molars specifically – such that, if hypsodont molars failed to appear, evolution would be falsified?

To answer the second, first, there is no way to predict specific events regarding evolutionary traits. The very nature of random speciation–driven by unexpected mutations and guided by responses to environmental pressures–would prevent such predictions from being successful.

The same point would be true regarding Intelligent Design. There is no way to predict some future action of an intellignt agent.

However, one can make predictions regarding what will be discovered in the historical record. Darwin proposed that an immense amount of time had passed to provide sufficient time for evolution to have occurred. A proof that the elapsed time was far less than what was required would have been a blow to the theory.

If a hypsodont molar was found in an immediate ancestor of Hyracotherium, particularly if it had the same root structure, the same number of cusps, and the same arrangement on the jaw, it would very definitely present a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (as would a reliably dated penguin turning up in the Precambrian).
(I will admit that I would be leery of any initial claim for such a discovery, given the overwhelming (to date) evidence that it would not happen. I would certainly want to be sure that the claim was neither spurious nor fraudulent, but if such a discovery was confirmed, it would put a huge question mark over Darwin’s proposition.)

I am still not persuaded that Behe’s proposal is falsifiable. We can continue to shorten the gaps into which he can insert his designer, but since he has not claimed that all evolution has proceeded by design, any gap that we close simply leaves him with any number of other gaps to exhibit. (In my opinion, both his flagella and his blood clotting have already been shown to require no designer, but I do not recall him withdrawing those examples.) There is also the problem that he does not provide an actual mechanism for the designer to use. What is to stop him from simply declaring that any mutation that has been discovered as the mechanism for the blood clotting chain was manipulated by the designer?

[Apos]

We’ve gone from arguing about whether or not Behe is wrong to exactly what kind of wrong he is.

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Prof Unditas *
**Okay, in messenger RNA there are four elements. Outside the stasis of an already formed cell, those elements cannot exist in the same place at the same time because two of them require near boiling tempratures to form naturally and the other two require near freezing tempratures to form naturally. So how did those elements exist in the same place for the length of time required for the cell to evolve and incorporate them into the Messenger RNA structure? Provide links for your answers as to where this has been demostrated in a lab, and duplicated by other labs.
**

I’m not sure what structures you are referring to and a quick glace at some anti-darwin sites fail to mention this. Are you referring to the problems in forming Adenine, Cytosine, Uracil, and Guanine in the suspected atmosphere of the ancient world? (which is based on hydrolysis, deamination, UV light converting C to it’s photohydrate and cyclobutane dymers, and chirality problems, among other stuff, if i understand their argument correctly)

Not that not knowing how something was accomplished invalidates anything.
As for reading the book, i don’t need to read The Scarlett Letter to know it is the worst book ever, i just need to read a few excerps. I don’t even know if the bookstore has his book, but if i need a break studying for the biology GRE i’ll check out if they have it, but if his arguments are as simplistic as presented here, then the book must not have much substinence.