I wrote:
>> "Irreducibly complexity" is a distinct term (IC) although Mike does
>> use "complexity" by itself and in the colloquial sense elsewhere
>> in his book. Thus IC and "complexity" are separate things. Or
>> to put it better, IC refers to mostly one type of thing while
>> "complexity" means lot of things in Behe's book.
Loren writes
> Actually, Behe uses the term IC to mean TWO types of things.
> (IC-1) Systems that must have all the parts in order to function at all.
> (IC-2) Systems whose parts could not of been produced "evolutionarily."
I think Loren is right. Early in his book, and in a very short section,
Behe suggests that IC systems might possibly arise via indirect methods.
But then he seems to ignore that for the rest of the book and in just
a couple more chapters suggests that IC systems could not be produced
through evolutionary means. There is a transition between those
sections that I don't accept.
[Good points removed...]
> Behe dismisses all hand-wavy hypotheses about the evolution of
> various complex biochemical systems.
I've raised this criticism as well. I feel he overplays our state of
biochemical knowledge. Seriously, we'll cure most cancers long before
we have the technical ability to evaluate evolutionary models at the
level of detail he requires. We don't even understand working, present-
day systems at that level of detail.
> But without the genomic data necessary to propose detailed hypotheses,
> all Behe can do is off hand-wavy arguments *against* their evolution.
> Should Behe's hand-wavy arguments be as readily dismissed as he dismisses
> the hand-wavy arguments of his opponents? At this point, it becomes a
> bickering match over who has the "burden of proof." Whose hand-wavy
> argument trumps the other's?
[...]
By itself, the genomic data are not sufficient for determining the many
steps taken during the evolution of many systems. After all, genomes
aren't going to long retain those parts which are no longer used.
Even DNA sequences in use change over time and this can erase the
tracks. Biochemical data is also only partly helpful in this work.
The basic problem is that there are far too many parameters to be
modelled and too little information about the magnitudes of those
parameters. At some point it becomes an exercise in GIGO.
How to distinguish ID from evolution then? One way might be to
examine the relative emergence times of IC systems in the history
of life. If, as would be predicted, the evolutionary steps that
give rise to IC systems are progressively hidden and erased over
time, then the more recent the IC system, the more similarities its
components should have in related organisms and the easier they
should be identified. However, if the system was created by ID, and
thus faced no restraints in the design of its components, then we
might expect the IC system components to be quite different and
possibly have no homologous components elsewhere. (We'd have to be
careful to consider horizontal transfer, but perhaps that possibility
could be eliminated). Granted, this comparison relies heavily on what
methods a proposed ID'er used in modifying life, but that shouldn't
rule out giving it a try. Given the potential power of such positive
evidence, is the IC/ID effort expressing much interest in this area?
An alternate way to demonstrate ID would be to catch a proposed ID'er
in the act of setting up and dropping off a new species. In fact,
we know from past patterns that new species tend to arise soon after
mass extinctions. We're in one of those phases now so perhaps the
chances of seeing a "species-insertion event" are better than average.
And again, there is _nothing_ in ID-"theory" that suggests this couldn't
happen. A positive result would be incredibly powerful. Is any IC/ID
effort being spent to monitor the emergence of new species in new areas?
Now, if neither of these possibilities pans out, what does that mean?
Nothing really, only that an ID'er didn't operate in this manner and
that evolutionary explanations are still feasible. But if these
tests aren't being seriously considered by the IC/ID community at
large, what is the basis for that preference?
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (remove hormel before use)