Scientifically challenged need guidance...

[snafui]

Specifically, I'm the scientifically challenged and need help from you about ID.

The following questions are from this article:
www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/differences.html

Behe: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Aren't there many cases in nature where something is missing and life still manages to function? We can live without a spleen or appendix for example.

Morris and Parker present the same argument in their book: Perhaps the biggest problem for evolutionists is “the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment.” As I mentioned in the first chapter, an adaptation often involves a whole group of traits working together, and none of the individual pieces has any survival value (“Darwinian fitness”) until the whole set is functioning together.

Isn't it by evolutionary design that an environment develops to work together? And is a predator not a development that can interfere with the environment?

As for point four, while ID may not commit you to such a view, it is certainly true that most ID proponents do not believe that humans and apes share a common ancestry.

The last I heard on some documentary is this is not believed by ET proponents?

I'm going to leave it here before I read anymore of that site. Please help me out here, thanks in advance.

[solidsquid]

snafui said:

Specifically, I'm the scientifically challenged and need help from you about ID.

The following questions are from this article:
www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/differences.html

Behe: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Aren't there many cases in nature where something is missing and life still manages to function? We can live without a spleen or appendix for example.

Behe's problem is that he cannot get past the rut in thinking he's placed himself in because of his ideology. It has been shown on several occassions where his IC argument is flawed.

He utilizes the false analogy of biological organisms to mousetraps. He cites the bacterial flagellum and THE IC structure but that's been addressed. What he fails to realize is that in an evolutionary lineage, a structure may acquire a function that it was not originally utilized for. For example, cilia that are utilized for movement on many prokaryote and eukaryote cells serve more than one function in many cells, alluding to possible evolutionary origins:

Eukaryotes are any organisms like trees, people, protozoa and amoebae which, unlike bacteria, have their DNA in a separate nucleus within the cell. Many eukaryote microbes propel themselves through water by waving projections called cilia, which they also use to collect food such as bacteria. A bit of terminology: cilia are also called flagella, especially when a cell only has one or two. The microbes are then called flagellates. But eukaryote flagella and bacterial flagella are entirely different structures.

How do we define an IC system in the case of the eukaryotic cilium? Behe first specifies the system as the entire cilium. The function of the system is to move the cell through liquid by a sort of waving action. What about parts? At the level of biochemical machines, one usually thinks of individual proteins as parts. But Behe simply divides a cilium into three large parts, which he calls 'motor, connector, and paddle' (page 65). It is clear that a cilium wouldn't work without each of these big parts, so we have IC. Cilia are many and diverse (for examples see Finding Darwin's God (10, page 142)) and may contain two hundred or so different proteins and various numbers of microtubules. Some proteins are always present; others vary from microbe to microbe. If we take proteins as our parts (the biochemical challenge), then cilia aren't IC; no one has been able to find a real cilium with an 'irreducible' set of proteins. If we take microtubules as our parts as Miller does, the cilium is not IC. But with Behe's parts it is IC. Remember, it's up to us to choose function, system and parts to satisfy the definition. Or not. So it turns out that being IC or not is not a property of the cilium itself. It depends on choices we make.

Source - www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#cilium

Isn't it by evolutionary design that an environment develops to work together? And is a predator not a development that can interfere with the environment?

There isn't any "design" within an evolutionary framework, it is simply unequal survival from a varied population - natural selection. The "working together" is simply a consequence of natural selection.

As for point four, while ID may not commit you to such a view, it is certainly true that most ID proponents do not believe that humans and apes share a common ancestry.

The last I heard on some documentary is this is not believed by ET proponents?

Humans are apes. However, if they mean Homo sapiens and other primates like our cousins, the chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), then yes we do share a common ancestor and there is ample evidence to support such a view - there has been for many, many years. There is the fossil record, morphological studies, and genetic studies (the most damning evidence which creationists and some IDists simply ignore). The biggest problem is that the transitions are usually very fuzzy and pinpointing an exact speciation within several generations let alone one may be near impossible. We have a good educated estimate - around 5.4-7 million years ago our lineage split from what became the chimp lineage. Not all speciation events are cut and dry, many are "messy".

[solidsquid]

Some interesting stuff from Behe's own department at Lehigh University:

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Source - www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

From Behe's own faculty page:

Official Disclaimer

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

And here's some information to get you up to speed on the whole evolution v. ID/Creationism:

www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

www.talkdesign.org/introfaq.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_CreationismIndex.htm

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Evolution sites:

www.talkorigins.org/

www.ncseweb.org/default.asp

evolution.berkeley.edu/

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/index.html

darwiniana.org/

Creationism/ID sites:

www.answersingenesis.org/

www.uncommondescent.com/

www.icr.org/

www.creationresearch.org/

And here's a long list of ID, creationist and anti-evolution websites from the "Revolution against Evolution" website:

www.rae.org/revevlnk.html

[snafui]

Thanks solidsquid, I'll read what I can then come back and ask some questions...

[solidsquid]

No problemo.