Hello again, Bert.
You wrote:
>Tim
>Many would dissagree. Certainly complex things are refective of similar
>things. There is now step by step explanation of how each step is
>adaptive and functional of many complex items in biology.
On the contrary; for example, the work on bacterial resistance and
aspartate metabolism cited in the URLs I referenced do provide such
step-by-step explanations.
Granted, in most cases there are no (and probably cannot be) detailed
descriptions of the origins of many "complex" biological systems.
But does this lack of specific detail in origins stem our own limited
technical or technological understanding or does it stem from
a true physical discontinuity, as alleged by ID proponents? Are the
details of evolution merely difficult to understand or are some
evolutionary connections between some organisms simply impossible
and needful of interventions?
I've discussed this long ago during an exchange with Michael Behe
on talk.origins (see DejaNews for those). His biggest problem, as
I see it, is conflating technical limitations with limitations
of natural processes. Until the ID/IC "philosophy" can derive
positive statements about the world that are distinguishable
from those of possible natural mechanisms, it's not going to
get far.
For example, you state "Certainly complex things are reflective of
similar things." Yet the sequence and structural similarities observed
can occur in systems with distinctly different functions. Further,
we know from biology of many mechanisms than _can generate_ and _have
been seen to have generated_ altered functionality. And not surprisingly,
these mechanisms produce the same sort of sequence and structural
similarities found in most of the "irreducibly complex" systems
cited by Behe.
But what does IC "theory" have to say about these relationships?
There is no strong biological necessity for such patterns of
relationships (patterns which track with morphology and time).
Similar function or form general does not require similar
sequences. So why are these relationships there? And why would a
designer use something that looks so much like common descent
and naturally occurring mechanisms?
>What you are suggesting seems to be to be to ask a great deal
>of faith that for example
>
>"Interestingly, components of the bacterial flagellum exhibit
>similarities to some protein transport components found on cell
>surfaces. This connection is faint and apparently obscured by
>intense selection over the millenia, but suggests the possibility..."
>
>some day this will be explained as not a suggestion (your word and seen
>in your eyes--I and many others see it differently). In other words it
>seems that you have the suggestion of the hope of a possible way to work
>towards an explaination. This is actually in part the point of my post.
Yes, and this is in contrast to ID, from which positive explanations
of relationships and the means to investigate possible explanations are
in short supply.
If IC theory's strongest claim is the lack of scientific knowledge rather
than the demonstration of the lack of possible intermediates, it's
not going to get terribly far. So far IC is nothing but a "God
of the gaps" theory.
I'd suggest reading Elliott Sober's _Philosophy of Biology_ for
an interesting discussion of the difficulties of negative theories
and those of "design". (Westview Press, 1993 ISBN: 0813308240, now in
2nd edition, Jan 2000) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813308240
Chapter 2 is particularly relevant.
>I do agree that the origin of life is an even bigger mountain to climb.
Interestingly, Behe seems to support the idea that life started from
a few (or one) precursors and developed from that. Why he spent so
much time in his book discussing the origin of a vertebrate clotting
pathway still eludes me.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 21:49:19 EST