Darwin's Black Box

[OzmO]

Then you're wasting my time.




BTW I don't live in Germany. Never even been there.

Considering you've lied about most other things.....  i'm not suprised

[Hedgehog]

Let's discuss the issue at hand instead.

Darwin's Black Box. What scientific findings supports the theories in that book?


And what research discredits it?



YIP
Zack

[Martin1981]

Let's discuss the issue at hand instead.

Darwin's Black Box. What scientific findings supports the theories in that book?


And what research discredits it?



YIP
Zack

Well, I'm certainly no scientist, but these ones here gave this "darwin's black box" author quite a beating...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

There's a reason why this kind of books and theories don't make a splash in the scientific community: they are full of shit, and can be easily discredited.  Hell, I didn't even had to go past the first google result to get to the link I've posted.

Here's an interesting view on the subject:

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe fails to "disprove" evolution on numerous grounds.

1) Behe himself acknowledges that natural selection and common descent are both accurate descriptions. Whenever anyone cites this book in support of creationism, ask them what Behe says about the age of the universe and the hypothesis that all life descends from one common ancestor. (The answer is in the last paragraph on page 5.) In my experience, the majority of creationists who cite Behe as support have not actually read his book. Rather, they have heard other creationists tout it and parroted the claim.

2) Behe's hypothesis has several major faults. First, like Dawkins, he claims that the molecular level has explanatory superiority to the organism level. There is no question that the operation and interaction of cells and even of single genes is significant in evolution, but not to the exclusion of the significance of organs, organisms, populations, species, or other even more inclusive sets of objects. Behe's reductionist approach misses the importance of these more inclusive levels, and thus can not account for as much as mainstream evolutionary biology.

3) Behe falsely equates [evolution as a whole] with [evolution by natural selection]. Darwin correctly surmised that natural selection was a major factor in evolution, and he personally felt that it was the most important mechanism, but he did not believe it was the only mechanism. In the intervening 142 years, we have discovered that mutation, migration, and drift are also fundamental forces, and the relative significance of mutation to migration (in increasing the variation present in a given gene pool) and of selection to drift (in decreasing that range of variation) are topics of considerable interest to biologists. Behe, while emphasising his efforts to "...search the scientific literature on evolution...", somehow missed this aspect. Given the significance of these additional mechanisms, one must wonder how thorough his search actually was.

4) Behe over-extends the metaphor of molecular "machines". There are ways in which our cells are analogous to human-made machines, and the metaphor is useful in explaining some aspects of cell functioning at an introductory level. However, the metaphor rapidly breaks down on closer examination. First off, our machines do not make copies of themselves, while most of our cells do. Second, our cells operate mainly through a series of chemical reactions, rather than mechanical interactions, so our intuitive ideas about what "machines" are is quite different from the way that cells actually function, and the metaphor is misleading.

5) Behe's main point is that he claims to have found certain molecular systems that could not have evolved by natural selection; ignoring the fact (as mentioned above) that evolution operates by other mechanisms as well. It is this main point that is fatally flawed, because Behe falsely characterises the process of natural selection as both goal-oriented and (more importantly) a drive toward increasing complexity. In other words, Behe asumes that complex systems can arise from simple systems, but that simple systems can not arise from more complex ones. This assumption is trivially false, even in our own "macroscopic" experience. We can remove parts from a complex system and it will continue to function. My car would work just fine if I took out the radio, removed the rear spoiler, pulled off the hubcaps, removed the quarter panels, took off the doors, pulled out the seats, cut off the roof, etc. etc. etc. The same is true of organisms. Obligate internal parasites can lose their motive power (e.g. limbs, "swimming" tails, etc.) without suffering, and in fact many have. Cave fish can lose the ability to see without any decrease in fitness, and so forth. The same is true at the molecular level.

6) The loss of parts and increasing simplicity examples above are significant, because Behe's critique relies on his observation that some molecular systems are "irreducibly complex". In other words, some systems are so simple that removing any piece from them will cause them to cease functioning. If evolution only worked by a process of adding pieces to functioning systems, Behe would have a point, but evolution can also operate by removing redundant pieces from a more complex system. Thus his idea of irreducible complexity is simply irrelevant as a critique of evolution, because it is only in conflict with something that evolutionary theory doesn't actually state. Behe has constructed a straw man caricature of evolution and has successfully argued against that, but this has no bearing on actual evolution.

7) Behe emphasises his "...search of the scientific literature on evolution..." but he also seems to have failed to come across the articles that explain the evolutionary pathways to most of the systems that he cites as examples of irreducible complexity. I just did a search of PubMed for "flagella", sorted by date, and found over 50 articles on the chemistry, evolution, and genetic pathway to the bacterial flagellum (which is one of Behe's most famous examples) that were already in print or in press and publically available at the time Behe published DBB. In other words, one of the "irreducibly complex" systems that he claimed could not be explained by evolution already had been by the time he made the claim. I didn't bother checking for blood clotting or any of his other examples, but you can search PubMed on your own at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ if you wish.

8 ) Behe's most influential claim is that no pathways exist to these irreducibly complex systems, but this claim is misleading. What Behe is really saying is that he, personally, is unaware of any such pathways (as mentioned, other researchers had already found some of them). Behe neglects to inform his readers that nature is not bound by the limits of Behe's imagination. I can't imagine how anyone with such a shoddy grasp of elementary logic that they base an entire book on an argument from incredulity, and yet is still able to get tenure at a university, but nevertheless, there Behe is. That just goes to show that the limits of our ability to imagine something are not limits on reality.

In short, Behe's "black box" is empty. I suspect the same is true of the other creationist tracts that you mentioned, but I'm not willing to shell out my own money to check. I have no desire to tithe to my wife's church, and I'm sure as heck not going to send money to Rev. Moon or any of the other aspiring theocrats behind the creationist jihad. If you have read these books, or know someone who has, and want to present their major arguments and supporting evidence, I'll be happy to listen, but I'm not interested in paying for that dubious "privilege", thanks.
    -Floyd

[Dos Equis]

LOL.  What timing "Martin."   

[OzmO]

Some one is still searching for that ever evasive "Life"   

[haider]

Did u study evolution prior to reading this book, which is against evolution?

[Dos Equis]

Did u study evolution prior to reading this book, which is against evolution?

It's not an anti-evolution book.  All it does is point out the significant problems and unanswered questions about evolution at the cellular level, including the problems with irreducibly complex systems.  Poses some very tough questions. 

I've been thinking about this whole evolution vs. intelligent design issue the past week or so.  In addition to the points Behe raises, I just have a hard time believing our world and solar system got here by accident.  There are so many things that just cannot be coincidental, like the 24 hour day, seven day week, 30 day month, and the year, which all relate to perfectly placed things in the environment (sun, moon, stars, etc.).  I just don't see happenstance producing such perfect things.   

[NeoSeminole]

Beach Bum, I already demonstrated why Behe's arguments are flawed. I also provided the names of more prominent chemists, geneticists, and biologists who all say he is wrong. Only an impressionable fool would argue Behe's book poses any real threat to evolution.

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, I already demonstrated why Behe's arguments are flawed. I also provided the names of more prominent chemists, geneticists, and biologists who all say he is wrong. Only an impressionable fool would argue Behe's book poses any real threat to evolution.

You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[bjorn_fairhair]

There are so many things that just cannot be coincidental, like the 24 hour day, seven day week, 30 day month, and the year, which all relate to perfectly placed things in the environment (sun, moon, stars, etc.).  I just don't see happenstance producing such perfect things.   

Wow.....

[Dos Equis]

Wow.....

LOL.  No longer a fire breathing, nonspelling Christian? 

[NeoSeminole]

You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.

This is one of the reasons I temporarily stopped posting in the religious section. I feel like I'm wasting my time arguing with idiots. It doesn't matter how many times you refute them, they never admit they are wrong. I will reiterate my arguments one last time for you.

1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises, "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"

2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. I showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC.

3.) Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.

- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve

4.) Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read Behe's book and they all say he is wrong. They include Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors.

[Dos Equis]

This is one of the reasons I temporarily stopped posting in the religious section. I feel like I'm wasting my time arguing with idiots. It doesn't matter how many times you refute them, they never admit they are wrong. I will reiterate my arguments one last time for you.

1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises, "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"

2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. I showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC.

3.) Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.

- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve

4.) Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read Behe's book and they all say he is wrong.

"You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on."  Plus you're not a scientist and have no science background.   

[NeoSeminole]

It doesn't require a phD in astronomy to argue the Earth isn't flat.

[bjorn_fairhair]

"You haven't read the book, so your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on."  Plus you're not a scientist and have no science background.   

Address his argument and stop evading the facts by attacking his credibility.

[OzmO]

Address his argument and stop evading the facts by attacking his credibility.

What would you know of credibility Mr. passed over lab assistant?

Run along and get a life.

[Dos Equis]

It doesn't require a phD in astronomy to argue the Earth isn't flat.

True, but a PhD in geology might help.    

[Dos Equis]

Address his argument and stop evading the facts by attacking his credibility.

Until you read the book and explain your science background I will continue to attack the credibility of you and your multiple alter egos, Sybil. 

[NeoSeminole]

There's no need for me to read Behe's book. Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read his book and guess what? They all say he is wrong. Among these individuals are Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors. I find it amusing that you apparently think it's okay for you to post on a subject you know absolutely nothing about yet when I refute your claims, you question my credibility rather than address my arguments.

[Dos Equis]

There's no need for me to read Behe's book. Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read his book and guess what? They all say he is wrong. Among these individuals are Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors. I find it amusing that you apparently think it's okay for you to post on a subject you know absolutely nothing about yet when I refute your claims, you question my credibility rather than address my arguments.

I find it amusing that you are providing a book review of a book you've never read, particularly when you don't have a science background. 

[NeoSeminole]

I'm merely giving a brief overview of the problems addressed by Behe's critics. If you can post about what you read, then I am allowed do the same. Except what I read is from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors who say Behe is wrong. If you disagree, then I suggest you take issue with them.

Peter Atkins, Chemistry Professor at Oxford University

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html

Keith Robinson, Geneticist and Molecular Biologist at Harvard University

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Robert Dorit, Evolutionary Biologist at Yale University

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true

Richard Dawkins, Evolution Professor at Oxford University

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

[Martin1981]

LOL.  What timing "Martin."   

That's kind of getting old bum.
PM a mod if you want to find out the truth, and stop being an asshole.

Except what I read is from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors who say Behe is wrong. If you disagree, then I suggest you take issue with them.

Why would anyone even try and defend Behe's arguments when they've been refuted so many damn times?  I didn't even know he'd been owned so badly by the scientific community, but just a brief google search brought light on the whole "debate".  I mean, this debate shouldn't even be taking place, the whole book's already been trashed several times... ten years ago.  Though I understand religious people have their own times, especially with the whole denial going on and all...

Until you read the book and explain your science background I will continue to attack the credibility of you and your multiple alter egos, Sybil. 

And what's your science background? Why do you think you have more credibility than any person who has a different opinion? Is it because you have god on your side?
You shouldn't even be mentioning science or "scientific background" for that matter, since you shouldn't believe in it: god created all of the surgeries, drugs, and treatments that make us live past fourty years old... he waited for the twentieth century to bring up all of those advances though, but he pretty much has his own schedule, you know...

Why do you keep talking about freaking alter egos and schizophrenia? What happened here that made all of you so damn paranoid? Sorry, I forgot this is the religious board after all...
Do you actually believe there's only one person in the whole freaking world that's against religion?

[OzmO]

NO what's getting old is all the multiple name BS from you and your buddy.  Get a life.

[Dos Equis]

And what's your science background? Why do you think you have more credibility than any person who has a different opinion? Is it because you have god on your side?
You shouldn't even be mentioning science or "scientific background" for that matter, since you shouldn't believe in it: god created all of the surgeries, drugs, and treatments that make us live past fourty years old... he waited for the twentieth century to bring up all of those advances though, but he pretty much has his own schedule, you know...

Stop being paranoid Sybil. 

I don't have a science background.  I took Biology and Geology in college, but I think that's about it?  Cannot remember.  I never claimed to be a scientist.  That's why I read what other Scientists, like Behe have to say.  I've read a book and posted comments from the book.  You and your multiple personalities, on the other hand, have critiqued a book you've never read, while trying to sound like you have a science background, when in reality you don't know squat.  Frankly, I could care less about the links you post.  My kids can do that.

It's funny how posting comments from a scientist like Behe has you and your multiple personalities to panic. 

[loco]

I just finished Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box:  The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."  Sort of.  He gave both layman and scientific explanations of various topics and gave the reader permission to skip the detailed and footnoted scientific information if you don't have a science background.  So . . . . I stuck with the "easy" to understand stuff. 

Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He's not a Christian.  Or at least he wasn't when he wrote the book. 

Beach Bum,
I haven't read the book, but I saw the DVDs.  I enjoyed them and learned a lot from them.