What has fins like a whale, skin like a lizard, and eyes like a moth? The future of engineering.

One cloudless midsummer day in February, Andrew Parker, an evolutionary biologist, knelt in the baking red sand of the Australian outback just south of Alice Springs and eased the right hind leg of a thorny devil into a dish of water. The maneuver was not as risky as it sounds: Though covered with sharp spines, the lizard stood only about an inch high at the shoulder, and it looked up at Parker apprehensively, like a baby dinosaur that had lost its mother. It seemed too cute for its harsh surroundings, home to an alarmingly high percentage of the world’s most venomous snakes, including the inland taipan, which can kill a hundred people with an ounce of its venom, and the desert death adder, whose name pretty well says it all. Fierce too is the landscape itself, where the wind hissing through the mulga trees feels like a blow dryer on max, and the sun seems three times its size in temperate climes. Constant reminders that here, in the driest part of the world’s driest inhabited continent, you’d better have a good plan for where your next drink is coming from.

Go on reading this interesting article from NG

Mike Gene hit the target again from 12.In The Design Matrix pages 89-99

The more we advanced in technology, the more we can detect the design…
and benefit from..

 ”As the new data comes , undirected fabl of Darwinian evolution becomes more and more tricky misinformation of the materialism.This article belongs to my most favourite researcher, Mike Gene who works on directed evolutionary processes called front-loading. Here is the latest article on him. You had better visit his site ( the design matrix ) to learn more about the concept of fron t loading.”

Mike GENE

For years, I have been trying to flesh out the conceptualization of front-loading evolution at the origin of life. A working hypothesis has been that the first cells (uni-cellular life forms) were front-loaded with information that would facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life. One possible candidate for such front-loaded ‘information’ would be the homeodomain proteins. These proteins play essential roles in metazoan development and are considered part of the developmental toolkit as outlined by biologist Sean Carroll.

A few months ago, a study was published that outlines data and arguments that perfectly resonate with my front-loading views. Let’s have a look.

The study is Homeodomain proteins belong to the ancestral molecular toolkit of Eukaryotes, published by French researchers, Romain Derelle, Philippe Lopez, Herve´ Le Guyader, and Michael Manuel. It was published in the June, 2007 issue of Evolution & Development (9:212–219). Feast your eyes on the abstract:

Multicellular organization arose several times by convergence during the evolution of eukaryotes (e.g., in terrestrial plants, several lineages of “algae,” fungi, and metazoans). To reconstruct the evolutionary transitions between unicellularity and multicellularity, we need a proper understanding of the origin and diversification of regulatory molecules governing the construction of a multicellular organism in these various lineages. Homeodomain (HD) proteins offer a paradigm for studying such issues, because in multicellular eukaryotes, like animals, fungi and plants, these transcription factors are extensively used in fundamental developmental processes and are highly diversified. A number of large eukaryote lineages are exclusively unicellular, however, and it remains unclear to what extent this condition reflects their primitive lack of “good building blocks” such as the HD proteins. Taking advantage from the recent burst of sequence data from a wide variety of eukaryote taxa, we show here that HD-containing transcription factors were already existing and diversified (in at least two main classes) in the last common eukaryote ancestor. Although the family was retained and independently expanded in the multicellular taxa, it was lost in several lineages of unicellular parasites or intracellular symbionts. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the common ancestor of eukaryotes was complex in molecular terms, and already possessed many of the regulatory molecules, which later favored the multiple convergent acquisition of multicellularity.

Sound familiar?

Let’s look more closely. The researchers found that homeodomain proteins “are present in all eukaryotic lineages containing multicellular organisms, and absent in exclusively unicellular lineages.” Thus, we have a good candidate for front-loading, as this protein is not essential to uni-cellular life, but does appear essential for multi-cellular organisms.

After conducting their phylogenetic analysis, the researchers conclude:

The results of character optimization (Fig. 1) show that, instead of being a derived character of ‘‘higher’’ eukaryotes lineages enriched for multicellularity, the HD existed in the last common ancestor of all living eukaryotes. Although the HD occurs in all lineages containing multicellular organisms (animals, fungi, plants, amoebozoans, and heterokonts), this is nothing more than the retention of a eukaryotic plesiomorphy.

They also find that the last eukaryotic ancestor contained at least two specialized versions of the HD:

Thus our results extend the subdivision of HDs between TALE and non-TALE to the whole eukaryotic domain of life. Because both the groups include genes from metazoans, plants, fungi, amoebozoans, heterokonts, and Trichomonas, we conclude that the common ancestor of eukaryotes possessed at least these two distinct types of HDs.

And then note an interesting pattern:

All investigated eukaryote taxa possess either both groups of HDs or no HD at all, which we consider an intriguing observation, because after duplication, one duplicate is commonly lost in some branches of the phylogenetic tree (Force et al. 1999). Although this pattern may have occurred by chance, it may instead result from evolutionary forces acting on the genome for conservation of both of these functional categories of HDs. Possibly, they complement for the function of the ancestral HD (before the duplication)…..Relaxing the constraint, under conditions where these functions are not needed, may result in the loss of both HD categories, as observed for example in apicomplexans and kinetoplastids.

They then reach a conclusion that should be quite familiar to those who have followed my own speculations on the internet over the years:

The pattern of HD evolution recovered in this study is consistent with the view that ‘‘Ur-eukaryota’’ was a complex organism, from a molecular point of view (Forterre and Philippe 1999; Bapteste and Gribaldo 2003; Roy and Gilbert 2005), in contrast with more traditional conceptions assuming a progressive evolution toward increased complexity. Independent reduction from a complex ancestral genome is currently recognized as a major theme in eukaryote evolution (Bapteste and Gribaldo 2003; Kurland et al. 2006). As a corollary of ancestral molecular complexity, Ur-eukaryota probably possessed many of the good building blocks, which were subsequently recruited, by convergence in several lineages, to perform the functions required for development of multicellular organisms. In other terms, we suggest that the eukaryotes as a whole are preadapted for multicellularity, which only means that the ancestral complexity of the eukaryote genome and cell biology facilitated multiple acquisitions of multicellularity. This does not imply, of course, that increased complexity is a necessary outcome of eukaryote evolution.

In essence, this is the very type of result I have been predicting for front-loading; “eukaryotes as a whole are preadapted for multicellularity.”

The authors then turn to the next interesting question:

The independent diversification of HDs in the various multicellular lineages, as well as their crucial developmental role in these phylogenetically distant organisms, despite convergent acquisition of multicellularity, raise the fascinating question of the function of HD-containing transcription factors in the (unicellular) common ancestor of eukaryotes. We lay the bet that HD proteins were not primitively involved in domestic cellular regulations, but rather in higher order processes, e.g., communication between individual cells, or cell modifications along the life cycle, as already suggested by data on unicellular fungi (Johnson 1995).

If their bet is won, what we have is the last common ancestor of eukaryotes as a complex and sophisticated entity front-loaded to spawn multi-cellular life.
source; http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/front-loading-with-homeodomains/

Keiichi NAMBA
Professor, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University

INTERVIEW 

Nature created a rotary motor with a diameter of 30 nm. Motility of bacteria, such as Salmonella and E. coli with a body size of 1 ~ 2 microns, is driven by rapid rotation of a helical propeller by such a tiny little motor at its base. This organelle is called the flagellum, made of a rotary motor and a thin helical filament that grows up to about 15 microns. It rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at energy consumption of only around 10-16 W and with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%. Prof. Namba’s research group is going to reveal the mechanism of this highly efficient flagellar motor that is far beyond the capabilities of artificial motors. (Such as some F1 high engineering motors have recently reached below this rpm like BMW’s 19250-500)

The flagellum is made by self-assembly of about 25 different proteins. The rotor ring made of protein FliF is the first to assemble in the cytoplasmic membrane. Then, other protein molecules attach to the ring one after another from the base to the tip to construct the motor structure. After the motor has been formed, the flagellar filament, which functions as a helical propeller, is assembled. Precise recognition of the template structure by component proteins allows this highly ordered self-assembly process to proceed without error. The flagellar filament is made of 20,000 to 30,000 copies of flagellin polymerized into a helical tube structure. Flagellin molecules are transported through a long narrow central channel of the flagellum from the cell interior to the distal end of the flagellum, where they self-assemble in a helical manner by the help of a cap complex. The cap is pentameric complex made of HAP2 and has a pentagonal plate and five leg domains, whose flexible stepping movements accompanied by rotation of the whole cap is the key mechanism to promote the efficient self-assembly of flagellin molecules by preparing just one binding site of flagellin at a time and guiding the binding.

 More.. 

Robert Shapiro is one of the greatest scientist on DNA chemistry. He has over 125 publications and many scientific articles and his last article entitled as ” A simpler Origin for Life” He amazingly describes why the Darwinian manner of evolution is invalid about explanining life on earth.He confessed that Darwinian scoptoma is totally improbable and impossible when we take mathematical probalities of origins of molecular life into consideration.He put forward polished claim called small molecules rooted back to Oparin, Russian scientist. He explained his theory with same intruments within the Darwinian toolbox.As everyone knows R.Dawkins loves to use those grammatical intruments when he tells his fairy tales about evolution.They are such as ; If…., may have, might have, colud have been, etc.. but R.Shapiro is maybe the one and only scientist ,being honest about Darwinian evolution from the materialist camp.His works lead us cross examining the facts  which science has discovered about molecular life and evolution within last decades.

Here is his latest article on Sciam

 Irreducible Complexity And Darwinian Pathways
Guest response to article by R.H. Thornhill and D.W. Ussery
“Mike Gene“

ARN Forum
June 16, 2000

It’s official. Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity (IC) has found itself in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ironically, it was introduced by two critics of ID attempting to formulate non-teleological mechanisms for spawning IC. The article is: Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. “A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution.” J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.

First of all, this article shows that Behe’s work has indeed contributed to science. Thornhill and Ussery (T&U) write:

“However, the more theoretical question about the accessibility by Darwinian evolution of irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, if such exist, has not been thoroughly examined.One factor hampering examination of the accessibility of biological structures by Darwinian evolution is the absence of a classification of possible routes. A suggested classification is presented here.”

Although one can argue about it, this can be viewed as a fundamental confirmation of Behe’s thesis that the origin of these IC structures has not been explained by science. However, what should be clear is that Behe’s skepticism has served as an impetus for these scientists to develop a classification that did not exist before. Therefore, Behe has indeed contributed in an indirect way by serving as the stimulus for the creation of such a classification.

T&U then define terms, but strangely, do not use Behe’s definition of IC. Of interest also is their definition of Darwinian evolution. It includes the following: “no intervention by conscious agent(s) occurs.” Once again, we see how an a priori assumption of science works to exclude a teleological cause (reminding us that science is simply not an authority when dealing with question of teleology vs. non-teleology).

T&U then outline the four possible routes of Darwinian evolution.

The first is: Serial direct Darwinian evolution. This means change along a single axis.

Here again we get to see the contribution of Behe as the authors then note, “Although it can generate complicated structures, it cannot generate irreducibly complex structures.”

So we can see that IC helps to rule out certain evolutionary pathways. This is also very significant in that the most persuasive examples of random mutation and natural selection (RM&NS) entail serial direct Darwinian evolution. The traditional examples of Darwin’s finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, darkening wings in moths are all examples of serial direct Darwinian evolution. Thus, this means that evidence for this type of evolution is not evidence that IC can/did evolve via the blind watchmaker mechanism (BWM).

The second mechanism is: Parallel direct Darwinian evolution. This means approximately synchronous changes in more than one component, so that modification to other components always occurs before the total modification to any one component has become significant.

They then cite some examples:

Most complex supramolecular biological structures have primarily this type of accessibility by Darwinian evolution, with examples being bat echolocation, spiders’ web construction, honeybee waggle dances, and insect mimicry by orchids (Dawkins, 1986, 1995). Some complex (but not irreducibly complex) molecular systems, such as the globin proteins (Ptitsyn, 1999; Satoh, 1999), could also have evolved in this manner.

But they also write:

Parallel direct Darwinian evolution can generate irreducibly complex structures, but not irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, and this is the valid conclusion to draw from Behe’s thesis.

Thus, once again, we can see that when we are dealing with IC molecular machines (which are composed of functionally indivisible parts), the various examples of Darwinian evolution cited by Dawkins et al. are irrelevant. None of it amounts to evidence that Behe’s IC examples evolved by the BWM.

Thus, before we go on, let’s consider that despite all the expressed incredulity that is so common among Behe’s critics, he has indeed contributed to science by forcing scientists to classify routes of evolution and by showing that 50% of the possible routes can’t generate IC machines. This is progress. Without Behe, for example, many would probably still think that classic evidence of RM&NS allows us to think that the bacterial flagellum evolved by the same mechanism.

Next, we turn to the remaining two possible routes in which Darwinian evolution (DE) can generate IC, that of Elimination of functional redundancy and Adoption from a different function. The authors use the analogy of an arch to illustrate how these mechanisms might work to generate IC:

“The arch is irreducibly complex, and, assuming that cement does not set instantaneously, any arch one sees must therefore either have been built using scaffolding, analogously to redundancy elimination, or have been built elsewhere, perhaps horizontally, and moved into position when the cement had set, analogously to adoption.”

The biological examples used by the authors to support these mechanisms are not very impressive, as the authors shy away from addressing any of Behe’s examples in detail. In the case of functional redundancy, the authors spend most their time on the origin of the mammalian jaw and not a molecular machine. When it comes to the adoption from a different function, the authors write of the origin of feathers from scales, shared domains in different proteins, and two examples where a protein has been co-opted to perform an alternative function (i.e., crystallins). Let’s take a closer look at the two possible Darwinian pathways for generating IC.
Adoption from a Different Function

Ironically, the main problem with this pathway was first highlighted by another Behe-critic, H. Allen Orr. In his critique from Boston Review, Orr writes:

“First it will do no good to suggest that all the required parts of some biochemical pathway popped up simultaneously by mutation. Although this “solution” yields a functioning system in one fell swoop, it’s so hopelessly unlikely that no Darwinian takes it seriously. As Behe rightly says, we gain nothing by replacing a problem with a miracle. Second, we might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car’s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity.”

To appreciate why co-option is unlikely to be a general solution to IC, let’s return to Behe’s definition of IC:

“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.”

and

“An irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning.”

Since an IC system is built from closely/well-matched parts, it is unlikely that a component shaped to fulfill another function can snuggly plug-in to generate the IC function. In fact, Behe anticipates this solution by writing:

“Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of the an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously.”

To illustrate this point, let’s consider the bacterial flagellum (perhaps the most well known example of an IC system). A functioning flagellum requires about 30 gene products (components). So what does the co-option hypothesis predict? That prior to the existence of the flagellum, these 30 gene products (or their duplicates) all existed doing something else. Then, they just happened to all fit together by chance to create a flagellum. And afterwards, the other 30 or so hypothetical functions of these original gene products disappeared. Does this really sound like a general solution to IC?

The brilliance of Darwin was to minimize the role of chance in apparent design. But once we turn to the co-option explanation, we leave this explanatory appeal behind, as chance reasserts itself into a place of prominence. For it is chance that determines whether the 30-or-so gene products just happen to come together to form a functioning flagellum, as selection was pruning these gene products in accord with 30-or-so different functions. Thus, the co-option explanation is really a return to using chance as an explanation for apparent design, and just as it was not convincing in pre-Darwinian days, it is not convincing today.

One seeming way around this problem is to imagine 5 or 6 subsystems, each composed of 6 or 5 gene products, all conducting different functions. Thus, we need only imagine that by chance, 5 or 6 subsystems could happen to come together to form a well-matched whole that generates a new function. But I don’t see how this helps much as Orr’s critique still applies. And what’s worse, in this case, the non-teleologist must now explain the origin of 5 or 6 different IC systems and why they too disappeared after the origin of the new IC system.

When we return to the T&U paper, this problem becomes obvious as the examples of adoption that the authors list give us no reason to think IC system arose by this pathway. Their first example is that of the transition from scales to feathers. But it is not clear this is an example of generating IC and this whole topic ignores Behe’s points on pp. 40-41. The fact that various proteins can share domains doesn’t really support adoption from a different function, as there is no reason to think a designer would ensure that each and every part of a system is truly unique. For example, that both a lawnmower and automobile have spark plugs is not evidence that one motor was co-opted to form another by random changes and selection.

The only clear examples, in in my opinion, of adoption from a different function are as follows:

Antifreeze glycoprotein in the blood of Antarctic notothenioid fishes, which enables them to survive in icy seas, is considered to have evolved from a functionally unrelated pancreatic trypsinogen-like protease, and the recent discovery of chimeric genes which encode both the protease and an antifreeze glycoprotein polyprotein strongly supports this theory (Cheng & Chen, 1999).

Crystallins (proteins with refractive functions in the eye lens) are closely related or identical to stress-protective proteins in non-ocular tissues (eg. Drosophila a-crystallins and small heat-shock proteins are homologous).

But note that in both cases, these proteins don’t function as well-matched components in an IC system. Thus, while sometimes a protein might adopt a different function since it is not constrained to interact with multiple partners, an IC component is unlikely to arise in this fashion because it is constrained to interact with multiple partners.

Since the adoption from a different function explanation relies heavily on pure chance, it is unlikely to be a general solution to IC. In fact, as Behe notes, the more complex the system, the less likely that this pathway is what generated IC (since it relies more heavily on converging independent, random events).

But there is another problem with the adoption explanation. To illustrate this, let’s use a simple 3-part IC system, the chaperone machine. The chaperone machine is a protein complex that binds proteins in their partially unfolded state to prevent aggregation in the cell. Each of the three parts fulfills a different role. DnaK is the protein clamp that binds to other proteins. DnaJ is the protein that loads the clamp. And GrpE is the protein that unloads the clamp (the mechanism is more complicated and involves coordinated movement tied to ATP hydrolysis, but this simple description will suffice).

What the adoption explanation assumes is an inherently flexibility/plasticity to IC components. And what this assumption thus predicts is permutations. That is, IC systems should demonstrate much variability. We should see some bacteria with dnaK and two other chaperones (not dnaJ and grpE). We should see others with dnaJ and two other proteins (not dnaK and grpE). We should also see some bacteria with grpE (and not dnaK and grpE). But we don’t. For example, imagine a mutation occurred in a bacterium that disabled dnaJ. IC predicts this would be lethal and selection would prevent this organism from altering the gene pool. But if adoption from a different function is common, the mutation need not be lethal and a new chaperone machine would evolve around the protein substituting for the lost component.

When we look to eubacteria, the three chaperone components are universal. They are found in gm+ and gm- bacteria, thermophiles (Thermotoga and Aquifex), spirochetes, Deinococcus, Campylobacter, cyanobacteria, Neisseria, and even Mycoplasma. Again, this is most likely due to the fact that this chaperone machine is IC (IC predicts functional constraint) and other proteins cannot substitute through adoption from a different function.

Recently, it was determined that most known Archaea lack this chaperone machine. That some have it has been attributed to horizontal transfer. Here was a good opportunity to gather more positive support for the IC status of such an ancient and highly conserved system. I predicted that where we would find the chaperone machine in Archaea, we’d find all three components given that it is IC. Then, not too long ago, I came across a review paper on stress genes and proteins that verified this prediction. The authors noted that genomic data demonstrate the following in Archea:

“whenever hsp70 was present in a genome, hsp40 and grpE were also found if enough sequencing was done; conversely, genome sequencing has demonstrated that if the hsp70 gene is absent, hsp40 and grpE are also absent.”

IC nicely explains this as the lateral transfer of only one or two components of the chaperone machine would be useless and thus degrade. That’s why you see either all three gene products or none. But if adoption from a different function was a common IC generator, we should see permutations in Archaea, where a laterally transferred dnaK gene would find helpers in the archaeal cytoplasm and evolve a new chaperone machine. And all of this is significant because the chaperone machine is a very simple example of IC having only three parts.

Thus, it would seem that the more complex an IC system is, and the less variable it is across phylogenetic lines, the less likely it is that adoption from a different function explains its origin.

One last problem with the adoption explanation is that it ignores another element of Behe’s argument (pp. 43-45):

“To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors, we need to distinguish between a physical precursor and a conceptual precursor. . . . Darwinian evolution requires physical precursors.”

That is, Darwinian evolution is supposed to be a description of history. Thus, it invokes real-life proteins with real functions that are really co-opted into a conglomerate to perform a new, real function. Darwinists tend to overlook this and prefer to remain in the conceptual realm, where proteins are imagined to have unknown functions such that they somehow get adopted into another conglomerate. And that’s where it all ends with most Darwinists. But as Behe notes, we need physical precursors and this means we need evidence of these physical precursors. Thus, unless the adoption from a different function story is supported by real evidence, it fails to explain the origin of the IC system.

In summary, the adoption from a different function explanation is unlikely to be a general solution to IC (as Orr notes) as it relies too heavily on pure chance as an explanation for apparent design. We thus need independent evidence that this explanation validly applies in any system in question, especially in light of the fact that examples of this pathway do not lend themselves easily to explaining the origin of IC. Furthermore, if we don’t see evidence of permutations that run through out the entire IC system, there is good reason to dismiss this explanation. So let’s turn our attention to the remaining Darwinian pathway.
Elimination of Function Redundancy

The interesting thing about this pathway is that it too robs the standard Darwinian explanation of its appeal. Richard Dawkins presents Darwinism in its most convincing form:

“We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.”

Yet elimination of function redundancy is an explanation that does not begin with “simple beginnings,” but instead begins with a state that is more complex than that which is observed. But if simple beginnings are needed to “come into existence by chance,” the complicated beginning, assumed by this pathway, may be too complicated to “come into existence by chance.”

It seems to me that this pathway is not taken seriously when it comes to explaining origins through non-teleological mechanisms. For example, another Behe-critic, Clare Stevens, relies on simple (more direct) beginnings to explain the origin of IC:

“So how can the whole process have arisen step by step as required by gradual evolution? It certainly is impossible to believe that these complex sequential processes arose all at once. So we must look for a different format. For a start we must assume that there was a more direct method of synthesis available at one stage indeed that a more direct process might still be available in some creature yet to be investigated (as I have suggested in the case of adenine). Then we must go on to surmise that the intermediate stages are refinements interpolated subsequently.”

In fact, even Ussery himself (one of the authors of the paper) uses simple beginnings on his web page to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum:

“If you look at bacterial flagella, you find that some are indeed quite complicated, but others are more simple. For example, the basal body can vary with species - in E. coli there are four rings, in Bacillus subtilis two rings, and in Caulobacter crescentus five rings. I can easily imagine a scenario where a “primitive bacterium” might have one ring, and then you have a flagellum with two rings, then three, and so on. This is a “gradual, step-by-step” evolution, which is the antithesis of Behe’s argument.”

“It is likely that as new bacterial genomes continue to be sequenced (at the rate of about one a month!), organisms will be found which require even fewer genes to make a completely functional flagella.”

Thus, Dawkins, Stevens, and Ussery (and many more) all go back to “simple beginnings,” the very opposite initial state assumed by this pathway.

However, I personally find this pathway of redundancy elimination to be very interesting, as it may suggest that some originally designed states were much more complex than seen today, such that evolution was essentially rigged to evolve in particular directions. In other words, this pathway does not eliminate the design inference behind IC, but instead, suggests that IC is an indirect indicator of an originally designed state.

Nevertheless, what we need is evidence that the initial state was more complicated than the IC state. For example, are we talking about flagellum that were originally composed of 60 parts? Where is the evidence for such a claim? It is an interesting thought, but without evidence, we can’t take it beyond the realm of philosophy.
Conclusions

Behe’s notion of IC has found itself into the scientific literature and is being taken seriously by scientists. Behe has contributed to science by forcing non-teleologists to once-and-for-all lay the various Darwinian pathways on the table. This is progress as we can now look to the data to determine if there is any evidence that these pathways apply to an particular IC system in question.

Behe’s notion of IC does indeed help us to effectively rule out some of the Darwinian pathways, as admitted by T&U. What is most relevant is that the pathways ruled out by IC are also those best supported by example/evidence and those that are most persuasive in explaining apparent design. The traditional examples of Darwin’s finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, antibiotic resistance, and the darkening wings in moths give us no reason to think IC systems were generated by the RM&NS. The remaining explanations for IC are indeed possible, but without evidence to support them, there is no reason to seriously embrace them. Neither explanation constitutes a better general solution to IC than intelligent design. What’s more, both explanations seriously weaken the overall appeal of the standard non-teleological explanations, as they resurrect a prominent role for pure chance in the origin of apparent design and/or rely on complicated initial states that may lend themselves more readily to a teleological cause.

Without realizing it, T&U have made a significant contribution to ID.

For more discussion, go to ARN Forum.

Copyright © 2000 Access Research Network. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 7.06.00

[ Previous Page ] [ Michael J. Behe Page ] [ ARN Home Page ]

This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm

Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of the above document for specific copyright information.