|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Joseph on August 25, 19100 at 02:34:27:
In Reply to: A note on Behe's Irreducible Complexity theory posted by dito107 on August 22, 19100 at 00:21:20:
... In a recent note in the Journals of Science Philosophy, Michael Behe had to acknowledge that redundant complexity, and not irreducible complexity, may be responsible for the blood clotting process. Experiments with gene "knock-outs" in mice could eliminate the genes for the blood clotting agents. Any one line is basically "hemophilic". But, once you crossed the lines the resulting individuals, having two genes missing, are once more normal........
This is absolutely not true. Doolittle misread Beghe's work on this subject.
The mice with two missing genes did not develop blood clots, which was problem number 1. Problem number 2 was that all the females died in pregnancy. I don't believe that these two characteristics are considered normal are they?
... Now, this set of experiments do not disproof IC altogether, but has taken one of Behe's favorite examples out of the table.......
Actually, they some of the first pieces of evidence, which support his contention. Furthur tests may continue to support his theories, or they may go in the other direction. We'll see.
.... A different set of researchers using an even more complex example, photsynthesis, showed how this metabolic process could be decomposed and how different evolutionary lines of plants have various components. Both field observation, and experimentation have left IC completely out of the picture in this, the most basic metablism for life on Earth (at least ours).......
I wasn't aware that Behe has said photosynthesis is irreducibly complex. In view of the above statement that you made which I know is wrong, I will check out this point in any case.
Irreducible complexity is simply a biological process composed of multiple subsystems all of which must be present for the process to work. According to the theory, some processes are, and therefore give evidence of design. Some proceses are not, and must be presumed to have evolved.
Given the Cambrian discontinuity, it seems to be a theory worthy of study, as possibly allowing a fuller more complete explanation of life's development at all levels then neo Darwinism. If it is thrown out, it is thrown out. But studies unto its applicability, both pro and con should be presented correctly.
In your first case above, you failed to do that. May I ask why?