blogs for industry...blogs for the dead
| blogs for industry ...blogs for the dead |
 Some background reading on Behe | Back to blogs for industry | Post debate analysis (Behe v. Cassone) part I | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just got back from the Behe-Cassone debate sponsored by the TAMU Veritas Forum at Rudder Auditorium. This is a reconstruction from my notes. Editorial comments will be inserted but I'll try to mostly recount what happened (very sketchily) and reserve analysis for another post. The debate was moderated by former Dean, successful Chemical Engineer, and investment manager Dr. Ide Trotter. Trotter did a fine job, starting with laying out the ground rules with respect to what was not up for debate, including:
Both speakers used Powerpoint for their ~35 min opening statements. Behe's opening statement: Behe spoke first. His talk closely followed his recent NYT op-ed. He laid out five parts to his talk:
Design can be deduced from physical structures - This was the Mt. Rushmore argument. Biological systems appear to be designed - quotations from various scientists, including ID opponents, using words like design and machine. Cites Crick/Dawkins/Paley/Alberts/Issue of Cell containing lots of titles. States that use of the term machine is meant literally. So far, it's the NYT piece. There are structural obstacles to gradual evolution - Quotes Darwin : If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.(Origin of Species)Emphasizes "my theory would absolutely break down". Introduces the idea of IC (irreducible complexity) via the famous mousetrap analogy. Uses the flagellum as an example and quotes DeRosier as saying how it looks more like a human design than anything else in biology. Points out not only that it's easy to break and has lots of components, but also that getting all the components together should be hard for DEM. Darwinian explanation rely on "undisciplined imagination"- Then he makes the claim that there are no studies showing a mechanism for evolution by mutation/selection [in detail, rigorous...lots of qualifiers are implicit] Cites F. Harold from The Way of the Cell "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."[emph by Behe...this is also quoted here]Behe objects that Franklin does not spell out the principle, and shows a slide with the Ghostbusters logo. The principle is to exclude the supernatural. Brings up the clotting cascade, and points out an error made by Russ Doolittle in a Boston Review article in 1997. Doolittle mischaracterized a 1996 paper on double knockout mice lacking two proteins in the clotting cascade. Behe introduces a theme for the evening: if Russ Doolittle, the world's expert, makes mistakes about the clotting cascade, then there is no evidence that it arose by DEM. There is strong evidence for Design and little for Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms-this is more of a conclusion than an argument. Cassone's opening statement Cassone's title: "Irreducible Complexity?!? My Dear Dr. Behe, Living Organisms Are Redundantly Complex with Interchangeable Molecular Parts, which, if Designed at All, are Designed with a Distinct Lack of Intelligence!! Rather, the more Parsimonious Explanation is that They Have Evolved By a Combination of Mutation, Selection, Genetic Drift and an Immense Expanse of Billions of Years of Good-Old-Fashioned Time"Shorter version: Biological complex systems are multiply redundant and suboptimally designed. Major questions addressed by biology/evolution
Venus flytraps and sundews by analogy to mousetraps. Related, missing parts to change mechanism but keep function. What are parts? Importance of DNA as hereditary material. Brings in Mendel, dominant and recessive traits [where is he going with this?]. Systems in diploid organisms are not IC because there are at least two copies of any autosomal gene. Extended discussion of visual systems [his area of expertise]. Redundancy of components rhodopsins, transducins, channels. Similar proteins in many other light-sensing systems. Design failure - rods and cones placed to require blind spot...design not intelligent. Behe's rebuttal: Problems with Behe's ppt for the rebuttal (he has a sluggish remote - not his computer). The bad design argument is an argument from ignorance. May be reasons; in the case of retina, arrangement improves blood supply. Redundancy of an IC system does not address how the first one got there. Mousetraps vs rat traps with two springs - removing one hampers, but the basic mechanism is IC. "Could not possibly" is too weak a standard. Cottage industry of mousetrap design analysis since his book. Mousetraps may have evolved, but involved ID. Cassone's rebuttal: His slides work. Seems he was saving some stuff knowing he got to go last: Although KO mice might need the whole clotting cascade, other vertebrates don't. Flagellar mutants that still work, so not IC. Archael flagella are simpler. Although ID claims to not be about religion, it's proponents openly use it as a wedge strategy to counter materialism. DEM/materialistic science is not incompatible with the American way. Many conventional biologists (ID skeptics) go to church too. Most religions don't question DEM. highlights from the Q&A: Questions were often long-winded, and I took a short break during the questions. Here are some of the ones I found memorable, if not also interesting...but I didn't take thorough notes here. Borrowed parts - borrowing parts from a friend's truck still involves intelligence and not common descent. Social scientist asks long-winded and stereotypical question about whether or not science is about objective truth. Behe says yes. Further discussion thankfully cut off by Trotter. Are there IC systems in biology that nevertheless evolved from non-IC components. Analogy: concrete w/o steel rebar allows short skyscrapers. Rebar makes them stronger and allows taller skyscrapers. Rebar is now an essential component, but it wasn't before. We refer to the questioner as the "skyscraper guy". Cassone says no. In response to various questions, Behe brings up Doolittle a lot. Cassone points out that Mike Manson is in the audience; Trotter invites Mike to comment on the flagellar motor. Mike gives a very good explanation of how this allegedly IC structure is composed of parts that are related to proteins and domains known to function in other systems and for other functions. Points out adhesion function of flagella even if nonmotile. Mike points out that the skyscraper guy had a good question. Behe responds with Russ Doolittle and how even though clotting factors are related to serine proteases, the proteins still have to work together. Mike says that Russ Doolittle isn't here to defend himself, but he is, so he'd be happy to continue with discussion of the flagella. A biology teacher asks whether in light of the lack of evidence for macroevolution, would proof of ID affect research in biology. Cassone: yes. A young woman asks Cassone if he would prefer to live in a world of ID or a world of DEM. Cassone calls being designed boring and chooses DEM. Jim Erickson asks Behe a version of a point I blogged in December: the IC examples are all ancient systems, and Behe grants that once you have an IC system, it can be elaborated by microevolution, duplication, divergence, selection. So what has design contributed in the last 250 million years? Behe answers that we don't know. There could be IC differences between humans and other primates. An anthropologist asks about whether vestigial organs are designed. Behe says conventional evolution can account for loss of function and degeneration. A strange question arguing that Darwinism damaged the history of Genetics for 50 years, based on the time lag between Mendel and the rediscovery of Mendel. Behe disagrees with the questioner, who exclaims "50 years!!" The experimental verifiability question is raised. Cassone mentions computer evolution studies by Lenski. Behe disses Lenski's E. coli work...pointing out that long lab evolution work is only losing complex systems, not gaining them. Out of time, Trotter thanked the speakers and the audience. I'm sure I missed some things, but I think I got the general content.
TrackbacksThe Trackback URL for this entry is: http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/tb.php/1120
Pingbacks
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||