Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

So the funny thing is that Behe even pointed out during the cross examination that some of the math necessary to make the argument ludicrous is in the Behe and Snoke paper. He specifically noted that calculations were also done for the entire annual prokaryotic population of the earth. Based on the math presented there, it appears that this sort of mutation combination could arise about 10^14 times a year, or something like 100 trillion times a year. Really "nail in the coffin" sort of stuff, that.

The Intelligent Designer must be a pretty busy fellow, then, just keeping up with bacteria.

I don't think even Santa Claus moves that fast.

This just cries out for some non-banned person to post on Dembski's site with a question as to the correctness of the math ;-)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

What. A. Maroon. Sheesh. Best argument against tenure I've ever seen. My sympathy goes out to the real biologists at Lehigh who are stuck with this terminally embarrassing colleague.

I know of a number of cases when a tenured professor was kicked out for some transgressions. In one case a middle-aged professor was accused by a few female students of "ogling" them in a swimming pool. Behe's behavior is, to my mind, immensely more obscene and harmful. His colleagues at Lehigh will surely not touch him, as they are too busy with real research to spend energy on getting rid of a rotten apple.

Just because they said he was staring at them?! That sounds like the straw that broke the camel's back. There must have been a lot of other things he'd done that they were all just itching to get him for something.

If elephants reproduce, on average, every four or five years, is that one new sulfide bond in, what, 100,000 years? And so why don't bacteria become some other species right before our eyes?

If elephants reproduce, on average, every four or five years, is that one new sulfide bond in, what, 100,000 years? And so why don't bacteria become some other species right before our eyes?

If elephants reproduce, on average, every four or five years

It has been calculated that the normal human houses about 10^12 bacteria on the skin, 10^10 in the mouth, and 10^14 in the gastrointestinal tract. The latter number is far in excess of the number of eukaryotic cells in all organs which comprise the human host.

Indeed, if you calculate the numbers, Behe's paper implies that this particular irreducibly complex structure probably evolves naturally more than once a day on Planet Earth.

Great Job, Behe! Really destroyed Darwin there.

This just cries out for some non-banned person to post on Dembski's site with a question as to the correctness of the math ;-)

I'm not banned. I post under the name "higgity."

I'd post but I am no good at math....still, just reading this article I can see major flaws in Behe's approach....if a poet can do it, why can't a friggin' creationist?

Great post.

Put in one more thing for this nice debunking of Behe: He is trying to simulate the evolution of a disulfide bond. In addition to Behe's absurdly small bacterial populution, ignoring all forms genetic change besides point mutation, and looking at short period of time, I would question Behe on another crucial and often missed point. what reason is there that bacterial could not have evolved something else besides a disulfide bond? Maybe they could have evolved a different form of chemistry. There are many ways to evolve something "better." To calculate the odds of only one particular solution is just plain silly. (And on a similiar note, how can one figure out every possible way that life use chemistry to form disulfide bonds?)

Here's a question for Blast.

My cat and I are sitting on the back deck enjoying the sunset. Golden rays and all that stuff. We both spot a mockingbird on the hedge showing his stuff.

The question is this:

Who has been evolving longer, me or my cat?

It should be an easy question for Blast to answer.

Now, the Bonus Question has to do with the bacteria on the soles of my flip-flops and the pads of my cat's feet. Again, which has been evolving longer?

Over to you Blastgenius.

Behe's question wasn't even interesting! I mean, it just looks like the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Not exactly news.

Exactly, Mike H.

Over on the post at "Dispatches" he summarizes Behe as confirming his work to say, among other things, that it would take just 20,000 years for a "necessary" mutation IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil.

So, if I did the math right, that would be the population of bacteria in three 1000ths of an ounce of soil. Isn't that way less than a single grain of sand, or so?

This is hilarious.

But, Mike H. (who correctly surmises that most of New Mexico is a placeholder for American territory and a substrate for gas stations)!

Your argument opens the way for Behe to make an "Earthquake" move! The cytosol is typically a reducing environment. Taking this into account (with some number that is accurate in some particular case, neglecting whether it is valid given the evidence that disulfide bonds DO form in the cytosol), one might arrive at the conclusion that the evolution of a disulfide bond is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! This evidence would invalidate Behe's study, but it would also be another way to cast doubt on biological evolution, which, of course, is Behe's purpose.

(paraphrase) "now that this is out there in the literature, I'd expect to see more than just a web-blog (which isn't peer-reviewed and whose contributors are not real scientists) respond to this. But, that hasn't happened. Where are the rebuttals?"

When will someone point out that Behe's "unselected steps" are imaginary? He has to asusme that any point mutation until a new binding site is formed cannot be selected for for any other option, but can only operate to build toward the unrealized disulfide binding site. This is a MAJOR flaw in his reasoning, and for the whole paper, that adds to the long litany of improbabilities to make IC work.

Jaime,

Are you suggesting that he assumed his own concept of irreducible complexity for the purpose of demonstrating the existence of irreducible complexity, and in so doing disproved the existence of irreducible complexity in this case?

Hmmm....

He had to assume that to disprove evolution and use successive point mutations, only the end result is valid for there to be a Crea---er, Designer. Thus, only the end result can be true and the Designer's "hand" seen in the successive point mutations which "don't work." Thus, IC is TRUE! Indeed, he's not shown how these successive steps are NOT selectable, but how to test that? Hmmm. We've already seen gradation in cellular secretion systems into flagella and how intermediate models are not only found in nature, but WORKING, and doing things unexpected of non-flagellar "reduced" secretion systems. And, not only is it possible to make a two-legged stool, you can make a ONE-legged stool work just as well. Selection, to make these work, would only have to alter the shapes of the legs, so a two legged stool can be acheived by warping the legs to support the center of gravity, and a one legged stool need only increase the leg's "girth" to prevent distortion under pressure; since we see both of these in place, by simple logical exaptation, why can we not see it in pre-existing forms today, and inferring their nature in the unseen past? This is why Behe is a fatuo--- is wrong.

But, Mike H. (who correctly surmises that most of New Mexico is a placeholder for American territory and a substrate for gas stations)!

— Dave Cerutt

This issue illustrates the importance of numeracy for scientific literacy. It is amazing what rough calculation can do to inform us about the world.

(Also, happy mole day everyone.)

No you blooming idiots, your math is wrong. The reslut is just the opposite. Behe is proving that bacteria "evolve" a new trait every trillion years or so.

Because I doubt Aristotle is your real name, I decided to use the name Democritus. I hope you can taste the irony. Anyway, would you like to prove your argument, for this isn't a Greek congregation your talking to, were your influence proves whether you're right or wrong. This is modern day science we are talking about. Your answer must be backed up by evidence, or is that too hard to conceive? Besides, you spelled result wrong.

Your math is wrong because God is not on your side. Your sacreligious acts must stop, you are impedeing the rights of others. Chew on that Democritus.

How can you reason like that? "Your math is wrong because God is not on your side"? May I ask how old you are? Or are you some stupid kid without understanding of scientific process? Your arguments have no support, baseless. This style of debate is all too common with creationists like you. Again, how can you reason like that? You are just another example of why we should not teach ID in schools. I hope someone bans you from this site.

I enjoyed the exchange, myself. Behe made as many demonstrably false assumptions as he could find, to stack the deck in his favor as much as possible, and irreducible complexity STILL failed miserably. I trust the judge saw the moral of this story: religious imposition on science fails even when they cheat!

I'm not banned. I post under the name "higgity."

— Jeremy

Sorry, four.

I've just nominated Behe and Mr. Rothschild (the plaintiffs' lawyer) for an IgNobel for this. Although I'm guessing only one of them would turn up to the ceremony.

Bob

It's a new result in Quantum Mechanics. A system can be Irreducibly Complex, and not Irreducibly Complex, at the same time.

|psi> = 1/(Sqrt[2])*(|IC> + |notIC>)

Strangely enough the Bhudda said that
"something can be true and false at the same time"
I guess he was thinking of Quantum Mechanics
or maybe about the delivery of a pzza:>

Oh, sorry Mike. That's what many people some to think about New Mexico. When you said you've flown over it, I mistakenly inferred that opinion. It is largely correct, though.

Now, the Bonus Question has to do with the bacteria on the soles of my flip-flops and the pads of my cat's feet. Again, which has been evolving longer? Over to you Blastgenius.

— Bill

If elephants reproduce, on average, every four or five years...

— RDLenny Flank

Well, I see that Blast knows as much about elephants as he does about ... well . . everything else. (snicker) (giggle)

You know Blast, given your beliefs, you should go into biology immediately. If 99% of the biologists in the world are committed to a totally unworkable idea, it will eventually collapse. And if you are so smart that without formal training in evolutionary biology, you can see through it, you are capable of leading the charge. You could really make a name for yourself by being at the forefront of a revolution which overturns 140 years of biology.

er, since Blast is so dense, perhaps you should point out that it wasn't the actual birth interval of elephants that lenny was commenting on, rather that Blast's conclusion using that statistic was so far out as to be considered "blithering"

that clearer for ya, there, blasty?

It will be a glorious world after the ID revolution. Dembski will be professor at Harvard, Paul Nelson will head up CalTech's bio department. Charlie Wagner will have an office at MIT.

Any day now.

that clearer for ya, there, blasty?

— Sir Toejam

heee-hawwww

you do bring out the worst in me, but i doubt many blame me.

I'm sure lenny will speak for himself, if he cares to. sorry for trying to point out the obvious to you yet again.

please, feel free to chew on your own appendages ad-infinitum

And if you are so smart that without formal training in evolutionary biology, you can see through it, you are capable of leading the charge. You could really make a name for yourself by being at the forefront of a revolution which overturns 140 years of biology.

— Steve S

still don't want to prove to us you even know basic biology, eh blast?

my challenge to you still stands.

how would lenny put it?

put up or shut up.

"Every second that ticks by, every experiment that is conducted, gets us closer to the day that Darwinism will be seen for the dead weight that it is."

I'm not sure if you actually believe this Blast, or are just trying to appear confident since nobody here agrees with you, but I can promise you this isn't the case. Nobody is producing any experimental results that significantly challenge modern evolutionary theory. I suppose I can't speak for the whole universe of science on this matter, but as recently as this June, at the American Society of Microbiology annual meeting in Atlanta, where 20,000 microbiologists come to present and discuss their findings, there was substantial work that both utilized and buttressed evolutionary theory, and absolutely none that did the opposite.

The DI and other ID groups like to tell the lay public about an upcoming scientific revolution that is brewing under the surface, but it just isn't happening. That isn't a debatable subjective analysis, it's a fact. We continue to conduct our research with the precepts of evolutionary theory in mind, and we continue to make observations that correlate with, elucidate and support those precepts. Behe's paper, a computer model with absurd assumptions, is a joke. And that's the closest the DI even has to a real research paper. They have nothing, which is why scientists alternately laugh, cry, or respond with consternation at ID. It's insubstantial and unsubstantiated simultaneously. I hope that helps Blast, have a nice evening.

Lenny, again, you don't know what you're talking about.

It's not necessary, Steve. Every second that ticks by, every experiment that is conducted, gets us closer to the day that Darwinism will be seen for the dead weight that it is.

And by the way, is the only argumentation you're capable of on this blog nothing but ad hominem's?

If elephants reproduce, on average, every four or five years, is that one new sulfide bond in, what, 100,000 years? And so why don't bacteria become some other species right before our eyes?

— BlastfromthePast

Well, Bill, I can see you're a real genius. If the bacteria on the soles of your bacteria is still bacteria, then obviously it hasn't been evolving, has it. And as for you and the cat, if you keep talking, I think I'll pick the cat.

Lenny,
Re "If *I* "don't know what I am talking about", and I am TEAHCING YOU, what does that say for YOU, Blast ... . ?"

But how much confidence in the teacher do we get from the observed result? ;)

---

W. Kevin Vicklund,
Re "Where on that list do you think bacteria as a classification fall?"

I thought bacteria was ranked as a "domain" - the one above kingdom.

Henry

And by the way, is the only argumentation you're capable of on this blog nothing but ad hominem's?

Lenny, Re "If *I* "don't know what I am talking about", and I am TEAHCING YOU, what does that say for YOU, Blast ... . ?"

But how much confidence in the teacher do we get from the observed result? ;)

In some classification systems, domain has been adopted, but in others, it hasn't (and in domain systems, it's often prokaryote as domain, bacteria as kingdom). I was going for real basic concepts here to avoid confusing the poor guy.

Regardless, the point is, bacteria are classified at or near the broadest ranking short of life itself. "If animals are still animals, then obviously they aren't evolving" is the equivalent to the argument Blast tries to use.

http://www.spiritplumber.com/change_over_time.html This is all I have to say about it. Hope Behe(n) won't sue me.... :)

No Blast, we can also point out things like "snake venoms don't supoport your frontloading crap".

— RDLenny Flank

The answer to the last question in your first quote is that we are seeing bacteria become new species right before your eyes.

— W. Kevin Vicklund

The answer to the last question in your first quote is that we are seeing bacteria become new species right before your eyes.

— W. Kevin Vicklund

You still don't understand the argument I was making

to paraphrase a movie villain: "Why do you persist, Mr. Anderson?"

No Blast, we can also point out things like "snake venoms don't supoport your frontloading crap".

You did no such thing.

You still don't understand the argument I was making.

And Lenny, there isn't a thing you HAVE taught me

The remarks in response to my postings here are so pathetic and inept, it staggers the mind. What's the average IQ here? 100?

Are you an expert in bacteria?

So I wouldn't be so smug.

And I wouldn't call bacteria X changing to become bacteria Y evolution. I'd call it "change."

From what I understand about disulfide bonds, they are largely there for structural reasons, except in cases where they are involved in some kind of electron shuttling reaction in enzymes. Disulfides often act as tielines between two different parts of a protein, holding it in a configuration that it might not take on otherwise.

I think a major flaw in Behe's paper is that he appeared to have assumed a static model of a protein and waited for random point mutations to place two cysteine residues close enough to each other to form a disulfide bond. Nature simply doesn't work that way. To form a disulfide bond, all you need in a protein is two sulfur containing amino acids that, sometime during the course of protein folding, come close enough to each other under the right conditions to form a disulfide bond. Proteins aren't ready made in the forms that we typically see them in when we study them. They're extruded like spaghetti from the ribosome, after which they fold.

Simulating this folding process is well beyond the scope of what science can do today, and not taking it into account in a simulation of protein evolution is either insultingly deceptive or just plain ignorant.

That's correct. And there are other problems with Behe's model. And someone here calculated that even with Behe's model, that particular "Irreducibly Complex" structure would evolve naturally more than once a day.

In short, Michael Behe's starting to look like the Homer Simpson of Biology

Homer Behe: Irreducibly Complex things can't evolve.
Everyone: Look! Even your paper says they'd evolve all the time!
Homer Behe: Yep. Can't evolve. (stares off into space, satisfied)

There is a site with lots of information about the theory of evolution and more. Most of the posters will know about it but here it goes again;
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
Disclaimer: I am not related to this site at all, just found out about it recently.
There are sections with comments/critics on the books published (if you can count those books as honest publications) Behe, Denton, et al.

The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

Even his own "masterpiece", Darwin's Black Box, shows that his vauted IC is not a generally valid concept of falsificator of natural selection or neo-Darwinism, but that it applies in specific cases. However, he did not bother to address all other cases that are explainable by Darwinism. How is that for scientific honesty? No wonder the monicker Home Behe (thansk Steve S)applies so well in this case.

If elephants reproduce, on average, every four or five years, is that one new sulfide bond in, what, 100,000 years?

Females give birth at intervals of about every 5 years.

Females (cows) reach sexual maturity at around 9-12 years of age and become pregnant for the first time, on average, around age 13.

An elephant's gestation period lasts about 22 months (630-660 days), the longest gestation period of any mammal, after which one calf typically is born.

Although males (bulls) reach sexual maturity around age 10, they often do not breed until they are about 30 when they become large and strong enough to compete successfully with other large bulls for the attention of females.

At the risk of sounding "smug", and perhaps damaging my brain by attempting to extend myself into Blast's, I'll try to make Blast's irrational argument for him, since he seems unable to speak clearly for himself. aside from the corrections in Blast's "knowledge" of elephant generation times, I think it misses his "point" (note I'm just guessing here), that er, longer generation times mean slower evolution (to the point where by his estimation, you would never get sufficient mutation in a species with long generation times to ever see branching).

assuming this is actually his position, it would have been wise of him to ask a few questions, like:

Are Behe's estimates of sulfide bond evolution in any way realistic when placed in the context of an actual cell?

A: no

Is Behe's argument of sulfide bond creation even in any way applicable to organisms like elephants?

A: no

Assuming again the point in blast's mind being that animals with long generation times simply wouldn't show rapid enough mutations in order to "evolve"....

How much phenotypic change can occur from minor changes in genomic structure?

A: quite a bit, depending (remember those HOX genes?)
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0207021.htm

Wouldn't large changes be inherently lethal?

A: not necessarily (see above)

Once we get a random mutation, wouldn't random selection take too long to cause branching based on that?

two part answer:

-selection itself is far from random (this is the part where you need to understand what selection agents are - check the www.talkorigins.org site)
-the relative strength of the selective agents working on the particular phenotypic change in question determine how fast the process proceeds. Branching can theoretically happen quite rapidly (and has actually been demonstrated to so in the field and in the lab many times)

and finally:

What is a species, then?

A: now that is a more interesting question, and one I'm sure blast would answer as: there are no species, hence his inability to see bacteria "evolving before his eyes into new species". However, he does understand that mutation and selection produce CHANGE, so at least he is on the right tack, if not understanding that extending that process is what basically produces all variability on earth, regardless of how one defines "species" or any form of taxonomic heirarchy, for that matter.

Blast keeps touching on concepts and examples that actually are great cases in point supporting evolutionary theory (Hox genes, co-evolution, parrallel evolution, convergence, etc.), but he refuses to use his eyes to see, and instead appears to use his "gut" to try to intepret what he reads.

The problem with that approach is that one's intuition is entirely based on what experiences and knowledge one has previously ammased. To those of us who have spent years studying and actually utilizing evolutionary theory in the lab and in the field, have seen the results, and have had our experiments shredded and reconstructed via peer review more times than we care to remember (for most of us :) ), out intuition is in complete agreement with evolutionary theory. It makes absolutely perfect sense to us, and fits with all the basic information gained from studying the pre-requisite biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc. However, if one has not really had exposure to these things, ones "intuition" would be entirely based on whatever experience comes to hand. if most of that experience is based on very religious parents and peers, with a decided lack of proper education in the sciences, then yeah, i could easily imagine that evolutionary theory might not look "intuitive".

This is why i recommended to Blast (and others who view evolutionary theory as "non-intuitive" to spend some time learning about the basic science behind it first; in order to at least have sufficient knowledge, if not personal experience, to provide a substrate for one's "intuition" to work from.

very few modern scientific theories would be viewed as "intuitive" out of the context of the basis for their development to begin with.

hence, that's why the idea of a flat earth, and a geocentric universe hung on for so long. Without knowledge of galileo's work, or conpernicus, or any of the others, what do you think your intuition would tell you about whether the earth is flat or round?

this is the LAST time i will bother with this Blast, so I hope at least some of this sinks in.

,quote author="Blast">And I wouldn't call bacteria X changing to become bacteria Y evolution.

And thus you show your total ignorance of what evolution itself is, Blast.

Refer again to the simple classification scheme I gave you above. At what point would you accept evolution? It appears to me that you will only accept evolution on the kingdom level, if that. In reality I'm pretty sure you would deny any evolution even if you personally witnessed it.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything in biology, Blast. In fact, my formal education ended in 9th grade Biology. But my continuing self-education is obviously much better than any education you have had on the subject.

Very Generous Toe
OK now explain why Behe's intuition let him down

Toejam said what I had to say, but much better, so I'll not bother retyping.

The harvest of elephants, both legal and illegal, has had some unexpected consequences on elephant anatomy as well. African ivory hunters, by killing only tusked elephants, have given a much larger chance of mating to elephants with small tusks or no tusks at all. The propagation of the absent-tusk gene has resulted in the birth of large numbers of tuskless elephants, now approaching 30% in some populations (compare with a rate of about 1% in 1930). Tusklessness, once a very rare genetic abnormality, has become a widespread hereditary trait. It is possible, if unlikely, that continued selection pressure could bring about a complete absence of tusks in African elephants, a development normally requiring thousands of years of evolution. The effect of tuskless elephants on the environment, and on the elephants themselves, could be dramatic. Elephants use their tusks to root around in the ground for necessary minerals, tear apart vegetation, and spar with one another for mating rights. Without tusks, elephant behavior could change dramatically.

OK now explain why Behe's intuition let him down

The propagation of the absent-tusk gene has resulted in the birth of large numbers of tuskless elephants, now approaching 30% in some populations

Blast's thinking of evolutionary theory as non-intuitive gets me thinking even more on that topic...

I often see the phrase : "you can't make an elephant from a mouse" (or similar).

Now if we consider most extant species on the earth, this is probably true, at least based on current technologies.

However, the problem with this (and with the ape/man anti-evolution arguments) is that extant genera/families don't evolve into one another. We rather look at relationships and branching in the PAST, not in the present, in order to trace linneages via evolution.

true, a mouse never became an elephant, but at some point in the very distant past, they did share a common ancestor. branching away from that common ancestor, with very different selection pressures, and a whole lot of time, gives you elephants and mice.

I'm sure blast wonders why we haven't changed a bacteria into a fly or somesuch, but the problem is similar; you need to actually start with a precusor to both, in order to get both. the mere fact that we can't change a bacteria into a fly is an argument AGAINST the front loading hypothesis. However, we have changed bacteria (and flies) sufficiently much that they can be classified (using current definitions) as different species... if we continued ad infinitum to provide specific selection pressures that acted on any new mutations that arose, eventually we would get something far enough away from the orginal bacteria/fly to be called a new genus, by our current classification systems. would that new genus be still a fly? sure. however, if you keep extending the process over and over, continually selecting for things that are, er, "non-fly", eventually you would create something that would qualify by definition as a new family, and eventually to something that would be distinctly a "not-fly". However, with our current level of knowledge regarding genetics, protein synthesis, and how selection pressures operate, it would be fortuitous indeed for this to occur in any time period short of geological in scale (even with organisms with rapid generation times, let alone ones that don't). As a short list, we would need to know exactly what to select for in order to maximize "non-flyness" (perfect knowledge of protein synthesis pathways and which are heritable), as well as what selection mechanisms would be most efficient in maintaining and promoting continuing "non-flyness".

I don't think our understanding is quite there yet. Maybe in a few more decades, Blast will, in fact, see a fly change into something that could legitimately be called a "not-fly", as we gain more knowledge of how genetics, protein translation, and selective pressures work.

However, just because normally it would take millions or billions of generations of independent populations of a species of fly to evolve into a "not-fly" given varying selection pressures and mutation pressures in natural populations, doesn't mean that it isn't plausible.

If someone can understand that:

- a small genotypic change (Hox gene, for example) can produce a quite large and non-lethal phenotypic change, they might not be so quick to think there are so many "missing links" out there

and once they can grasp that, that:

it takes time and many generations for even large phenotypic changes to be selected in specific directions to create what would be classified as different "species" (and that this has been done in the lab, many times), and that from there it would take orders of magnitude longer to produce something so different as to be classified as a new "genus", etc.

then maybe it might seem to be more intuitive?

However, if an individual makes a conscious decision to block out this kind of information, how could they EVER come to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is intuitive?

maybe 150 years of education is not enough time yet for the majority of americans to accept the idea as intuitive yet.

How long did it take the "round earth" idea to become "intuitive" to the majority of people in the world?

The harvest of elephants, both legal and illegal, has had some unexpected consequences on elephant anatomy as well. African ivory hunters, by killing only tusked elephants, have given a much larger chance of mating to elephants with small tusks or no tusks at all. The propagation of the absent-tusk gene has resulted in the birth of large numbers of tuskless elephants, now approaching 30% in some populations (compare with a rate of about 1% in 1930). Tusklessness, once a very rare genetic abnormality, has become a widespread hereditary trait. It is possible, if unlikely, that continued selection pressure could bring about a complete absence of tusks in African elephants, a development normally requiring thousands of years of evolution. The effect of tuskless elephants on the environment, and on the elephants themselves, could be dramatic. Elephants use their tusks to root around in the ground for necessary minerals, tear apart vegetation, and spar with one another for mating rights. Without tusks, elephant behavior could change dramatically.

Lenny:

there is a species of rattlesnake on Santa Catalina Island in the Gulf of CA that has lost its rattle:

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/herps/crot-cat.html

so, there is definetly a case of rattle-less rattlesnakes already extant to compare to, and not surprising considering there would likely have been very few reasons for rattlesnakes to actually have rattles on a relatively small island.

I note that there are studies of subspecies of rattlers on other islands, that suggest they have become far less agressive than their mainland counterparts, among other things:

http://www.catalinaconservancy.org/ecology/research/ashton.cfm

there is a species of rattlesnake on Santa Catalina Island in the Gulf of CA that has lost its rattle:

as to (1);

speaking of the other Catalina island (the one off of CA), there is a subspecies of western pac. rattlesnake there that has some modified behavior (among other things - check the second link i posted).

However, funny enough, bison were introduced to the island for a film project in the 20's (i think), and have since established a fair population on the island.

How great of an experimental setup is that to test the idea that rattles evolve in response to large herbivores, eh?

oh and there was another theory i recall about rattle evolution relating to a warning to potential predators similar to aposematic coloration in wasps. Not sure i buy that one though, as many of the rattlers' predators appear to be avian or ambush predators which the rattler would be unaware of to begin rattling to begin with.

i guess it depends on what the most prevalent type of predatory selection pressure is.

any idea on that?

damn, it's been a long time since i read any of Harry Green's stuff on rattlesnakes, i probably should refresh my memory.

oh and there was another theory i recall about rattle evolution relating to a warning to potential predators similar to aposematic coloration in wasps. Not sure i buy that one though, as many of the rattlers' predators appear to be avian or ambush predators which the rattler would be unaware of to begin rattling to begin with. i guess it depends on what the most prevalent type of predatory selection pressure is. any idea on that?

In response to attacks on evolutionary thinking by IDists, I prefer not to stick to rebuttals, even when they are clearly devastating. I prefer to cut their legs out from under them by revealing the inanity of their proposed 'solution':

ID argument:
1.1) Observation: Whoa, this bio-widget sure is complex! how could it originate without a designer? I can't see how.
1.2) Conclusion: There must be a designer. QED.

NOTE, however, that the designer must be more complex than the creation (especially if the designer is responsible for creating the entire universe, AND all creatures in it AND monitoring and (rewarding or punishing) these creatures as necessary. Therefore, the proposed designer is FAR MORE complex than the bio-widget. How is this a 'solution' to the observation of complexity??

Furthermore, we are left pondering the question of the origin of the creator.

phase 2:

2.1) Observation: Whoa, this designer sure is complex! how could it originate without a designer-designer? I can't see how.
2.2) Conclusion: There must be a designer-designer. QED.
2.3) go to 2.1 (interpolate 1 'designer-' prefix where necessary at each iteration).

[Get away from your CPU before it blows!]

ID is not only scientifically vacuous, it's philosophically vacuous.

I'd dearly love to invoke the woo-hoo bird who flies around and around in ever-smaller circles until it flies up its own ass and disappears, but unfortunately the circles are widening. sigh.

1.1) Observation: Whoa, this bio-widget sure is complex! how could it originate without a designer? I can't see how. 1.2) Conclusion: There must be a designer. QED.

— djlactin

no, blast, your hallucinating, not imagining.

your poor little mind has long lost the ability to imagine, or think rationally, for that matter.

you are reduced to screaming in the corner while the real world closes in on you.

how's that feel?

Darwin, in saying such, was doing something Blast, and most IDiots seem incapable of:

realizing the limitations of their own current knowledge, while at the same time understanding that with sound scientific principles at your back, eventually such mysteries will be solved.

the eye being a wonderful case in point.

I bet Darwin would be ecstatic to see how far we've come in 150 years, while IDiots keep forgetting all progress made since we discovered the world wasn't flat.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml

What's much better is Darwin's take on this: "I can't imagine how the eye evolved little bit by little bit---it staggers my imagination. But the problem is simply that I'm not imaginative enough."

— Blast

I would be interested why critical thinking is so poorly developed in the ID population.
It is almost as though a part of the brain refuses to function.
I've observed while growing up that some of my fellow apes only learn enough to get food and switch on the TV without being able to perform the most basic abstract mental logic tasks for cause and effect, the more advanced ones seem to go into PR.
Another poorly developed sense seems to be basic morality
certain people who I won't mention seem to make statements that are so self deprecating it is starting to make me wonder if the two are connected.

they might be:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

I didn't complete the above statement..in a nutshell I was wondering if

Poorly developed critical thinking was linked with poorly developed moral reasoning.

Moral reasoning is near to altruism or trust by my reasoning anyway.

There is some some science being done on this
game theory and measuring trust with brain scans

This may be a clue

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7384106/

I would be interested why critical thinking is so poorly developed in the ID population. It is almost as though a part of the brain refuses to function.

Our legal code is based on the 10 commandments and they're pretty good (don't lie, don't kill, don't steal, don't "do" married (wo)men. etc.)

What's much better is Darwin's take on this: "I can't imagine how the eye evolved little bit by little bit---it staggers my imagination. But the problem is simply that I'm not imaginative enough."

Darwin didn't say "beats me, I must be a dumbass" like Blast implies. Darwin said "this may initially sound preposterous, UNTIL we notice that it is a solid mainstream result of the evolutionary process." But of course, misrepresentation without attribution is the hallmark of the ID creationist.

I'm always amused by the notion that American legal precepts are Christian in some sense. Maybe some people claim this because it's what they were taught in religious schools, while others learn the Christian requirements and prohibitions first, and later find some of them embedded in the laws and conclude the religion must have come first. But the functional equivalent of the golden rule is found in every culture anthropologists have ever studied. It could probably be argued that a society is an emergent property of following the golden rule.

@djlactin:

Your reasoning sounds right on the mark to me.

Moroever, I think our society in general reinforces the "argument from authority" position every day. I think a brief glance at just a few common TV advertisments would do justice to that opinion.

"Authority" sells as well as sex.

This generally works on a young child, but even as a seven-year-old I was able to see the hollowness of the threat.

A tangent, I know. But... The 10 Commandments v. U.S. law.

1. No God but the Hebrew God
That rule is explicitly forbidden by our Constitution which says we can worship under any religion we want, or not.
2. No graven images
Obviously it's not only completely legal in this country, it's even ignored by most Christian churches.
3. Don't take the Lord's name in vain
It is not illegal in our nation to suffix a statment with the term "by God" or any similar oath.
4. Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy, don't do work that day...
Almost universally ignored by U.S. law. Almost universally ignored by Christian churchgoers.
5. Honor your mother and father.
It is not U.S. law to obey or honor your parents in all respects. Indeed, the commandment makes no exceptions for parents who are cruel to their children. Government services in fact remove children from their parents on occassion.
6. Don't murder.
Good rule. Actually is law. Although, hardly exclusive to the 10 commandments. Of course, is it too much to point out that our government military programs do in fact train people how to skillfully murder other people?
7. Don't commit adultery.
Another perfectly fine rule. Although, it is one that no longer carries much weight as criminal law in our country.
8. Don't steal
Fair enough. One of the few that is actually a law in this country.
9. Don't bear false witness.
No lying. In court, this is law. In the public sector - ehh - half points.
10. No coveting.
One might say that greed, in the corporate free enterprise system, is an American way of life. At the very least, there is no law against simply thinking you want something someone else has.

So, out of 10 commandments, only 3 are actual law and those are common in most societies throughout history. A couple others like adultery, and "keeping the sabbath" have had some laws supporting them in the past but are nearly defunct today. Additionally, the biggest commandment of this Hebrew code - worshipping no other god but that of the Hebrews - is explicitly rejected by our founding Bill of Rights.

The concept that American law is based on the 10 commandments seems a bit feeble to me.

djlactin
As you see Religion is not just a moral law, you are on the right track though it is NOT science.
Religion does contain many useful "truths,revelations,insights,understandings" of its own vis a vis man's understanding of man. Where it falls down is in mans understanding of nature which some some people seem to think Gen.1 and Gen. 2 (the imagined collective Jewish history which for a few misguided people IS religion) are the sole authority.

wow, you Darwinians are just as bad as most fanatical Christian Creationists; you instantly jump on the opportunity to blow something completely out of context.

1. the fact that mutations occur on an already existing system doesn't mean anything. the real question here is, "How did such a system come to exist in the first place?"
2. the number of microscopic organisms we are dealing with here is completely irrelevant. 10^14 or 100, it will still take 20,000 years for this mutation to take place. yes, this doesn't change the fact that these kinds of mutations are probably happening on a daily basis on an exponential level, and yes, 20,000 years is a relatively short amount of time...however, that's not the issue here.
3. the point Behe is trying to make here is that if such a system takes 20,000 years to variate once, then how did such a system come to be in the first place? the level of complexity on which this system operates makes it very hard for it to have come into being through the step-by-step processes of natural selection.

basically, this article does not disprove Irreducible Complexity, nor does it have anything to do with Irreducible Complexity in the first place. this cross examination was the equivalent of trying to disprove the law of gravity by bringing in arguments from music theory...completely irrelevant and not applicable.

I'm sure the prosecuting attorney finished his last "witty" remark, swiftly turned around, and walked back to his seat thinking "wow, I'm so smart!" while Behe was laughing in the witness chair thinking, "wow, this has nothing to do with anything at all!"

in short, this is no different than Creationists crying that radioactive dating is inaccurate...

the point Behe is trying to make here is that if such a system takes 20,000 years to variate once, then how did such a system come to be in the first place?

wow, you Darwinians

1. the fact that mutations occur on an already existing system doesn't mean anything. the real question here is, "How did such a system come to exist in the first place?"

2. the number of microscopic organisms we are dealing with here is completely irrelevant. 10^14 or 100, it will still take 20,000 years for this mutation to take place.

yes, this doesn't change the fact that these kinds of mutations are probably happening on a daily basis on an exponential level, and yes, 20,000 years is a relatively short amount of time...however, that's not the issue here.

3. the point Behe is trying to make here is that if such a system takes 20,000 years to variate once

then how did such a system come to be in the first place? the level of complexity on which this system operates makes it very hard for it to have come into being through the step-by-step processes of natural selection.

basically, this article does not disprove Irreducible Complexity, nor does it have anything to do with Irreducible Complexity in the first place.

The concept that American law is based on the 10 commandments seems a bit feeble to me.

why bother with your complete analysis, Flint? I'm sure the poster not only isn't listening (I picture him with his hands over his ears, screaming at the top of his lungs - er, methaphorically), he never had any intention of actually understanding the arguments involved.

People like 'ol ted there are just like Blast; evoltionary theory is "rocket science" to them, and is not intuitive. Therefore, because it isn't "intuitive" it just can't be correct in their minds.

We haven't evolved since Newton's time, that's for sure. People like intuitive, orderly things, and automatically assume (without any actually knowledge to back it up) that the universe is just like they think it is.

Now, if they bothered to see how quantum theory interferes with their nice orderly view of the universe, I'm sure they would hate that too (oh wait, a lot of them do!).

There is no way to argue with someone who has so shut off their mind to the wonder of what is REALLY out there, to answering any mysteries that are spawned from examination, that have so totally lost all curiosity in the world around them as to be essentially brain-dead.

it's sad.

The concept that American law is based on the 10 commandments seems a bit feeble to me.

But the functional equivalent of the golden rule is found in every culture anthropologists have ever studied.

People like intuitive, orderly things, and automatically assume (without any actually knowledge to back it up) that the universe is just like they think it is.

But the functional equivalent of the golden rule is found in every culture anthropologists have ever studied

This "noble savage" misconception has long since been shattered by observation. Please check your sources and cite a few.

Mind at Large, says Huxley himself, "has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system."

This "noble savage" misconception has long since been shattered by observation

Yet for some strange reason, I can percieve more with my reducing valve in place, than when it's removed.

Altruistic behavior is not natural

Check out blood-sharing behavior in vampire bats for a common cited example.

djlactin, did you know that the Iroquois had a functional democracy long before European settlers arrived in North America?

perhaps you might want to update your knowledge of the "noble savage" (er, assuming you were limiting that to it's orginal usage, and not somehow incorrectly extrapolating it)

otherwise, you seem in danger of appearing not only a bit prejudiced, but quite ignorant as well.

"Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technque ever invented. ... The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence[93]. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of the law [94]. ... And the growth of these Authorities may explain the hundredfold decline in homicide rates in European societies since the Middle Ages [96]." [93] Daly, M. & Wilson, M. 1988. Homicide Hawthorne, NY,: Altine de Gruyter.; Keeley, L.H. 1996. War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. New York. Oxford University Press. [94] Daly & Wilson 1988, ibid. , Nisbett, R.E. & Cohen, D. 1996. Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the south. New York: HarperCollins [96] Daly & Wilson 1988 ibid.

But the functional equivalent of the golden rule is found in every culture anthropologists have ever studied

- Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, ...

(1) The golden rule is a great idea, and if everybody adhered to it (as I try to do, not always successfully), life would be sweet. Unfortunately every group will eventually have a "cheater" (to ther own immediate benefit). One or a few can be sufficient for the system to collapse. Peer disapproval can only go so far. Punishment (and hence a punishing Authority) is necessary.

Can you think of any human society at any time in history that did not have laws/rules and a mechanism to enforce them?

Do you think humans at any other time and place were any different (except technologically) than the humans we see around us today?

I also think that it's likely that the partners are more closely related that average in the group. Favoring Kin is not true altruism either.

My point is that some sort of Authority is necessary to enforce "the Golden Rule". It only takes one bad apple...

I find strongly religious governments to actually be the farthest from "the golden rule" type of civic codes, especially in the modern era.

some examples: South Africa (apartheid founded by evangelical fundamentalists) Iran (can you say "iyatolah") Afghanistan (tear down those statues, boys, and stone the womenfolk!)

India (Muslims/Hindus since before Ghandi have destabilized that country) Pakistan (similar to India, but with even more extreme muslim factions)

WWW 1 & 2 Us vs Us.

Religion and war go together like a .....

Codified in the Koran as God's Will, Inshalla.

http://www.twochapstalking.com/dictarchive/000127.html

You want to know why the US has such a good Constitution.

Ever heard of Spinoza?

Even from the first major Western Compact with Christianity
When the Emperor Constantine gave the Bishops exclusive franchise on foreskins and he got the rest.... the best model has been "Render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" right now the Creanderthals want to flip that model.

I could easily argue there is no such thing BUT "reciprocal altruism", even as you define it.

did you need me to dig up references for you, or can you do that on your own?

There have been some notes about how much earth is in the earth, but I thought a different perspective would be interesting. Dirt weighs about 2500-3000 lbs per cubic yard depending on density and moisture. Taking the low end of the range to be charitable to Behe: 27 * (2000/2500) = 21.6 cubic feet of soil (0.8 cubic yard, 0.6 m^3). In other words, this evolutionary process is happening all over your yard. With heavier dirt of course, the volume a ton would occupy is even less.

I would, however, be very interested (and excited!) if you could provide me with an unequivocal example of true altruism (in which the donor voluntarily reduces its own fitness to benefit an unrelated member of its own species or a member of another species) in a species other than H. sapiens. I'll happily FedEx you a bottle of my bad homebrewed plum wine (or whatever type I have at the time.)

An additional example would come from the long-tailed manakin, where pairs or trios of males work together to court a single female, but only the dominant male actually mates if their courtship's successful. The males in these groups are known to be unrelated (see here.) Again, multiple paper wasps (for instance, Polistes) may found a nest together, and typically only the dominant foundress rears fertile offspring; the other foundresses are often, but not always, related to her.

In both of these cases, as with feeding of unrelated pups in wild dogs, the strategy seems to be evolutionarily stable because the altruistic individual has a chance of receiving a payoff in the future. When the dominant male at a manakin lek dies, one of the subordinate males who assisted him inherits his position; ditto for the subordinate foundresses at a wasp nest. But it's not reciprocal altruism, because the altruistic individual doesn't expect their partner to "pay them back" in the short term, or necessarily at all. They don't punish the individual who benefits for failure to reciprocate. And, as Morbius said, it would be a mistake to call this "enlightened self-interest;" the wasp/manakin/wild dog doesn't necessarily know it's working for a possible payoff later. It just does what its instincts say it should.

Moreover, the definition of "true altruism" in animal behavior has very little to do with what we consider "altruism" in the normal sense of the word. Consider:

A conservative Catholic priest is the most "truly altruistic" person imaginable, because he nullifies his own fitness (via celibacy) while boosting everyone else's (via condemning birth control).

Assisting in the rape of a nun is "true altruism," because you've helped raise her reproductive output while likely sacrificing your own (due to social ostracism/jail time if you get caught).

Giving money to a program helping poor kids get through college is not "true altruism," because you're actually reducing their fitness; the affluent and educated in developed countries usually have fewer children.

So it's rather unfair to say humans exhibit true altruism while most nonhuman species don't--you're conflating the colloquial definition of "doing nice things without expectation of a reward" with the evolutionary definition of "sacrificing one's fitness to improve the fitness of an unrelated other." Plenty of animals do "nice" things without (so far as we know) consciously expecting a reward.

Having fewer offspring does not simplistically equate with decreased fitness. (I know you probably know this, but for those who might be confused...)

The point is having offspring who survive to sexual maturity and successfully mate, thus having offspring who survive, etc.

Sending poor kids to good schools might very well enhance their fitness even if it also decreased the number of their offspring. Education, success, etc., can considerably enhance the likelihood of the survival of offspring and the propogation of a lineage, whereas poverty, disease, lack of success, the debilitating effects on females of having too many offspring, etc., can reduce the odds of survival of the offspring and of their likelihood of founding longterm lineages.

And, of course, it's possible that both "strategies" can pay off--investing relatively more in a few offspring and investing relatively little in more offspring.

And, as Morbius said, it would be a mistake to call this "enlightened self-interest;" the wasp/manakin/wild dog doesn't necessarily know it's working for a possible payoff later. It just does what its instincts say it should.

Moreover, the definition of "true altruism" in animal behavior has very little to do with what we consider "altruism" in the normal sense of the word.

Sending poor kids to good schools might very well enhance their fitness

Sending poor kids to good schools might very well enhance their fitness even if it also decreased the number of their offspring. Education, success, etc., can considerably enhance the likelihood of the survival of offspring and the propogation of a lineage, whereas poverty, disease, lack of success, the debilitating effects on females of having too many offspring, etc., can reduce the odds of survival of the offspring and of their likelihood of founding longterm lineages.

u r all geeks who hav no life. y does it even matter? nobody cares!!!

Math and logic aren't being applied right here.

I only had enough time to read 1/4 of your responses in this thread, but does anyone here see that Behe's paper isn't really that interesting yet? That maybe it is nothing more than a preliminary work on studies in the future that can become more interesting?

Here is what Behe said:
"Thus in a sense, the disulfide bond is irreducibly complex, although not really to the same degree of complexity as systems made of multiple proteins."

Here is my point:
Isn't there a difference between something that is mildly irreducibly complex and something that is extremely irreducibly complex? I'm talking different enough to be put into a different category altogether. Here's why: If a truly irreducible complex system is based upon the statistical equivalent of hundreds of disulfide bond formations, then the probability of forming this result is the mathematical product of the improbability of disulfide bond evolution. In this case, we're talking hundreds of orders of magnitude greater number of bacteria needed. Many talked about there being 7 orders of magnitude more bacteria on the earth than in a ton of soil. That's just 7 orders of magnitude. So how many "earths" are needed to hold hundreds of magnitudes more bacteria? We're talking significant IC, not disulfide bonds.

If you think this event has anything to do with the issue in any significant way, and make ID finally come to an end, don't get your hopes up.

I'm just being honest everyone.