Continuing the discussion from Does Summers et al Validate Behe?:
@Edgar_Tamarian, did you notice that Behe did not respond to this reference in his response to our review. What do you think that is? Why do you think he is avoiding this refutation of his work?
As I understand it, Behe:
@swamidass, Yes, i noticed more and more frequently Behe and others from ENV responded all your concerns and criticism. the article Boudry et al. discusses IC which is not topic of Darwin Devolves and you claim that the review is about the book Darwin Devolves not about Behe himself or Behe’s all work in his career. Irreducile complexity is not the main topic of his new book. Nevertheless, in time ENV has responded to that article not just once,
Quarterly Review of Biology Publishes Outlandish Rhetoric Against Intelligent Design as Penance for Behe’s Paper | Evolution News
Really?, you have not explained what does the concept of IC has to do with the First rule of Adaptation https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/656902?journalCode=qrb and with the book Darwin Devolves
For the record, they did not. They didn’t understand what was in the review, perhaps, and they certainly didn’t ask to clarify.
Well on this point, unfortunately, you are wrong. He includes quite a bit on IC in this book. Granted, you haven’t seen the book. So understand why ou wouldn’t know.
As we said in the review, and repeated afterwards:
Well, one way he ignores things that can build up complexity is by repeatedly appealing to IC. Because of this, his argument depends at almost every juncture on IC being correct.
@swamidass first, did you just notice that you just ignored my links to ENV responses, Second, I do not see anything new in that article that was not discussed countless time and being responded countless time, please, be specific what exactly in that article you find the main argument against IC
I’ve already posted 2 of those three links. None of them are written by Behe. Can you assess whether they are effective responses? I don’t find them to be effective.
@swamidass I do not find anything substantial in that article, it repeats arguments presented by Kenneth Miller (2004)
«Kenneth Miller (2004) beautifully demonstrated the structural similarities between one component of the flagellum and the socalled type III-secretory system. He convincingly argued that the former is a very plausible evolutionary precursor of the latter, which has been co-opted by evolution to perform a new function. In response to this embarrassing demonstration, Behe (2001:689-690) simply shifted his attention to the complexity of the newly discovered system by itself , and at the same time stubbornly insisted that the assemblage of these precursors into the flagellum system is still impossible without the helping hand of a Designer (Behe, 2004:359)»- Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman, “Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design – a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience,” Quarterly Review of Biology , Vol. 85
However, Phylogenomic and comparative analyses show that Type III Secretion System is devolved from bacterial flagellum, not otherwise.
«Phylogenomic and comparative analyses of these systems argue that the NF-T3SS arose from an exaptation of the flagellum»-Sophie S. Abby and Eduardo P.C. Rocha, “The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems”
Nguyen L, Paulsen IT, Tchieu J, Hueck CJ, and Saier MH Jr. Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of the Type III protein secretion systems. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2:125-144.
what is more, Type III Secretion Systems argument does not explain the following questions
«Тhe other thirty proteins in the flagellar motor (that are not present in the TTSS) are unique to the motor and are not found in any other living system, From whence, then, were these protein parts co-opted? [E]ven if all the protein parts were somehow available to make a flagellar motor during the evolution of life, the parts would need to be assembled in the correct temporal sequence similar to the way an automobile is assembled in factory. Yet, to choreograph the assembly of the parts of the flagellar motor, present-day bacteria need an elaborate system of genetic instructions as well as many other protein machines to time the expression of those assembly instructions. Arguably, this system is itself irreducibly complex. In any case, the co-option argument tacitly presupposes the need for the very thing it seeks to explain—a functionally interdependent system of proteins»։ Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer (2004). “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria.” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, Wessex Institute of Technology, September 1, 2004. DOI: 10.2495/DN040301
a more elaborate questions that chanage the co-option argument presented here Advances in Biology Discredit Argument that Cooption Can Explain Irreducible Complexity | Evolution News
so, I do not understand why should the same already refuted arguments presented by Kenneth Miller be responded over and over again
Edgar,
I do not understand why you presented your agreement with ID as being based in evidence, but now you have switched to discussing nothing but arguments.
Are you aware that arguments are not evidence?
I understand arguments not just philosophical «mambo jumbo», but evidence-based arguments
Because he is focused on his latest book.
I clicked on the link to the article and got this popup.
Interested in research on Intelligent Design?
Join ResearchGate to discover and stay up-to-date with the latest research from leading experts in Intelligent Design and many other scientific topics.
