The Problems & Successes of Intelligent Design (w/ Dr. Joshua Swamidass)

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Argon

It was either really stupid (from the standpoint of maintaining clarity of arguments) or very clever (from the standpoint of muddying the waters) to retain the same name “irreducible complexity” while referring to at least two very distinct concepts.

It would be fine if they adopted and consistently used a nomenclature that made the right distinctions, e.g. IC1, IC2, etc.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

But just because resistance functionality is increasing, doesn’t mean the mutations are not deleterious.

Yes it does. If the mutations increase resistance to an antibiotic, then if that antibiotic is present in the environment, they are beneficial by definition since they allow the carriers of those mutations to survive and reproduce better under those conditions.

No, that factor is beneficial, but the mutation overall could be harmful.

You’re confusing “harmful” with deleterious. Deleterious means it has a negative effect on the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce. Beneficial means the effect is positive instead. If the mutation reduces some function in degree, or even completely abolishes it, but this has the effect of increasing the ability to survive and reproduce of the organism then this is a beneficial mutation.

This is just what the words mean. You don’t get to make up your own meaning for the words beneficial and deleterious when we’re discussing evolutionary biology, where these terms have established and well-understood meanings.

[lee_merrill]

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

No, that factor is beneficial, but the mutation overall could be harmful.

You’re confusing “harmful” with deleterious. Deleterious means it has a negative effect on the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce.

But that’s what I meant by “harmful”.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

But then chloroquine resistance isn’t “harmful” when the parasite is in a host undergoing treatment with chloroquine, obviously. Because it directly increases it’s ability to survive and reproduce in that environment.

[Argon]

@swamidass

It would be fine if they adopted and consistently used a nomenclature that made the right distinctions, e.g. IC1, IC2, etc.

Using different words for different things is s-o-o-o powerful! But…

It doesn’t fit with the ‘never admit error or recognize past bad ideas’ ethos. Behe could have easily clarified this at the start but an idée fixe is hard to change.

And does that strategy work? Well, witness the number of ID proponents (some of them ‘professional’) that persist in conflating the definitions.

[BenKissling (YEC/ID)]

If you mean Venema’s article, that link doesn’t work.

Let me give you my impression of what Behe’s arguments were when I first read his books. I read Darwin’s Black Blox in 1998 when I was a junior in high school, and Edge of Evolution immediately upon release in 2007. At that time I was not seriously engaged with criticisms, but I had read some of them like Matzke and Hunt at Panda’s Thumb. I graduated with a B.S. in biochem in 2005 for some context.

My understanding was and has been for years that though Behe discussed irreducible complexity in Edge, his main argument in Edge was not an irreducible complexity argument. It was a completely new argument. Behe’s argument in Box was focused on Darwinian evolution. In fact as I recall, he specifically emphasized that in the original book. That means it was not an argument against something evolving by non-Darwinian mechanisms. When Edge came out, I was blown away because I thought he was going to update his original argument. Instead he presented a completely new argument. So when you say that he updated and changed the definition of IC in response to criticisms, I feel like you are not understanding him at all. He always knew and said pretty openly that IC only works against Darwinian evolution. Behe feels that the argument in Edge works against any evolutionary mechanisms because it uses a real world example of an opportunity for any evolutionary processes to surmount a serious difficulty, and all it did was the CQR double mutation. He then generalizes that conclusion and suggests a limit for all evolutionary processes. So again, in my view, and Behe’s, the main argument in Edge is not an IC argument. It’s not IC2, and if there’s something he wrote that makes it seem that way, then you might be correct that it’s misleading.

The real difference between 1996 and 2007 was the Dembski, Axe, Meyer line of argument that worked against evolutionary processes generally. Edge was Behe’s take on a probability argument similar to that.

[Faizal_Ali]

@BenKissling

He always knew and said pretty openly that IC only works against Darwinian evolution.

I have a hard time believing he would write an entire book to make such a trivial point. Why not write a book about how physicists should stop using only Newtonian physics, because there might be some other models that work better for some things?

Could you provide a citation or quote where Behe as directly and specifically said that the argument in Darwin’s Black Box only applies to the (by then already far outdated) Darwinian model of evolution, and that he accepts that irreducibly complex structures and systems could easily evolve thru other mechanisms that had been identified over the preceding several decades? Thanks.

@BenKissling

Behe feels that the argument in Edge works against any evolutionary mechanisms because it uses a real world example of an opportunity for any evolutionary processes to surmount a serious difficulty, and all it did was the CQR double mutation. He then generalizes that conclusion and suggests a limit for all evolutionary processes.

Again, that seems a very trivial and silly point to which to dedicate an entire book. I could write a book saying that no animal has ever evolved a set of jet packs on its back that allow it to travel at the speed of sound, therefore there is an “edge” to evolution beyond which such a trait lies. Would you think such a book was interesting or important? Is that really all Behe is saying? Why did that blow you away?

[BenKissling (YEC/ID)]

@Faizal_Ali

Could you provide a citation or quote where Behe as directly and specifically said that the argument in Darwin’s Black Box only applies to the (by then already far outdated) Darwinian model of evolution

The citations attributed to Behe here clearly say Darwinian evolution. The burden is on you to show he meant more than what he actually said.

@Faizal_Ali

that he accepts that irreducibly complex structures and systems could easily evolve thru other mechanisms that had been identified over the preceding several decades?

That’s a different issue. Behe can and did make an argument against Darwinian evolution in DBB without saying one way or another whether he thought about other mechanisms.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@BenKissling

That’s a different issue.

It’s the same issue. “Darwin” and its derivatives are valuable Humpty Dumpty words for Behe. You might want to read his Dover testimony…

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@BenKissling

That’s a different issue. Behe can and did make an argument against Darwinian evolution in DBB without saying one way or another whether he thought about other mechanisms.

For what it’s worth, Behe has already said that he considers any natural biological process to be Darwinian, so that includes all those natural mechanisms that don’t fall under what Darwin theorized. Basically, for Behe, if that other mechanism isn’t a designer, it’s Darwinian.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@BenKissling

@Faizal_Ali

Could you provide a citation or quote where Behe as directly and specifically said that the argument in Darwin’s Black Box only applies to the (by then already far outdated) Darwinian model of evolution

The citations attributed to Behe here clearly say Darwinian evolution. The burden is on you to show he meant more than what he actually said.

In a discussion with @dsterncardinale Behe said this:

At about 13 minutes in Dan takes about one minute to list things he considers non-Darwinian mechanisms and causes of change. He mentions (among other things) neutral theory, exaptation, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, then says:

Dan: The reason I harp on this is I wanna make sure I have this crystal clear.
Dan: When we say a system has irreducible complexity - does it preclude evolution by all these mechanisms - just the ones from 1859 - just the ones from the 1940s…?
Behe: Well - I, I’m glad to say it precludes them by all those processes you just mentioned…
Dan: Okay.
Behe: …I just wanna say that, in my mind, I consider them all random changes, remember Darwin didn’t know about mutations or anything - he said random changes plus natural selection - and you got look at each of them carefully - I think neutral mutation fits happily into Darwinian evolution except that the mutation has a selection coefficient of 0 instead of a negative or a positive one - uh, so… so that doesn’t strike me as a big deal.
Behe: And gene duplication - meh that’s fine that’s one event though. Ahh so, yeah - any unguided processes.
Dan: Alright, any unguided pro…(?)
Behe: Nods
Dan: Okay, any unguided processes!
Behe: Right.

Behe clearly and explicitly considers exaptation a Darwinian mechanism.

[Faizal_Ali]

@BenKissling

@Faizal_Ali

Could you provide a citation or quote where Behe as directly and specifically said that the argument in Darwin’s Black Box only applies to the (by then already far outdated) Darwinian model of evolution

The citations attributed to Behe here clearly say Darwinian evolution. The burden is on you to show he meant more than what he actually said.

@Faizal_Ali

that he accepts that irreducibly complex structures and systems could easily evolve thru other mechanisms that had been identified over the preceding several decades?

That’s a different issue. Behe can and did make an argument against Darwinian evolution in DBB without saying one way or another whether he thought about other mechanisms.

Thanks for the confirmation of my suspicions.

So to be clear: You agree that in DBB Behe made no argument against evolution, per se, and only claimed that Darwinian mechanisms cannot likely account for “irreducibly complex” systems or structures.

This is the equivalent of saying that Newtonian physics cannot account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury without mentioning that there are other theories in physics which do account for it, thereby leading the uninformed reader to conclude that this remains an unsolved scientific mystery that could be resolved by invoking the intervention of God as an explanation.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@BenKissling

I graduated with a B.S. in biochem in 2005 for some context.

Let’s keep that in mind…

@BenKissling

Behe feels that the argument in Edge works against any evolutionary mechanisms because it uses a real world example of an opportunity for any evolutionary processes to surmount a serious difficulty, and all it did was the CQR double mutation.

Really? Here’s a summary of what P. falciparum did circa 2014:

Can you point me to this alleged “double mutation” in this diagram? Aren’t you actually falsely presenting Behe’s claim as fact? And what’s the evidence for Behe’s claim that these had to be simultaneous?

Hint: why do all of these papers talk about haplotypes? Why does Behe never mention haplotypes? What known mechanisms produce new haplotypes? Why doesn’t Behe mention one of them?

@BenKissling

The real difference between 1996 and 2007 was the Dembski, Axe, Meyer line of argument that worked against evolutionary processes generally.

Speaking of Axe, as a biochemist, can you comment on the validity of treating enzymatic activity (and in Behe’s case, protein-protein binding) as a binary function? As beta-lactamase is clinically important, commercial assays are available and cheap. Why didn’t Axe measure enzymatic activity?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@BenKissling

If you mean Venema’s article, that link doesn’t work.

No I mean Behe’s article, where the quote was drawn from.

@BenKissling

My understanding was and has been for years that though Behe discussed irreducible complexity in Edge, his main argument in Edge was not an irreducible complexity argument. It was a completely new argument.

It was a completely new argument, for IC2, not for IC1.