…and this is a 
One of the peculiarities of my recent debate with Jerry Bergman was that he announced his definition of irreducible complexity, which he claimed to be the same as Michael Behe's…and under which carbon atoms were IC. It was utterly absurd. A reader wrote to Behe to get his opinion.
I recently attended a debate between Dr. P. Z. Myers and Dr. Jerry Bergman on the topic of "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in the Schools?" The topic of irreducible complexity came up, and Dr. Bergman had an interesting definition. His definition of irreducible complexity was "two or more parts are required for something to function" and that if you "remove one part, it will not work properly." The example he gave was that a carbon atom is irreducibly complex. He said that "you will not have a carbon 12 atom unless you have 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons, therefore it is irreducibly complex." Dr. Bergman went on to say that, the only things that aren't irreducibly complex were elementary particles, such as a lepton, because they could not be broken down into smaller parts. Much of the audience was confused about this, because as Dr. Myers pointed out, your definition of irreducible complexity dealt with biochemical systems. Dr. Myers also pointed out that carbon is formed naturally in stars, and if Dr. Bergman's definition of irreducible complexity were correct, it would show that irreducible complexity occurs naturally, therefore negating it as an argument for intelligent design. Dr. Bergman claimed that he was using your definition of irreducible complexity in the example of the carbon atom. That is why I wanted to ask you for a concise definition of irreducible complexity and if you believe Dr. Bergman's example and definition fits with yours.
Thanks for you time,
David
Behe wrote back.
Hi, David, nice to meet you. Dr. Myers is right; my definition deals with biochemical systems. I take the underlying laws and elements of nature as given. I do not know where Prof. Bergman got the idea that the concept applies to atoms, but he didn't get it from me. In Darwin's Black Box, I defined IC as:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Best wishes.
mjb
I got the answer right. I feel so dirty now.
However, I will go on (as I did in the debate) to explain that while it is definitely true that many biochemical systems actually do exhibit the property of irreducible complexity, the fact that an existing pathway can suffer a loss of function when modified says absolutely nothing about whether it evolved or not. Antecedent versions of the current pathway may have 1) had different functions (the exaptation explanation), 2) had less stringent requirements for function because other physiological functions had less specific demands (the coevolution explanation), or 3) had redundant or alternative paths to the final output of the pathway (the scaffolding explanation). IC, even as defined by the author of the concept, is no obstacle to evolution.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 23, 2009 4:27 PM
Call it what it is--a theological dispute among the IDiots.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 23, 2009 4:28 PM
I'm not sure how to properly react to this...
Ummm... congratulations?? I guess?
Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 4:30 PM
while it is definitely true that many biochemical systems actually do exhibit the property of irreducible complexity
Quote mining in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 4:36 PM
while it is definitely true that many biochemical systems actually do exhibit the property of irreducible complexity
Quote mining in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Posted by: flawedprefect | November 23, 2009 4:37 PM
Oh no! Say it ain't so! ID now has its own faction of IDiots who "know ID happened, they just dispute how it happened"?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I always thought that parody was the highest form of flattery, but in this case, it's just sad.
Posted by: SteveM | November 23, 2009 4:38 PM
By that definition a Roman arch is irreducibly complex and could only have been built through magic. The point is that removing parts of an existing system tells you nothing about how (or whether) it could have evolved. He is in effect expecting each piece of a car engine to evolve in complete isolation and then be able to be assembled into a working device. Of course the possibility of this scenario is virtually zero, but this is purely a straw man since this is not how evolution works.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 23, 2009 4:38 PM
I believe it's called an anus, more specifically, his anus.
Posted by: mck9
|
November 23, 2009 4:39 PM
Call it what it is--a Deep Rift among the IDiots.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
November 23, 2009 4:41 PM
Not only is the Carbon atom irreducibly complex, but so is just about every molecule. For example, if you remove any atom from a glucose molecule, you'll no longer have glucose. While we're at at, beer requires grain, hops, yeast, and water. If you take away any of those parts, you no longer have beer--It's Intelligently Designed!!!11!!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | November 23, 2009 4:43 PM
Isotopes anyone? Carbon 13, Carbon 14.Ions? How about a nice carbamion (C-)?
A carbon is defined by the number of protons, period. The rest is negotiable.
Posted by: LtStorm | November 23, 2009 4:44 PM
Hilariously, the "six protons and six neutrons" argument isn't even true. Carbon can have two to sixteen neutrons, and zero to eight electrons while still being carbon. Most of these forms will be highly unstable, save for say, six protons and seven neutrons and six electrons which gives carbon 13, or six protons and six neutrons and two electrons that gives the C^4+ that is found in carbon dioxide. Given, those electrons are shared between the carbon and oxygen, but still. The only thing required to have carbon is six protons.
And even then if you split a carbon atom in half the fundamental laws of nature don't break down; you just get two lithium atoms and a lot of energy.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
November 23, 2009 4:44 PM
Oops! I forgot to add that after all, it is the nectar of the gods. ;-)
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 23, 2009 4:46 PM
Behe is a polite stupid asshole and a compulsive liar. That's why retarded Christians like him so much.
Posted by: Torrie | November 23, 2009 4:50 PM
why do these idiots who argue for intelligent design ALWAYS leave out variables! This is getting so old. Can't these stupid morons pick up a Science book? Hell, I'm not even versed much on the hard Sciences and I figured out the general answers to this! it's just logical thinking.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2009 4:51 PM
And why did you give him the full Gumby/Comic Sans treatment? Just because it's him? He doesn't say anything stupid in there. ~:-|
The other way around: you have to put insane amounts of energy in to split a carbon nucleus.
What, if anything, are you reacting to here? Did you even read the post except for the word "Behe"?
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 23, 2009 4:52 PM
Oh, that's easy: Prof. Bergman used his God-given common sense, and figured it out for himself.
Evolution, broadly conceived, postulates that most things are the way they are because they got that way. Creationism, on the other hand, takes it as a given that things are the way they are, because they are that way, and not some other way, because Someone wanted it that way, and made it that way. Poof.
Behe's response helps point out a significant difference between the evolutionary biologists, and the creationists. In order to properly critique a theory (or idea), you have to actually understand it. You have to pay attention to what the proponents are saying. It is the rare creationist who understands evolution. But I think PZ Myers gets what the creationists are saying.
Not the details, of course. The creationists are a bit unclear on petty details.
Posted by: Katharine | November 23, 2009 4:54 PM
I'm guessing the definition of irreducible complexity you're using isn't the one the IDiots are using. :D
Posted by: David Estlund | November 23, 2009 4:55 PM
Haha! I thought all PZed's blockquotes had the "ranting curmudgeon." class=creationist. I love it.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 23, 2009 4:57 PM
"What, if anything, are you reacting to here?"
His speeches to Christians - he repeats the same lies even though he knows he's lying. That makes him a stupid asshole and a liar.
I hope I answered your question.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 23, 2009 4:58 PM
This is the perfect opportunity for quotemining!
"Dr. Myers is right..." -Michael Behe
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 23, 2009 4:58 PM
Except for when you don't.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 23, 2009 4:59 PM
Behe's various examples of irreducible complexity (flagellae, blood clotting, the eye, etc.) have been refuted. There's a further problem with the concept. As Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District put it:
Posted by: Quasar | November 23, 2009 5:00 PM
I'd just like to say: I dislike the term "Irreducable Complexity."
The correct term is "Interlocking Complexity," and the concept was proposed as an expected result of evolution by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller in 1918.
I feel that using the term "Irreducable Complexity" gives the false impression that the phenomena is an original concept first proposed by Michael Behe as a problem for evolution, rather than a logical result of evolution predicted mmore than 90 years ago.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 23, 2009 5:01 PM
This is why I'll suggest you remove the gumby from Behe's reply.Seriously. There's nothing mockable in there. Keeping the graphic is going for the man rather than the ball.
Yuck. I just stood up for Behe. My apologies, but he's positively sane compared to Bergmann.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 23, 2009 5:01 PM
"Behe's various examples of irreducible complexity (flagellae, blood clotting, the eye, etc.) have been refuted."
And Behe knows his bullshit has been refuted. That doesn't stop from making a living off of Christian morons who believe every word he says.
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 23, 2009 5:11 PM
The name carbon is entirely arbitrary, anyway. Take away a proton from carbon, and you have a perfectly fine boron atom (or at least an isotope thereof). It was silly of him to suggest that carbon is irreducibly complex in the first place. Carbon is little more than a name for the arrangement of particles, and there's nothing magic in the name.
This is grade school chemistry. Shameful.
Posted by: David | November 23, 2009 5:13 PM
Choose one of the following:
If Behe says he's wrong, he must be right.
or...
If Behe sees your errors, they must be really really simple.
Posted by: Qwerty | November 23, 2009 5:15 PM
Poor Jerry, couldn't even state his side of the argument correctly. You can't argue for the teaching of ID when you don't even know how the leading proponent defines it.
I guess Bergman will just have to write another book or get another degree to brush up his creationist creds.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 23, 2009 5:17 PM
Of course, there's nothing in principle that should limit the concept of irreducible complexity to biological systems, since Behe uses a probabilistic argument to say that IC systems can't evolve "by chance". Surely the same thing applies to non-biological systems. The supposedly random process by which the IC system could not have happened would be different, of course, but is it really that much more unlikely (a priori) that a flagellum could have evolved than that a heavy element with dozens of protons and neutrons packed together could have been formed naturally?
Posted by: Anri
|
November 23, 2009 5:17 PM
Has anyone actually gotten around to asking Behe to provide a couple of examples of systems, one of which is just barely irreductibly complex enough to require a designer, and another that is just barely on the other side of the line?
And then ask him to show his work in this determination?
I mean, c'mon Behe, why bother with the big, complex stuff? Show everyone that your concept can demonstrate what surely must be the most truly fundamental difference between all things - those that can asise through the blind laws of nature and those that require concious thought.
Now that... that would be a sure-fire Nobel, I'm thinking.
Is it possibly Behe's modesty that prevents him from snapping up such an amazing prize?
Or does it have more to do with the whole thing being utter tripe?
Posted by: gman | November 23, 2009 5:20 PM
PZ says says, "IC, even as defined by the author of the concept, is no obstacle to evolution."
I think he understates the case.
Hermann Muller, using evolutionary assumptions, predicted the existence of IC systems as early as 1918, well before Behe (1996?). Muller described these systems as "interlocking" but his definition - removing one component destroys function - is almost identical to Behe's.
What's more, Muller even posited an evolutionary explanation for interlocking complexity.
It would therefore seem that if evolutionary theory PREDICTS the existence of IC systems, the existence of those systems cannot be taken as evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory.
Here's the link to Muller's work; the relevant passage is at 463-4:
http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.dtl
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 23, 2009 5:21 PM
SteveM #6:
You're not actually understanding the argument behind IC. The argument is that, if something is 'irreducibly complex', it must have been constructed by an intelligent being of some kind, not magic - just like the Roman arch in your example was constructed by the Romans, not magic. Don't get me wrong, the IC argument has numerous flaws to it, but the one you've indicated there isn't one of them.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 23, 2009 5:23 PM
Interesting. I was going to write up a quick "Bitter Rift Divides Creationists" article with the "Dr. Myers is right..." quote, so I googled "Dr. Jerry Bergman transcript" for quote-mining and found this: http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm
Apparently he was denied tenure at Bowling Green State University for (among other things) being a crazypants liar for Jesus, sued, lost, and appealed. That's all I know from this document. I don't know much about law, or tenure, but I found an interesting paragraph:
Posted by: Not that Louis | November 23, 2009 5:26 PM
The things a guy will say when he doesn't think anyone is going to check on it. Sorry, Jerry, busted.
Posted by: Tacroy | November 23, 2009 5:28 PM
I'm sorry, I don't see how Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity" keeps carbon from being irreducibly complex. Yes, you can remove or add electrons almost to your heart's content, but consider just the nucleus:
The number of protons make it carbon, and the neutrons keep the protons from flying apart.
It wouldn't be carbon with a different number of protons, and biological uptake of different isotopes of carbon is known to be different (IIRC, plants like c-12 slightly more than c-13)
Change the number of protons, and you change the element. Change the number of neutrons to anything other than 12 or 13, and it becomes unstable and explodes (eventually). Change it from 12 to 13, and it becomes slightly different.
As far as I can see, the carbon nucleus meets the criteria for irreducible complexity. Reduce it in any way, and (eventually) it won't be carbon any more, or at least it'll be noticeably different.
Posted by: Jeff Bell | November 23, 2009 5:36 PM
I guess my bicycle is a divine creation.
It doesn't work without both wheels.
Posted by: LtStorm | November 23, 2009 5:37 PM
As far as I can see, the carbon nucleus meets the criteria for irreducible complexity. Reduce it in any way, and (eventually) it won't be carbon any more, or at least it'll be noticeably different.
But does Irreducible Complexity not imply something will become useless entirely if you alter any part of its system? Is carbon being transmuted to a different element or a different isotope that effects its use in systems involving carbon dangerously close to admitting that systems are never irreducibly complex, because there's always a use for them regardless of how you reduce them?
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 5:37 PM
I wonder if a larger point isn't being missed here - that point of "descent with modification" - particularly as relates to the definition of IC.
We have Behe apparently coining a term (predicted by Muller), and we have another IDiot "modifying" the term once he gets his mits (and teensie brain) around it, because he "understands it better" than the originator of the term.
Here we have Evolution standing before us. Only in the person of a (poor) concept, rather than a beastie.
You just gotta love the gifts that just keep on giving.
JC
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 5:41 PM
Tacroy, you have a problem with your analysis. The number or neutrons in carbon 12 and 13 are 6 and 7 respectively. Add to the fact that carbon 14 with 8 neutrons doesn't explode, it simply emits a beta particle, keeping the same total number of protons and neutrons, and converts to nitrogen 14. Of course, if you watch the CSI shows, this starts the little lie, big lie scrutiny.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 23, 2009 5:46 PM
Wow, rae.org is a goldmine! This Bergman fellow sure can write an angry (yet pedantic) screed! Some of the folks that write "essays" for that site think the Glen Rose footprints are real. I'm sensing two things: 1) a professor shortage (hence he can get a job) and 2) a diploma surplus.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 5:47 PM
Tacroy, plants cannot determine any difference in carbon isotopes. What determines plant uptake is their prevalence in nature. C-12 is most common, C-13 least common and C-14 next most common, but still (relatively) rare.
For a concise explanation, please see Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth" pp91-97 and 103-104 (in the hardbound book anyway) - it really is a very good explanation for the lay person.
JC
Posted by: SteveM | November 23, 2009 5:52 PM
No, I think you are not taking my point. Behe wrote,
To which I said,"by that definition the roman arch is IC", because removing any stone makes the whole thing collapse. And if you try to build an arch using just the pieces found in the arch it is damn near impossible. The point I was trying to make is that Behe does not allow for any kind of "scaffolding" that could produce a complex system after the scaffolding is removed.Posted by: SEF | November 23, 2009 6:04 PM
@ JackC #41:
That's not quite true. Metabolic processes do differ somewhat with different isotopes (and not just in plants) and there's some selectivity as a result. It's subtle but it's there. Of course, that's not the same as the plants themselves expressing a sentient opinion on the matter, if that's what you require in terms of them being able to determine the difference.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 23, 2009 6:07 PM
It seems that Dr. Jerry Bergman is making up most science and has now decided to make up porky pies about ID.
Obviously when a concept gets to difficult for the bunny he resorts to kindergarten mode and just makes it up.
I bet Olsen is none to pleased to have contributed to the ham fisted destruction of his own delusion by one of its own godbotted imbecilic zombies.
Doubt that Jerry baby is gonna get another invite soon...and other little groups of pseudo 'godwotwentandgoneanddidits' are not going to rush to sign the sloppy lying irrelevant fool up to pontificate on a delusion which is losing traction by the second.
This little insight into a spokesman for their side is surely enough to warn them off.
Having no excess of mouthpieces for its dubious jeebus 'science' is a dilemma, but inviting a class A dork will not help them in any debate either, even if it was only against DNA reconstructed and resurrected remains of a kipper on a bicycle with lock jaw.
Which seemingly is about his IQ level and methinks he would encounter strife above and beyond his stunted abilities even then.
He is obviously not a good speaker in front of an audience with a modicum of intelligence.
Of course they probably fawn over him at bible class...but well audience level of smarts and all that!
In fact he did more damage to the nonsense that night then a whole blog dedicated to real science could ever manage on its own.
Of course PZ fashioned the noose which Bergman gleefully slipped around his own scrawny neck, well enough and fair enough, but tis doubtful if PZ even worked up a sweat.
The pratt clearly has no idea which way is up.
And he did not improve his chances of ascertaining the correct attitude with ridiculous allegations about Carbon...what an embarrassment for them.
Soundly rebuked indeed...and how!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 23, 2009 6:14 PM
Anyone who has knowledge of biology and other basic sciences beyond high school level has to view IC as IDiotic; it is so patently obvious that as a problem of any sort to Evolution or any natural science theory it is a non-starter.
That is unless that person is one or more of these:
1- insane and mentally disposed to woo-woo
2- a liar because they believe some greater good is served by squishing ToE
3- a charlatan who profits from feeding the 1st two types above and the ignorant
The more I read and see of what the IDers - especially those with science degrees - say the more I am convinced of above. They are pathetic - they have nothing other then an audience of committed ignorant followers and that is what makes them dangerous.
Posted by: NitricAcid | November 23, 2009 6:23 PM
LtStorm #11
Actually, carbon dioxide does not contain carbon(+4) cations- it is entirely covalent. The electrons are not gone from the carbon atom; they reside in a molecular orbital which results from the addition of the atomic orbitals of carbon and oxygen.
I seem to recall that there are carbon cations in the solar atmosphere, but under terrestrial conditions, all carbon compounds are significantly covalent.
Posted by: steve | November 23, 2009 6:24 PM
As I recall, the english added hops to the pale ale they shipped to troops in India (India Pale Ale) as an anti-fungal agent.
Time passed, the fungus became resistant to the hops, the beer drinkers became used to the hops.
Evolution in action.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2009 6:26 PM
Not quite true; there's a tiny but consistent bias for 12C, followed by an equally slight bias for 13C over 14C. It is taken into account in modern 14C dating.
(Never mind the C4 plants, which have a pretty sizable bias for 13C.)
Such tiny biases between isotopes in chemical reactions are common; heavier atoms require a tiny bit of extra energy to be moved around.
12C is by far most common, then comes the very rare 13C, and 14C is incredibly rare.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 6:29 PM
SEF@43 - From GSoE pps 103-104:
I am not a biologist, I only read this stuff. And regurgitate it when it seems appropriate.
But Dawkins is and I will take him at his word.
The earlier statement by Tacroy@35 was:
The point I think was being made that C-13 is quite unstable and therefore almost non-existent in nature for the plant to take up - there is no real "preference" being expressed by the plant - and C-14 is the more prevalent isotope that IS taken up.
There may be a "preference" expressed in other organisms - I was only addressing the plant issue.
JC
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2009 6:32 PM
Stupid font that puts the figures so deep in the line that they look completely out of place (and are rather hard to read) when used as superscripts. The subscripts look a bit exaggerated, too.
The German Purity Law from the early 16th century (off the top of my head) already specifies that beer must not be spiced with anything other than hops.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 6:34 PM
At 1.1%, I would hardly call 13C very rare. There is enough for 13C NMR to be very useful to us organic chemists.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2009 6:35 PM
It's stable. As in "no decay of such an atom has ever been observed".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2009 6:46 PM
I tried to avoid the impression of 50/50.
14C makes up less than a ppt of the carbon in the world.
Posted by: SEF | November 23, 2009 6:47 PM
You are too willing to grant him unquestioned authority. I, with my biologist hat on, do not. I prefer to rely on the data encountered during my own studies in this area.
On the other hand, neither do I grant credence to your interpretation (as a self-confessed non-biologist!) of what Richard Dawkins may or may not have meant by something he allegedly said in some context or other. So I do not call him necessarily wrong - merely you.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 6:53 PM
Beer is indeed preserved with hops, but it predates the English use noted by a bit. There are some indications that the Romans and Babylonians used it in drink, and the earliest European reference is around 1079. It is mentioned in Hallertauer area in the 700s
Yes, I do brew my own. Or did. Will again soon, I hope.
The drink that gradually became beer was flavoured with a number of (today, seemingly odd) things, but the art of using hops was probably imported from these sources around
The Germans were making it with hops, the Dutch were liking it and things just kind fo went from there.
BTW: The book "History of the World in 6 Glasses" is pretty cool.
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 6:58 PM
David (and others)
At the very bottom of pate 95 in Dawkins' book I now see it says:
This is the one and only time he mentions c-15, and I had read it c-13. I need new glasses. Earlier however he says "There is also carbon-13, which is too short-lived to bother with..."
I believe I conflated the two. Mea culpa.
The other text though is pretty much straight from the book.
JC
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 23, 2009 6:59 PM
Not only do plants preferentially pick up C-12, this bias is how we know that 1) fossil fuels are made from ancient plant material, 2) the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
Someone with a better understanding of geology need to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when volcanoes release CO2 they do so by the decomposition of carbonates. The fixation of carbonate salts being non-biological in origin does not show a comparable bias for light carbon.
Posted by: kopd | November 23, 2009 7:03 PM
SteveM:
Behe would just point out that an intelligent agent designed the arch and made the scaffolding, and he would go on to assert (incorrectly) that nature cannot "scaffold" an IC system. He would not challenge your observation that a Roman arch is IC by his definition. In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't held it up as an example next to the mousetrap. Behe just continues to stubbornly deny that there are ways to arrive at an IC system.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 7:05 PM
Not at all. I am merely quite willing to lend credence to his (known) credentials well over my non-existent ones, and over anyone else's (unknown) credentials.
I have his book in front of me and am quoting it. If you would prefer to give me a sound other reference, I may read it. Then again, I may not.
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
November 23, 2009 7:14 PM
Further on Dawkins - I have to wonder if perhaps he doesn't have a misprint that we have now discovered (through my willingness to be beaten up for saying Dawkins' words and taking the brunt of it here).
He mentions that there are "three naturally occuring isotopes" and calls out carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14. No mention of 15 at this point at all, though he says that "carbonb-13 is too short-lived to bother with..."
As I have learned that both C-12 and c-13 are stable, I am wondering if that reference at the very bottom of page 95 to c-15 is what he meant when he stated c-13 on the earlier page?
It may seem so, and perhaps describes my confusion on the isotopes.
JC
Posted by: kopd | November 23, 2009 7:20 PM
Re carbon (devil's advocate mode):
I can only imagine that a) Behe forgot to stress how important the word "system" is in his definition of IC, and b) his definition of "system" would exclude atoms (ie, shortand for "biological systems").
I feel dirty now.
Posted by: SEF | November 23, 2009 7:21 PM
@ JackC #59:
No reference is sound (whether or not it has that property in and of itself) if you cannot read or comprehend it reliably!
Meanwhile, are you confessing an inability to search the internet for scientific references for yourself?! There's something of a local tradition of giving people like you a "let me Google that for you" link. Though, google scholar would be the most appropriate subset of tool for anyone who is capable of acting independently to verify the facts on being informed that they have got something wrong.
It really is oldish news and relatively widely known (that being merely the very first link from my initial selection of relevant search terms).
Posted by: amphiox | November 23, 2009 7:39 PM
"Behe would just point out that an intelligent agent designed the arch and made the scaffolding, and he would go on to assert (incorrectly) that nature cannot "scaffold" an IC system."
And one need only go look at any one of the thousands (millions?) of natural stone arches formed in nature by wind and water erosion to blow that assertion out of the water.
Posted by: BlakThundar | November 23, 2009 8:48 PM
I know this is totally off topic, but I thought I should share this crankery with you all...
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-obama-billboard,0,3959919,post.poll
Posted by: nejishiki | November 23, 2009 9:00 PM
So we wont hear any more arguments about fine tuning? But, seriously, this is what you have to do in biochemistry. Behe was at one time a respectable biochemist who did some good work on nucleosomes. Now he doesn't do any lab work at all, it seems, and I think that's a shame. He's wasting his career chasing ghosts.Posted by: Zmidponk | November 23, 2009 9:22 PM
SteveM #42:
And none of that means that the Roman arch needs to be done by 'magic' - just Roman engineering. Romans are intelligent, therefore a Roman arch is a true example of intelligent design. IC, strictly speaking, says nothing about the mechanism by which something was created, just that it must have been created if it's 'irreducibly complex'. This is why I regard it as nothing more than an extended argument from incredulity, combined with a false dichotomy - 'I can't understand/believe how something as complex as that could have evolved, so it can't have, therefore it was created'.
Then you made it badly by claiming that IC means Roman arches must have been constructed by 'magic'.
Posted by: Steve | November 23, 2009 9:49 PM
You know you've hit epic fail when even other creotards are telling you you're doing ID wrong.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 10:15 PM
Potters wasps make arches. So do white tailed paper wasps.
And let's not even get into caddis fly larvae. Their entire case is a continuous arch. Every little stone is a keystone.
And what about trap door spiders?
Posted by: Tacroy | November 23, 2009 10:21 PM
Boy is my face red, I live with a radiocarbon researcher and yet I conflated the atomic number with the number of neutrons :(
Still though, I think an aspect of my point stands: the Carbon-12 nucleus is an irreducibly complex system. if you remove any of the protons, it ceases to function like carbon. If you remove any of the neutrons, it will (eventually) cease to function like carbon.
This is as irreducibly complex as it gets - all possible reductions are quantum steps (no intermediate reduction steps are physically possible afaik), and they all "[cause] the system to effectively cease functioning".
Without a different definition of irreducible complexity, I'm not sure if there's any way around that.
(Which is fine with me, because it's a stupid idea anyway.)
Posted by: David Estlund | November 23, 2009 11:17 PM
BlakThundar #64:
Wow. That's pretty offensive. I know it's Fox and all, but I suspect antipharyngulation. Those numbers are unpossible.
Posted by: Charles | November 23, 2009 11:19 PM
PZ need only feel satisfied that he properly understands a failed hypotheses, a valid exercise for any scientist.
Interesting that Behe considers it more important that people get his idea right rather than presenting a united front against the hated "Darwinists". Perhaps it demonstrates his ego as being bigger than his agenda.
Interesting little episode, but ultimately water under the bridge. Move on, please.
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 24, 2009 12:19 AM
I would disagree. It may not function like carbon, but it still functions as a perfectly good atom, reacting and forming chemical bonds. If removing a proton caused the entire thing to fly apart, then maybe it could be irreducibly complex. The ID group's analogy to eyes is apt. If you remove the lens, the human eye suddenly has absolutely no function, likewise for the rods/cones, optic nerve, etc. If removing these features caused the eye to suddenly function for another purpose, that wouldn't be IC because the intermediate "stages" would still have a function.Of course, we're fighting about a fairly absurd concept. Biological IC completely breaks down when you allow the components to evolve in parallel, rather than expecting one to be fully built before starting the next component. Like many scientific concepts, it's hard to break out of some of our intuitive ideas on how the universe works. It's difficult to avoid thinking of evolution as an architect or builder, just like it's difficult to accept that matter consists of mostly empty space, or that things that intuitively should be deterministic are actually probabilistic.
Posted by: 386sx | November 24, 2009 2:25 AM
Dr. Jerry "dog ate my homework" Bergman would argue that Intelligent Design is a very important and revolutionary scientific theory that should be in the science classes. Oh yeah, and he don't know what the heck it is, too. Utterly ignorant, and completely wrong. Other than that, it is a revolutionary scientific theory. (If you like dogs eating your homework, and you like recess a lot.)
Posted by: Robin Lionheart | November 24, 2009 3:49 AM
Congratulations, PZ, on defeating someone who doesn't know what he's talking about in both evolution AND intelligent design.
Posted by: SEF | November 24, 2009 4:43 AM
@ ckitching #72:
That'll be news to all those who have had to have the lens removed but can still get by with limited vision and optical aids!
Even being able to distinguish light from dark (especially areas of each) helps a bit. That's how the eye evolved, after all.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 24, 2009 4:44 AM
Unless your concept has been turned into a mockery of what you believe by some half-wit noob.
Still now its sorted we can get back to discussing the shape of that damn unicorn saddle.
Posted by: eyespy | November 24, 2009 7:15 AM
Just another knee-jerk reminder that Michael Behe "teaches" at Lehigh "University," and that a creationist-free education from professors whose employer does not have to distance themself from their employee's insane belief system is available just a few miles away at Lafayette College.
Lafayette is named after the second most important person in American history, a man who bankrupted himself and his family three times in order to finance the American Revolution and who was thought so highly of by George Washington that he adopted the Marquis as his son.
Friends don't let friends go to Lehigh.
Even if they did just beat us in the 145th contesting of the most-played and longest-continuous rivalry in all of college football.
Damn.
Damn damn DAMN.
BEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | November 24, 2009 7:50 AM
Interesting rant you found there David. I was curious, and went looking for the actual ruling.
820 F2d 1224 Gerald R. Bergman, Ph.d., v. Bowling Green State University et al.
It's interesting reading, but I especially like the final paragraphs up to the ruling
That gotta sting. Unsurprising the ruling went against Bergman.
Posted by: TomS | November 24, 2009 7:50 AM
As far as the origins of the concept of irreducible complexity, check out the Wikipedia article "Irreducible complexity" under the heading "Forerunners", and you will find several people discussing the concept in biology under different names demonstrating different principles (such as preformation).
As far as the irreducible complexity of the "true arch", consider that natural arches are formed by natural processes (erosion).
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 24, 2009 11:33 AM
There he should say 11 instead of 13. Please check if he does. ;-)
First:
About 12 minutes later:
It's being freeped as we watch, folks.
Plus, such people suddenly see near UV. The lens is ultra-yellow, not ultra-colorless, you see.
Posted by: SEF | November 24, 2009 12:25 PM
The person I knew who acquired near-UV vision said he found it very disturbing.
Which now makes me think there ought to be a film based on that premise. One in which the ghosties, fairies or angels etc are real but only visible in UV (ie normally only to bees etc). So the protagonist, after an unfortunate eye injury, has to deal with suddenly being able to see them. Except such falsehoods about the (super)natural world probably shouldn't be propagated because there are bound to be some nutters out there, who can't tell fiction from fact, who will then be demanding elective surgery ...
Posted by: squareone | November 24, 2009 1:50 PM
Steve @ 47
re: hops in beer...
Hop constituents are valued (in part) for inhibiting bacterial growth not fungal growth.
Posted by: Rahne | November 24, 2009 3:41 PM
It really shows the kind of argument Bergman makes when Michael Behe is in your corner...