Straw man. 
Why did you start this thread if you don’t actually want to debate anything?
So, wait, we are supposed to address the arguments in the book… but we are not allowed to actually discuss the arguments in the book?
On this board, we discuss ideas. If the ideas only function in the book: if they can’t be brought out into the open to be discussed on their own, then they are of no consequence. It makes no difference whether you’ve read the book or not: that’s not relevant to the worth of the ideas.
Raise an issue from the book you’d like us to discuss, please.
I started the thread to ask people, that have read Behe’s book, if they thought his pints were valid and if there has been anything written to dispute it
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by andros
**Brad, I’ve read Behe. And many others. I believe in knowing the facts before I challenge or dismiss a potential opponent.
Do you share this belief?
Have you read the talkorigins site? Dawkins? Pennock?
Can you say in honesty that you understand what it is you’re attacking? Or even what you’re supporting?
It appears to me the answer to all these questions is a simple negative.
Until you have understood Behe’s arguments, instead of merely accepting drone-like his assertions . . .
until you understand the opposition to his assertions and the views and claims of his opponents . . .
until you at the very least show an interest in learning a damned thing here . . .
you have no place in a serious discussion.
Ignorance can be cured. Willful ignorance can only be quarantined **
[QUOTE]
I am the one who started this thread and if you’ll read my first few post I have asked anyone to give me documentation that disputes Behe’s claims. I have admitted ignorance in the field on many threads and have not wished to debate. I have only strayed from that original goal because people were giving there ignorant opinion, without reading the book, and not answering my question at all. I want specific systematic rebuttal of Behe’s claims, any written books, papers, or articles would help.
I’ve read it. I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. His argument is pure “God of the gaps”: I don’t understand how this could have happened therefore it is not possible therefore God did it. Even changing the “I” to “We” (i.e. everyone) doesn’t make his argument valid.
And it is not plagiarism if you are clearly specifying your source, so feel free to go ahead and try convince us.
Alright smarty pants how is the Bombadier beattle’s deffensive apparatus explained by evolution?
Apparently you didn’t understand my post - whether I or anyone else can explain how evolution could cause something is not the same as saying that evolution cannot have been the cause.
To falsify evolution, you need to explain how the Bombardier Beetle’s defensive mechanism cannot have arisen through evolution. I’ll save you the effort and assume that you will push the argument on pp 31 - 36 of Behe’s book. The answer is here.
Using the term “Smarty Pants” ina GD thread is not likely to mkae your opponent cower in fear at your superior intellect and wit.
As has been stated MULTIPLE times, complete refutations of all of Behe’s arguments are posted on
www.talkorigins.org
I have not read Behe’s book, and as so am unfit in your eyes, but I am an evolutionary ecologist.
I’m a herpetologist, not an entomologist, but I’ll give it a shot, with, oh, say my 1920’s style Death Ray.
(As an aside, this is covered on Talkorigins, Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design)
The Beetle’s defense represents some fairly logical outgrowths of defense systems utilizing the excretion of noxious substances as a predator defense, combined with extensions (presumed) of the digestive system. It isn’t hard to envision a series of events where a cloacal type chamber begins to function as a repository for these noxious chemicals. I’m not familiar with these bugs body chemistries, but given the processes present in cells, the presence of these chemicals are not difficult to imagine in a bug’s butt, ready to shoot out and steadily evolving to become a controlled pulse jet. I realize this isn’t really a comprehensive answer, but I’m tired.
USE THE TALKORIGIN’s LINK, and search some entomology journal’s for an in depth discussion, as my 1920’s style death ray isn’t very accurate.
If you truly wish to learn, and actually put effort into searching for answers, you will find them.
A specific reply? No. I’m not well versed in philosophy, so you are well outside of my area of knowledge at this point. And I’m not quite sure what you are getting at, anyway. I would think that to falsify any given mechanism, you need only show that it couldn’t work in any case (or, you could, for example, show that natural selection does not apply even to the majority of cases, which would at the very least falsify Darwin’s explanation for the pattern of diversity we see today). Showing that it doesn’t apply to all possible cases in insufficient, in my opinion, because no mechanism is posited to cover all cases.
If you are arguing that all mechanisms, taken together as a package to explain observed phenomena, cannot thereby be falsified…well, I can’t say anything about that, since you are then swimming in deeper philosophical waters than I am comfortable in.
**
I’ve seen him in person once, when he came to my university a couple of months ago. I know what he says at other times because people who attended his talks have reported on them on the web.
**
I don’t know if he always has a Q&A session. At my school, he did Q&A and had an additional Q&A session that afternoon, but I don’t know how long it lasted, because I was unable to attend.
We’re a life sciences institution, and the least educated people in the room were probably PhD students.
**
I’ll check my notes when I get a chance (which might be a few days.) My impression was that he was very weaselly. I talked to some coworkers about what they thought, and they generally felt that he didn’t give a straightforward answer to even a single challenging question. If I had to generalize, I’d say he tended to give answers which were technically kinda-sorta addressed to the question, but really didn’t answer them because he was just exploiting poor phrasing. (i.e. one person asked “have you planned any actual experiments?” when what she really meant was “are you testing any predictions?” He was able to evade it by saying that Watson and Crick didn’t do experiments. Even that took him three uncomfortable tries before he found something that would even remotely let him off the hook.)
Also, I should point out that it wasn’t like a real scientific talk, in that it wasn’t as dense. He basically gave a talk on ID that was intended for a general audience, ranted a bit about his critics, and devoted the last 10 minutes or so the kind of detailed treatment that real scientific talks usually consist of. He really wasn’t there to give a scientific talk that happened to be about ID. And if he wasn’t then, he never will be.
MOLECULAR biologist!
AAAAAAAAAAUGH! (runs around screaming)
Do you have any idea how often that happens? 
Mea culpa. It won’t happen again. I guess you scientists all look alike.
I like that! Do you mind if I use it – with proper attribution, of course?
Tinker
Not in the slightest. Kinda proud of that one.
So i read part of the “book” while on a break from studying Japanese, I enjoyed the part where he attacked a Biochemistry textbook for only having Evolution listed in the index twice, while Protein was listed like 70 times. Apparently because 800 page textbooks aren’t the twice as big they’d have to be (at least) to evolutionary explain every different functional pathway, Darwinism fails.
Good to know.
Well, this is actually really interesting, Darwin’s Finch and Mr Svinlesha. I’m so glad it hasn’t been a totally lost cause.
As a well educated amateur in biology - I work in bioinformatics on the IT side, and have read a lot an been to a lot of seminas and lectures - I can take a stab at answering. But I won’t guarantee it’s canonical.
So to start, none of us are disputing the fact of evolution here (ignoring the OP and the Behe thread). So the question is, is Darwin’s proposed mechanism - natural selection- falsifiable? Or can all possible outcomes be explained?
I do agree that there is a tendency to construct ad hoc “just so stories” to explain anything, which can be irritating. But notice that if it really is true, then every outcome we see should be able to be explained. So we need to get to hypothetical counterexamples, not real ones. I do think it is falsifiable, but I admit you’ve posed a good question.
I think I have a couple of points here:
-
Artificial selection produces very different creatures than natural selection. For example, plants that cannot propagate without human intervention; animals that are much more docile and small brained than their wild counterparts. This shows that different selection mechanisms produce different things. I boldly predict that species that have been human-selected for >1000 years would be out-competed in the wild by wild-types.
-
The key point of natural selection is reproductive fitness, so any damage that one takes after reproducing is not important to natural selection and won’t be selected against. So again I boldly predict that genetically related diseases will show a pattern where those expressing in later life have a higher frequency in the human population than those expressing earlier in life.
How’s that sound?
Umm, wrong. I quote from my cite. (You need to read down a bit, and not be sure you know it all.
Tsk. Einstein published his specific prediction about Mercury in 1913. I never said he hadn’t published anything about gravity earlier. This is enough of a hijack already.
My first remark was addressed to Prof. Unidapas (or something,) who claimed that any falsification of evolution or proof of ID would be rejected by the “priesthood” of scientists. Do you have any cites as to what percentage of physicists bought relativity before 1919? I’m not at all surprised that those who became famous as pioneers did, but did the elderly German professors? Even so, your point reenforces mine - when there is sufficient evidence, the priesthood of science does reject the old and accept the new, and relatively quickly in this case. Falsification of the old no doubt helps.
Actually, I misread the cite. (Look near the bottom). Einstein realized the importance of Mercury in 1911, worked with an astronomer to take measurements, and published between 1913 and 1915. It was independently confirmed in 1919, delayed due to the war. Einstein published several papers with errors, later corrected. In any case the prediction was clearly accurate enough to make a big stir.
I checked my link, and fail to see why you do not see the mention of Mercury in it. Perhaps light from the words was deflected by a massive gravitational source? So, the measurement of Mercury confirming Einstein’s prediction was done in 1913, and the Eddington expedition (1919) looked at the stars during an eclipse. (Ref: Ferris, The Whole Shebang, pp. 72-73 of the paperback edition.)
There were attempts to explain the deviation in Mercury’s orbit by several other means, such as an increase in the mass of Venus or a new moon. This I think demonstrates one of the perils of falsification - it is not often accepted unless some better theory comes along, or unless the evidence is very, very clear. In a sense the issue of Mercury falsified Newtonian physics, but you cannot fault them for not realizing this until there was a better explanation.
Darwin’s Finch:
I’m still thinking about the falsification argument that you posted previously; I’m not entirely sure yet, but I don’t think it will work. I’ll tell you why:
Basically, if I understand you correctly here, what you’re doing is making a logical deduction from 3 premises. And you are correct; should any of the premises prove false, then there exists a chance that the conclusion you’ve deduced is false as well. However, it should be noted that, from a strictly empirical perspective, your conclusion could also be true, even though one (or even all) of your premises are false.
Actually, as I understand falsification, it is designed to be a kind of check on deductions (and, in particular, inductions) – not on premises. One can take two or three premises and, by means of logic, arrive at all kinds of conclusions, many of which might turn out to be false. In fact, I am given to understand that logical deductions of the sort you propose above can be notoriously misleading, and that empirical, “scientific” investigations of nature are the proper corrective for them. Is not empiricism, in fact, a reaction to the kind of “rationalism” you propose above?
According to Popper the only way to separate the true conclusions from the false ones is by means of his “critical method,” i.e., falsification. Thus, it is your deduced conclusion that must be tested, not your premises. And in order to test it, we must be able to generate falsifiable observation statements from it. There’s the rub.
Actually, believe it or not, I’m not quite sure this statement is accurate. The tail of the male peacock, for example, was thought by Darwin to be the result of “sexual” selection, is that not true? If sexual selection –based on factors other than “survivability” – is shown to have a profound influence on the direction of evolution, would this falsify the theory of natural selection?
Finally, I’d like to make a small comment on this:
Now, I hope this doesn’t come off as offensive, but I seem to run into this a lot. I also notice it in the creationist-evolution debate, and even in some of the responses to Behe’s arguments that I’ve seen in this thread. There is a kind of imbalance in the debate, one that stems from the following situation, IMHO: many of those who promote evolution are extremely well versed in the theory, but do not fully have a handle on the falsification criterion and its ramifications; while, on the other side, those who promote creationism seem to have a limited understanding of evolution, but have a very sharp – if sometimes peculiar – grasp on Popper’s work. Since Popper can be interpreted as critical regarding the scientific status of evolutionary theory, and since creationists are primarily out to discredit that theory, perhaps this isn’t so surprising. In addition, in context of day-to-day scientific research, a simple working definition of falsification comes in handy, while an in-depth understanding of the various philosophical ins and outs of the criterion is unnecessary, perhaps even a hinder.
But to my eye, this state of affairs results in a very strange and lop-sided debate. For example: although Behe might very well be disingenuous, and although his theories might not withstand critical scrutiny, I can, in fact, find no fault with his employment of the falsification criterion – at least not on the page I’ve linked to. There, Behe behaves like an impeccable example of a Popperian scientist at work: he lays out precisely what his theory predicts, how it might be falsified, what sort of evidence he would accept as a falsification, and why the competing evolutionary theory, under the same conditions, can’t be falsified. Perhaps its worth noting as well that, while Behe must deal with falsification by back-peddling to a different position (as noted by Ben), his evolutionary scientist need not back-peddle at all; “unfalsifiability” is a built-in characteristic of that scientist’s theory, at least in the context of Behe’s thought experiment.
Basically, Behe is running circles around his critics because he has a better understanding of the falsification criterion. Again, to tilt at my windmill, this exposes one of the weaknesses of the criterion. If we were to jettison the criterion as a meaningful demarcation, the entire round of argument and counter-argument concerning the falsifiability of ID vís-a-vís evolution would become fairly irrelevant, and critics could get to the meat of criticizing his theory without all the unnecessary baggage of the rest. By clinging to the outdated notion that the falsification criterion functions as a useful marker, on the other hand, while at the same time not fully understanding all the implications of Popper’s work, evolutionary scientists do themselves a disservice and paradoxically provide ammunition for their opponents’ cannons.
cajela:
Precisely.
This is a very good point that, as far as I know, Popper glosses over. An interesting, strong, universal theory should provide a rational explanation for all the phenomena it is designed to address. Or, to twist it another way: what would classical psychoanalytic theory be worth, if it could only explain why the man drowns the child, but not why he rescues her?
However, please understand that I am extremely allergic to reductive, socio-biological explanations of complex behaviors. Beyond a certain level of complexity, I don’t think we need evolutionary theory to explain such behaviors, as other factors kick to influence them as well (such as memory and an ability to learn from experience, for example).
Alas, neither of your examples grab me much. However, having thought about this a bit more during our discussion, one of your previous examples just jumped out at me: the prediction that “Bacteria kept in an antiobiotic-rich medium will evolve resistance.” Here we have a mechanism – natural selection – that forms a theory; we derive a bold observation statement from it; and this statement, in its turn, can be tested and falsified.
That’s quite good, actually.
Here are a few quotes from Popper on this issue:
Voyager:
I’ll be back to deal with you later, pal.
I’m not trying to drag this out much longer, and I really appreciate your insight on this Ben. I taken it though, that Behe gives a lot of “talks”, I suppose I could hope that all of them are done in front of knowledgeable skeptical crowds, but I doubt this is the case-which is a shame.
I’m just curious, but why was he invited to talk at your school? I’m not an expert on Behe, by an means, but I don’t see what students would get out of his talks, especially since he’s being evasive.
I guess he stopped by your school as sort of a promotional circuit?
In any event, on with the scheduled debate 
Thanks Ben, you’ve been helpful.
Voyager:
Hey pal – what are you trying to say?
(Okay, okay. Point taken.)
Ahem.
You are correct.
By way of an excuse, I can only proffer the following: the late hour of my posting, in combination with 1) the imbibement of perhaps a wee bit too much red wine, and 2) the amorous beckonings of my beloved one, caused a brief short-circuit in my otherwise impeccable critical facilities, not unlike the power outage you folks recently experienced in the New York area. My apologies.
Still, Voyager, in all honesty, I cannot make heads or tails out of your summary. The message is garbled; have you perhaps drifted too far into space?
I say again: you are conflating two entirely different observational predictions derived from Einstein’s theories, and two entirely different attempts to confirm/falsify it.
First, however, another retraction: you are also correct, apparently, when you claim that it was Einstein who came up with the idea that his theory could account for the glitch in Mercury’s orbit. I didn’t know that. The little known astrophysicist I was referring to was none other than Freundlich, also mentioned in your cite. I can perhaps be forgiven this particular mistake, however, since it was indeed Freundlich who first published the astronomical confirmation. I assumed that, because Freundlich was the author of the paper, he was also the author of the original idea. But you know what they say: when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. My bad.
I also think I now see what’s tripping you up: your cite is an almost incoherent gobble of dates and facts. It states, for example, that Einstein originally discovered the significance of Mercury’s glitch on November 18 – but includes no year. The last year referenced in the text before that is 1915 (also November). It goes on to state that Freundlich published his paper in 1913, two years prior to Einstein’s discovery…. But actually, if we read it right, I think we can put the entire sequence together properly. In 1911, Einstein and Freundlich began working to see if general relativity could be applied to solve the problem of Mercury’s orbit. In 1913, Freundlich published a paper that confirmed that the perihelional advance of the orbit was 43 minutes per century. Two years later, in 1915, Einstein published a paper that explained this advance in terms of relativity, without reference to extra moons, etc. In that same paper, if your cite is to be believed, Einstein also modified his earlier calculation of the effect of gravitation on the trajectory of light, realizing that he had overestimated it by a factor of 2. There are still some problems with the dating, however, unless Einstein publishes his papers on the exact same day he makes his discoveries: the cite claims that Einstein’s paper was also publish on November 18, the same day the light bulb supposedly went off.
Now let’s see if I can disentangle this.
Not exactly correct. The orbital specifics were actually confirmed in 1913, prior to the publication of Einstein’s explanation of them in terms of General Relativity, which was published in 1915. By that point, the glitch in Mercury’s orbit was known and accepted; there was no need for independent verification of that glitch in 1919. Why, pray tell, do you think they would need to send out two expeditions to measure the orbit of Mercury? And further: in what way is the glitch in Mercury’s orbit related to observations of light bending around a large mass?
You mean they needed to observe Mercury during an eclipse? Then why were they looking at stars?
Look: although the two “predictions” may be linked because Einstein refers to them in the same paper, they are still separate observations, unrelated to each other except by virtue of the fact they are both derivatives of relativity theory. The glitch in Mercury was known before 1915 – it was in fact known at least as far back as 1859 – and did not require “independent” confirmation. Eddington’s famous expeditions involved observing the displacement of stars around the solar disc during an eclipse, and had nothing at all to do with Mercury’s orbit. If you agree with this paragraph, then we can let the issue rest.
One last reply, first, though:
No, I don’t, and yes, the possibility exists that my claim is wrong. But I doubt it. It’s something of a truism that the scientific community fell in love with Einstein’s theories pretty much at first sight. As your own reference puts it:
This “well-received article” predates the Eddington expedition by 3 years.
On this, at least, we are in complete agreement.