In my opinion, Behe decisively wins this round (as I think he has won the previous matches against Miller). Further, it's difficult for me to believe that Miller isn't being purposely deceptive in his criticisms of Behe.
UPDATE: "Decisively wins" is too tame a phrase to describe what Behe did to Miller. "Took him to school"? "Humiliated him"? "Behe beat him 'til Miller's blood covered the floor, then he used his carcass to wipe it all up"? Yeah, that last one comes close. And Behe did it all without being the least bit impolite. I take my hat off to the man.
In fact, if you think of Behe as Gene Hackman, and Miller as Richard Harris, it went something like the film clip below, only Behe didn't display any animosity, at all. He merely used Miller as a punching bag to send a message to all the other Darwinist critics out there.
Unforgiven (2/10) Movie CLIP - English Bob (1992) HD:
As a Ph.D. student in evolutionary biology, I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that I disagree with your assessment! There are quite a lot of points covered in Miller's and Behe's responses, but I am curious: What did you find most compelling about Behe's response? Also, why is it "difficult for you to believe that Miller isn't being purposely deceptive in his criticisms of Behe"?
ReplyDeleteHi Benjamin! I'm happy to see my assessment provoked a response from somebody, and especially a Ph.D. student in evolutionary biology! Wow!
ReplyDeleteAt the top of my list would come Miller's misconstruing of Behe's explaining that a double CCC would be 1 in 10^40, and claiming that it would only be 1 in 10^20 + 1 in 10^20, instead. Behe was very clear in his book about what he meant. It's difficult to believe that Miller somehow missed the point.
Hi Bilbo - thanks for the response!
ReplyDeleteI will say that I think Miller was not clear in his critique of Behe's method of calculation, but I also think that Behe misconstrued Miller's meaning (but perhaps not intentionally). In Behe's fourth post, he addresses an excerpt from Miller that ends in "Behe gets his super-long odds by pretending that both CCCs have to arise at once, in the same cell, purely by chance. They don't..." In saying this, Miller is claiming that the very thought experiment is an inadequate one, because there is nothing in nature that actually requires a "double CCC" to evolve all together in one complete unit. So he is not, as Behe claims, deceitfully saying "No, I have decided to change your own model. I will switch the premise to one in which each protein binding site will necessarily be beneficial by itself". He is explicitly saying that the premise Behe constructs is wrong ("Behe gets his super long odds by..."). Miller brings up the case where something would look like a "double CCC" once it has evolved, and explains how such a thing doesn't really require 1 in 10^40 odds to arise, despite such appearances. Miller's reasoning with this response is, I think, applicable to the concept of "irreducible complexity" in general - basically, that the end result could have had intermediates that have been lost or are otherwise invisible to the current observer.
Plus, Miller was pretty explicit that neutral as well as beneficial steps are possible in the evolution of a trait, but Behe, throughout all four of his posts, insists that Miller only cares about incremental, beneficial steps that only produce a benefit related to the very final stage. One example: In the third post, Behe states that "[Miller] seems to really want one beneficial mutation to be available at a time", when just a few paragraphs up he was quoting Miller referring to neutral steps in the evolution of resistance.
Hi Benjamin,
ReplyDeleteYour claim, that "there is nothing in nature that actually requires a 'double CCC' to evolve all together in one complete unit," is an interesting one. Does it depend upon the statement that you make at the end of your paragraph: "...the end result could have had intermediates that have been lost or are otherwise invisible to the current observer"? Or some other observations?
But regardless of whether or not your claim is true, Behe is allowed to define his own terms as he so wishes. If Miller then cares to argue that a double CCC has never been required, then let him. But he is not allowed to redefine Behe's terms.
I'll re-read Behe's posts, but so far the only example you cite of Behe "only cares about incremental, beneficial mutations" is pretty weak. Behe merely states that Miller seems to really want one beneficial mutation at a time. Behe doesn't say Miller really wants it that way.
However, I suspect that in order to avoid the need for double CCCs in nature, evolutionary biologists rely upon "[beneficial] intermediates that have been lost or are otherwise invisible to the current observer."
I was more referring to the structure of Miller’s response – that is, that Miller, at least, is saying that because there is not adequate evidence that a “double CCC” (as Behe means it) is ever actually necessary, the “thought experiment” is misleading given its purpose. And I don’t think that “Behe is allowed to define his own terms as he so wishes” if he then uses a completely/mostly irrelevant situation (in Miller’s opinion, and also mine) to make claims on the likelihood of Darwinian evolution. He is not just making up the thought experiment for nothing – he is clearly creating it with the intent to apply principles gleaned from it to the assessment of evolutionary possibilities. So it is absolutely fair game, and correct, for Miller to go after the premise. And looking back at his piece, Miller was really very straightforward about the fact that this is what he was doing:
ReplyDelete"You might say, ironically, that it takes 'intelligent design' to produce conditions favoring the long odds he demands, conditions that don’t exist in nature."
"But that’s because, just as before, Behe has stacked the statistical deck in a completely unrealistic manner."
... and other statements like this (including the one I mentioned in my previous comment).
----
Other examples of a fixation on only sequential beneficial steps:
“It did not transport chloroquine, showing that multiple mutations are needed -- which is by far the most ominous result for Darwinism.” (Post 1)
“The only question relevant to Darwinian evolution is whether the helpful, selectable activity appears incrementally, with each additional mutation.” (Post 3)
“Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step -- that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation -- then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially.” (Post 4)
“Yet one mutation in the chloroquine-resistance protein isn't helpful at all. In fact the best evidence indicates it is harmful on its own. Two mutations are needed before it's helpful. So why should we think that just one binding site must always be helpful? Who made up that rule? The answer is that we have no particular reason to think it, and good reason to disbelieve it.” (Post 4)
Behe’s reasoning generally follows that there needs to be beneficial step by beneficial step for evolution to proceed, and I think these excerpts reveal that orientation. A consequence of this bias is that he immediately concludes, from the PNAS study, that it is the characteristic of "requiring two mutations" that leads to longer odds of chloroquine resistance evolution compared to resistance to other drugs. But... why should we accept this? There are a myriad of other reasons why a certain trait is more unlikely to evolve than another - unequal selection pressure, differential rates of molecular evolution, lower standing variation at the relevant genomic regions before selection began acting, etc. Essentially, each mutation, each selective pressure, each region in the genome is not necessarily the same as another. It has been known for some time now that the rate of genetic evolution is not uniform across taxa, across genetic regions, or across time, but Behe seems to be choosing to ignore this in favor of extrapolating a universal rule about mutation from literally a single case of evolution.
Also, I think it’s a rather shifty move to say that by saying “Miller seems to really want” Behe is not saying “Miller really wants”!
Lastly, I don't think that an expectation of "beneficial intermediates that have been lost or are otherwise invisible to the current observer" is at all unreasonable, especially given an evolutionary drive for efficiency.
Hi Benjamin,
ReplyDelete1. It's no longer clear to me whether or not you are claiming that there has never been a need for a double CCC in the history of evolution. Are you or aren't you? If you are, on what basis do you make such a claim?
2. We certtinly disagree on what is fair game. Behe defines a double CCC as one where twice the mutations are needed before any benefit appears. Miller counter-offers an example where first one CCC appears and has a beneficial effect (resistance to chloroquine), then another CCC appears that has a beneficial effect (to a second, hypothetical drug). But such a situation would not meet the requirements of what a double CCC entails. If Miller wanted to be fair, perhaps he might have considered the hypothetical case of a drug cocktail, say of choloroquine and the hypothetical drug, which combined would require a mutational probability of 1 in 10^40 to overcome. But he did not consider such a case. If Miller merely wanted to say that a double CCC has never been required in nature (as you believe?), then he should merely say so. I see no reason to think that he has been fair or honest in this matter.
3. Do you really wish to contend that the reason for the much rarer incidence of chloroquine resistance is due to other factors, besides the need for multiple mutations?
4. Your orginal charge against Behe was that he unfairly claimed that Miller was only interested in incremental, beneficial mutations. Your further example do not support this charge.
Good morning Bilbo,
ReplyDelete1) Yes, I am claiming that I have not yet seen something that would require a double CCC which is, according to Behe, a structure that requires four mutations to arise simultaneously with no other possible explanation. What structure do you know of that has this property? I don't even accept that a "CCC" exists as Behe understands it, that is, something that requires two simultaneous (or effectively simultaneous) mutations in the same cell.
2) "Behe defines a double CCC as one where twice the mutations are needed before any benefit appears." Yes, and Miller disputes that that's a possibility. I don't understand, frankly, how this could be viewed as "unfair" or "dishonest". He simply thinks, as I do, that his thought experiment is based on a wrong premise (the very definition/existence of a "double CCC"). Can you explain to me why going after a premise is problematic? It's a standard, expected form of argumentation, and Miller is explicit about what he is doing (as the sections I quote in the previous comment indicate).
3) Yes. For example, as Behe cites, the chance of malaria evolving resistance to atovaquone is 1 in 10^12, but chloroquine is 1 in 10^20. Now, if it where just the property of "needing two mutations", and using Behe's math (two things I reject), that should make the probability of chloroquine arising 10^24. But it's 10^20, which suggests that other forces are at work, and also shows why you can't take the probability of one mutation and just compound it to asses the likelihood of evolving a structure that supposedly needs two simultaneous mutations (or a " CCC", and compound it to form a "double CCC"). Plus, as I mentioned, "needing two mutations" is just one property among many that could differ between the evolution of this trait and others - is it not? Why pick this without assessing others?
4) Sorry, I guess that should have been: "Behe, throughout all four of his posts, insists that *evolutionary biologists* only cares about incremental, beneficial steps that only produce a benefit related to the very final stage." So not explicitly saying Miller is saying this, although it's sort of by implication, given that he's viewing Miller as a representative of "Darwinism".
1) Claiming that you haven't seen something that would require a double CCC is much weaker than claiming that a double CCC has never been required. Which one are you claiming?
ReplyDelete2) Here's the paragraph where Miller gets dishonest:
"Here’s how it works. Let’s accept Behe’s number of 1 in 1020 for the evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC. As he admits, CCC’s have arisen multiple times in the malaria parasite population since the drug was first introduced in 1947. In fact, resistance to the drug appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s, within just 15 years of its widespread use. So it only took a decade and a half for one of Behe’s CCC’s to emerge in the parasite population. Now, suppose that another drug, equal in effectiveness to chloroquine, were to come into wide use. According to Behe, resistance to both drugs would require two CCCs, and the probability of double resistance arising would be a CCC squared. That’s 1 in 1020 x 1020 or one chance in 1 in 1040."
But that is not what Behe is saying. Behe is saying that if malaria had to develop resistance to both drugs at the same time, then a double CCC would be needed. Miller has (deliberately?) misinterpreted Behe's definition of a double CCC. This isn't the first instance of Miller misinterpreting what Behe clearly says. So I suspect that Miller is doing so deliberately.
3) My question wasn't clear. Let me retry. Are you saying that needing two mutations, instead of one, will play no factor in determining the probability of it arising?
4) Okay, but you yourself, as an evolutionary biologist, exhibit the need to explain present complexity by "intermediates" that we may no longer have any evidence of. I think Behe's characterization is apt.
Hi Bilbo - I sent a comment yesterday afternoon, but it has not appeared yet. Did it send properly? I can send it again if not. Obviously, not need to "approve" this comment!
ReplyDelete(Oh, apparently the comment was too long! Here it is again chopped into two pieces):
ReplyDelete1) Well, I’m sort of claiming both: I haven’t seen something that would require a “double CCC” and can think of several ways in which something that might look like a “double CCC” is not actually a “double CCC”, and therefore expect a person claiming that there is such a thing to present evidence to that effect.
2) First off, I don’t see why you ascribe “dishonesty” to Miller just because he, in your view, “misinterpreted” Behe’s point. Getting something wrong doesn’t imply getting something wrong on purpose.
This aside, I agree that that paragraph, taken in isolation, implies misunderstanding (but not deceit). However, Miller’s response to Behe’s calculations was not one paragraph. As I’ve already mentioned, but you haven’t responded to, Miller (in direct connection to the section you cited) notes that “Behe gets his super-long odds by pretending that both CCCs have to arise at once, in the same cell, purely by chance.“ This is his whole point: that his premise is off. He understands, clearly, that if Behe’s premise was correct, you’d get 1 in 10^40 – Miller is explicit about that, and walks the reader through Behe’s reasoning for something that looks like a “double CCC”. Now, you may say, “Ok, but he wasn’t clear that he was claiming that Behe’s scenario was unrealistic, and switched models without telling the reader.” But this is also not the case, as I’ve also quoted in part previously, but will cite in more length here:
“Interestingly, Behe’s kind of math would apply only in one very special situation, and that would be if both drugs were applied in similar doses at exactly the same time, so that the emergence of resistance to one would be useless without the simultaneous appearance of resistance to the other. That, in fact, is the reason that multiple drug therapy can be effective against HIV and other diseases. By manipulating the doses of several anti-viral drugs at once, it’s possible to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of the virus. But this situation only prevails under carefully designed therapeutic conditions. You might say, ironically, that it takes “intelligent design” to produce conditions favoring the long odds he demands, conditions that don’t exist in nature.”
How is this not straightforward on Miller’s part?
3) Well, now you’ve just moved the goalposts (assuming I’m using that correctly!). Behe did not claim that it plays “a factor” - he claimed, and quite clearly, the following:
“Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance.” (Post 4)
And also:
“Figure 3 of Summers et al. (Miller's ‘Figure 4’) shows that it takes a minimum of two mutations for chloroquine transport function to appear, that before both of them appear there is zero activity. That is the big problem for the evolution of resistance. That is the reason why de novo chloroquine resistance appears so much less frequently than resistance to other anti-malarial drugs that require only one mutation.” (Post 3, emphasis Behe’s)
It is quite possible that the characteristic of needing two mutations impacts/slows it’s evolution some amount, but Behe just assumes that the whole statistical difference he sees must have to do with this one trait (the only one tested), and then on top of that, applies the number to any evolved trait that is similar in structure to a “CCC”. His math in fact depends on extending the probabilities in this one case to all cases with similar “complexity”. So I’m responding to Behe’s characterization. The question rests with you/Behe: Why attribute the full difference to the state of needing two mutations, and why then apply this number to other mutations carte blanche?
4) No, I’m saying that one fully natural (and reasonable) explanation for some present complexity is that we no longer see the “intermediate” stages. However, even in these cases, there are ways to infer the historical presence of intermediates through phylogenetic comparisons with related organisms that may still possess an intermediate form but have not have evolved the later more complex structure, or by showing that “critical” parts of an “irreducibly complex” structure have different, prior evolved functions in that organism, implying appropriation, or by various other methods.
ReplyDelete1) Okay, this isn't "both." This is just a further explanation of the weaker (and I think more reasonable) claim that you do not believe there is any current evidence of a double CCC. The stronger claim - that there never was a double CCC - would require stronger arguments than I think science is able to make at this time, which would be something like, "We have thoroughly mapped out the entire history of evolution in its every detail and know that a double CCC never occurred."
ReplyDelete2) Miller correctly notes that overcoming the 2 drug cocktail would take a double CCC. And that is what Behe means by a double CCC: something that would be able to overcome such a scenario. If someday you actually read Behe's book, you will notice that he is very clear about this. So then the question is, how is it that Miller misinterpreted him? If this had been the first time, it would be forgivable. But this is a recurring theme of Miller's when he tries to interpret Behe's arguments. He's been doing it for nearly 20 years now. At this point in time I think it is reasonable to call him dishonest. Behe refrained from calling him that. But he would have been justified had he done so.
3) I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm asking you a direct question: Are you saying that needing two mutations, instead of one, will play no factor in the probability of a trait arising?
4) Yes, I understand your point. But even if there were no such phylogenetic evidence, you would still posit the existence of intermediate forms. In other words, evolutionary biologists must depend upon the existence of smaller, more probabilistic steps. The only question is how small do the steps need to be. And Behe puts it at a double CCC. Whether or not there has ever been a need for a double CCC is a separate question. But as Behe points out, most proteins function in complexes of six or more. That doesn't prove that ID is true. But it certainly provides a huge challenge for evolutionary biologists to explain the origin of all those complexes. Until they do, I suggest that they (and you) be more modest in your claims of what current models of evolution can do.
ReplyDelete1) Yes, this is “both”: To implement an oft-used example, I don’t need active evidence to show that unicorns don’t exist. Someone claiming they do has to provide evidence. I haven’t seen something that would require a “double CCC”, and have mentioned now some reasons why I think it’s unlikely they exist. Therefore, I conclude they don’t exist, until shown otherwise.
2) I don’t understand why you aren’t engaging with my point here. About the premise. The premise. You are just completely ignoring this point, despite the fact that I’ve shown quite clearly that that is what Miller is going after, that he is clear about this, and that he additionally does engage with a scenario requiring a “real” double CCC, and says such a scenario is unrealistic. I.e., he’s going after the premise. Plus, you earlier said “If Miller wanted to be fair, perhaps he might have considered the hypothetical case of a drug cocktail”, which I have now shown Miller did do, explicitly. You have now consented to this: “Miller correctly notes that overcoming the 2 drug cocktail would take a double CCC”. Ergo, by your own argument, Miller was fair. Please respond to these points.
3) Using Wikipedia’s definition, this is indeed a situation where “evidence [is] presented in response to a specific claim [but] is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded” – we are not talking about whether or not it plays “no factor”. We are talking about Behe’s and Miller’s points, and Behe’s point is that it is the sole factor, as I’ve cited. Plus, I’ve even entertained both of your focus-shifting questions (first with “Yes”, then the rephrased question with “It is quite possible that the characteristic of needing two mutations impacts/slows it’s evolution some amount”). But you have answered none of mine (in this bullet point number three section). So please respond to:
- “He immediately concludes, from the PNAS study, that it is the characteristic of "requiring two mutations" that leads to longer odds of chloroquine resistance evolution compared to resistance to other drugs. But... why should we accept this?”
- “Plus, as I mentioned, ‘needing two mutations’ is just one property among many that could differ between the evolution of this trait and others - is it not? Why pick this without assessing others?”
- “Why attribute the full difference to the state of needing two mutations, and why then apply this number to other mutations carte blanche?”
4) “Positing an intermediate form”, or use of parts of the structure elsewhere in the organism, or historical use of parts of the structure elsewhere in the organism, etc. Plus, my original point was that Behe focuses only on *beneficial* intermediates, which you’ve notably now dropped from your response.
And “whether or not there has ever been a need for a double CCC” is absolutely relevant, because Behe makes the leap that this is an “edge” of evolution in an attempt to show that evolutionary theory is inadequate. This is like saying: “Look! I’ve shown the edge of a soccer player’s stamina! He can never last into the 10th overtime period. Therefore, a human’s ability is not fully sufficient to explain how a soccer player survives a game.”
1) Then your belief is irrational. We don't believe that unicorns exist because (a) we haven't observed them, and (b) we have observed a very large sample of mammals on Earth. In contrast, we have observed an incredibly small sample of mutations in the history of evolution; not nearly large enough to draw firm conclusions such as the one you do.
ReplyDelete2) What "premise" of Behe's is it that you think Miller is going after? Behe explained exactly what he meant by a double CCC. Miller got it completely wrong.
3) I am asking you if you believe that the number of mutations does or does not play a role in the probability of a trait arising. Why do you keep avoiding my question?
4) I'll bring beneficial mutations back into the argument after you answer (3). Since you haven't bothered to read Behe's book, you don't know what Behe actually argues.
1) I dispute that (b) plays a very large role in our assessment of the existence of unicorns. And plus, I’m not sure why you think our sample of mutations is insufficient – plus, if you’re going the “history of evolution” route, we have not sampled a “very large sample of mammals on Earth”.
ReplyDelete2) I have now become convinced that you just haven’t even truly read my comments. I am going to copy-paste what I wrote here, so you can read it:
“Behe defines a double CCC as one where twice the mutations are needed before any benefit appears.’ Yes, and Miller disputes that that's a possibility. I don't understand, frankly, how this could be viewed as ‘unfair’ or ‘dishonest’. He simply thinks, as I do, that his thought experiment is based on a wrong premise (the very definition/existence of a ‘double CCC’). Can you explain to me why going after a premise is problematic? It's a standard, expected form of argumentation, and Miller is explicit about what he is doing (as the sections I quote in the previous comment indicate).”
“However, Miller’s response to Behe’s calculations was not one paragraph. As I’ve already mentioned, but you haven’t responded to, Miller (in direct connection to the section you cited) notes that “Behe gets his super-long odds by pretending that both CCCs have to arise at once, in the same cell, purely by chance.” This is his whole point: that his premise is off. He understands, clearly, that if Behe’s premise was correct, you’d get 1 in 10^40 – Miller is explicit about that, and walks the reader through Behe’s reasoning for something that looks like a “double CCC”. Now, you may say, “Ok, but he wasn’t clear that he was claiming that Behe’s scenario was unrealistic, and switched models without telling the reader.” But this is also not the case, as I’ve also quoted in part previously, but will cite in more length here:
'Interestingly, Behe’s kind of math would apply only in one very special situation, and that would be if both drugs were applied in similar doses at exactly the same time, so that the emergence of resistance to one would be useless without the simultaneous appearance of resistance to the other. That, in fact, is the reason that multiple drug therapy can be effective against HIV and other diseases. By manipulating the doses of several anti-viral drugs at once, it’s possible to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of the virus. But this situation only prevails under carefully designed therapeutic conditions. You might say, ironically, that it takes 'intelligent design' to produce conditions favoring the long odds he demands, conditions that don’t exist in nature.'
"I don’t understand why you aren’t engaging with my point here. About the premise. The premise . You are just completely ignoring this point, despite the fact that I’ve shown quite clearly that that is what Miller is going after, that he is clear about this, and that he additionally does engage with a scenario requiring a ‘real’ double CCC, and says such a scenario is unrealistic. I.e., he’s going after the premise. Plus, you earlier said ‘If Miller wanted to be fair, perhaps he might have considered the hypothetical case of a drug cocktail’, which I have now shown Miller did do, explicitly. You have now consented to this: ‘Miller correctly notes that overcoming the 2 drug cocktail would take a double CCC’. Ergo, by your own argument, Miller was fair. Please respond to these points.”
(3) Again, going the copy-past route:
ReplyDelete“Plus, I’ve even entertained both of your focus-shifting questions (first with ‘Yes’, then the rephrased question with ‘It is quite possible that the characteristic of needing two mutations impacts/slows it’s evolution some amount’)”.
4) As for “Since you haven’t bothered to read Behe’s book, you don’t know what Behe actually argues” – I’m responding to what Behe is saying here, and am requesting that you respond to what I am saying here. You’re making it sound like I haven’t answered your questions, which is in fact just wrong (see above). You, however, have actually not answered these questions of mine:
- “[Behe] immediately concludes, from the PNAS study, that it is the characteristic of ‘requiring two mutations’ that leads to longer odds of chloroquine resistance evolution compared to resistance to other drugs. But... why should we accept this?” [Note: I asked this of you before you asked me if it plays “no role”]
- “What structure do you know of that has this property [of requiring four simultaneous mutations to arise]?”
- Can you explain to me why going after a premise is problematic?
- “Plus, as I mentioned, ‘needing two mutations’ is just one property among many that could differ between the evolution of this trait and others - is it not? Why pick this without assessing others?”
- “How is this not straightforward on Miller’s part?” [In reference to my (2) on 01/15 at 2:04pm]
- “The question rests with you/Behe: Why attribute the full difference to the state of needing two mutations, and why then apply this number to other mutations carte blanche?”
- “You have now consented to this: ‘Miller correctly notes that overcoming the 2 drug cocktail would take a double CCC’. Ergo, by your own argument, Miller was fair. Please respond to these points.”
I seriously do not want to continue this conversation unless you actually start to respond to my questions. It is patently obvious that I have responded to yours (see all the quotes above), with lots of direct quotes and analysis, while you just keep coming back with the same questions, with literally no engagement with my (many) quotes. Please, please, please address these quotes and my questions.
(1) Of course our sample size plays (or should play) a large role in our empirical beliefs. Thus our disbelief that unicorns exist now should be much stronger than our disbelief that they ever existed. Behe's peer-reviewed paper, reviewing all known adaptive mutations illustrates why our sample size is too small: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf
ReplyDelete(2) Where does Miller claim that the need for a double CCC is not even possible? He says that Behe pretends that a double CCC is necessary. But Behe doesn't "pretend" such a thing, anywhere. What he does is argue that evolving a new protein-binding site requires about 5-6 mutations, and that this would be about equal to a single CCC. If more than two binding sites were needed in order to confer some selective advantage, then this would be beyond the edge of evolution. So the points to dispute are: (a) Does it require 5-6 mutations to get a new binding site? (b) Would this be about the same probability of a new CCC? (c) Has there ever been a time when a double CCC was required? In his book, Behe argues for (a) and (b). He does not argue for (c). He does point out that most proteins function in complexes of 6 or more. He does not argue that a double CCC was ever needed to form any of these complexes. But I would think that the burden of proof is on evolutionary biologists (you) to show that they weren't required. Good luck.
Meanwhile, Miller points out that even if it turns out that a CCC is only 10^-15, or 10^-12 (I think), the cumulative need for 6 or more proteins could make that too improbable. So he disputes the need for 5-6 mutations by citing Carroll. Behe linked to his replies to Carroll. Miller also claims that Behe is saying that the consecutive evolution of one CCC then a second CCC is a double CCC. And Miller is "mistaken" Never does Behe say this. In my opinion, Miller is lying.
(3) Oh, missed your "yes" in your mountain of detail. Good of you to admit it. Now, Behe predicted that the reason CQR had occurred much less often than Atavaquone resistance was due largely to its needing two or more mutations. Until the Summers et al. paper, it wasn't known for sure that multiple mutations were needed. Behe has claimed confirmation of his prediction. If you wish to argue that the reason for fewer occurrences of CQR is mainly for other reasons, feel free to do so.
(4) This was orginally about how Behe misrepresents Miller on the need for beneficial mutations. Then it became about his misrepresentation of evolutionary biologists. As I understand it, there is currently a disputed between Adaptionists and non-Adaptationists, on the significance of the role of Natural Selection in evolution. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the non-Adaptationists are correct, and that evolution proceeds mostly by Drift and other non-Adaptionist factors. Then the question is how many consecutive, non-Adaptive mutations are considered reasonable as an evolutionary explanation for some trait. I think I've heard the number "7" offered as an answer. In other words, if a benefical trait hasn't been reached after 7 consecutive non-Adaptive mutations, then it seems unrasonable to think that was the correct evolutionary explanation for that trait. If Behe's argument that we normally need 5-6 mutations to evolve a new protein-binding site is correct, then 7 would still keep us around Behe's edge of two-binding sites.
Now I wouldn't know if 7 is the correct number for consecutive non-Adaptive mutations for an evolutionary explanatioin. Would you?
I have to get going. I hope I haven't made too many typographical errors. I don't really care if we continue this conversation or not. I wasn't the one who brought this blog post to your attention.
Hi Bilbo,
ReplyDeleteAlthough this reply is lengthier, you still are mostly avoiding engaging with what I'm actually saying, as well as my questions. For example, you now ask "Where does Miller claim that the need for a double CCC is not even possible?" I specifically said where, in my comment on 01/19 at 2:04pm. And this is just one of several examples. Until you actually refer to what I am saying (as in, quote my statements and the citations of Miller and Behe that I'm engaging), I don't see how it's even possible for me to continue and still view this as a conversation. I have been taking the time to take Behe's, Miller's, and your specific claims, cite them, and then give my analysis and questions, and all I'm getting from you is shifting the focus and asking different questions.
Now, you say "Oh, missed your 'yes' in your mountain of detail." This was one of my most simplest responses, and I said it about three times, and you only now actually read it (without an apology for accusing me of avoiding your question, I might add). Why should I expect you to actually read/comprehend my more complicated points? Also, its interesting that you seem resistant to a "mountain of detail", essentially insulting me for taking the time to respond to your/Behe's points in detail.
Hi Benjamin,
ReplyDeleteI looked again at your comment from 01/19 at 2:040pm. No where does Miller say that the need for a double CCC is not even possible. He does say that it only exists under specially controlled conditions. But he does not say that it is impossible in the wild. But meanwhile he misinterprets Behe as saying that consecutive CCCs are the same as a double CCC. If he understood Behe correctly, then why misinterpret him?
I remember you going on about my moving the goalposts. I don't remember you saying "yes" to my question. I 'll go back and look.
Insulting you for giving me a mountain of detail, when a simple "yes" would have saved both of us a lot of time? There is something called consideration for someone else's time. Neither you nor someone else we both know seem to have this trait.
I went back and looked. The first (and only) yes was to my poorly worded question, so it looked like you were saying that you really wished to contend that the much rarer occurrence of CQR was due to other factors, besides the need for multiple mutations. So I clarified my question to try to find out if you were saying that the need for multiple mutations played no factor at all. Given that I have a life outside of debating you, I tried skimming for a "yes" and didn't see one. So I kept repeating my question until I got a "yes."
ReplyDeleteIf you want to continue this debate, keep your answers shorter. If you don't, that's okay. There are far more important things than determining whether Miller lied or whether Behe misrepresented evolutionary biologists.
Miller, and all other evolutionary biologists (such as yourself) need to show that the vast majority of proteins were able to evolve and function one (or possibly two, maybe even three) at a time. That is the important issue. The rest is just fluff.
By the way, Benjamin, if you are really interested in a good debate on this whole issue, I suggest the one between Behe and biochemist Larry Moran, for whom I have much respect. I think there debate was very substantive and informative. Here is the link to Behe's last reply, which has all the links to both of their previous posts:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/drawing_my_disc089331.html
And here is the link to Moran's final reply:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/08/michael-behes-final-thoughts-on-edge-of.html
But, Bilbo - how were you able to follow that debate? It has so many mountains of detail!
ReplyDeleteI guess I was motivated. Both Moran and Behe said things worth reading and thinking about. I don't find that to be the case with Miller.
ReplyDeleteFirst he misinterprets Behe, so he can say, "Ha Ha! Behe doesn't understand basic math." Then he interprets him correctly so that he can say, "Ha Ha! But the need for a double CCC would never occur in nature." What a wonderful statement of faith. People like that just give me a headache.
Then he interprets him correctly so that he can say, "Ha Ha! But the need for a double CCC would never occur in nature." What a wonderful statement of faith. People like that just give me a headache.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what's going on in this debate, or what any of the words mean. However, in skimming this mountain of detail, I took the basic structure of the Miller/Benjamin point to be that Behe has at best shown a hypothetical: "If there are these things that have to be brought to you by the letters C, C, and C twice, then I have this basic probability problem for current evolutionary theory/argument in favor of ID." But that's only an interesting argument insofar as the antecedent (what Benjamin refers to as the "premise" in the argument as he reconstructs it) is probably true. It seemed to me that Miller/Benjamin were arguing that there is no good reason to think it is probably true, and many just-so stories to the contrary available.
Since I don't understand any of the issues here, I'm probably making mistakes - but maybe you and Benjamin can tell me whether I have the structure of things right.
A CCC is a "chloroquine complexity cluster," or the amount of trials it took for the malaria parsite to develop resistance chloroquine. Behe argues that it took 10^20 trials (or rather he says that a famous malariologist argued that). Behe defines a "double CCC" as 10^20 x 10^20, or 10^40. Later in the book he argues that evolving a new protein binding site - the place on a protein that allows it to bind to another protein - is about the same probability as a CCC, or 1 in 10^20. If this new binding site did not confer some selectable trait, there would be a non-adaptive binding site, waiting around for another binding site to evolve, so that an additional protein could be bound, and the three proteins could accomplish some task.
ReplyDeleteIf Behe's math is correct, then the probability of this happening would also be 1 in 10^20. So we would have to wait 10^20 x 10^20 before we got a new function. Since there have only been about 10^40 organisms in the entire history of Earth, Behe says that would be about the limit or edge of Darwinian evolution: two binding sites. If it took more than two, then some other mechanism was probably in play. The problem is that most proteins function in complexes of six or more, the challenge for Darwinian evolution is to explain how they originated.
So first Miller accuses Behe of bad math, saying that Behe says that if Malaria developed chloroguine resistance (CQR) in 10^20 trials, and then it developed resistance to another drug that also required 10^20 trials, then Behe claims that this is a double CCC, or 10^40 trials. Obviously that would be bad math. Obviously Behe never said anything like that. So Miller has misinterpreted Behe. Personally, I think the misinterpretation was deliberate.
Then Miller says that for something Malaria to require 10^40 trials it would need to overcome both drugs simultaneousl. But this only happens in artificial conditions, never in Nature.
ReplyDeleteOkay, maybe Miller is correct that a double CCC has never been required in Nature. Where is his evidence? The only evidence he gives is to cite an argument that Sean Carroll used against Behe, about Short Linear Peptide Motifs. Behe replied to Carroll's argument. As far as I know, no one has rebutted Behe's reply. Certainly Miller doesn't try to do it.
So, have double CCCs ever been required in Nature? If we could figure out how all (or even most) protein complexes evolved, we would know. The number that evolutionary biologists have figured out? Zero. Zip. Nada. So we have a very nice statement of faith by Darwinian evolutionists passed off on the unsuspecting public as actual knowledge.
Miller does not make an honest concession (who knew he was capable?). Even if Behe's number of 10^20 is wrong, and the number is more like 10^15 or 10^12 (or did he say 10^10? I don't remember) still, given that we need six or more proteins for most complexes to function, this is still a challenge for Darwinian evolution, since we would still get over 10^40.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin wants to make a big deal about 10^20, and whether Behe considers other factors. That is why I directed him to the debate with Moran, where this is discussed at some length. No doubt Benjamin is busily reading that debate even now, which would be far more profitable than discussing it with a novice like me.
Excuse, me. That was supposed to be "Miller DOES make an honest concession."
ReplyDeleteEr... another typo on your part.
ReplyDelete"discussing it with a novice like me"
I think you mean discussing it at a novice like you. He tried very hard to discuss this and many other things with you, but to no avail. Instead of (apparently) pretending at the beginning, "I'm happy to see my assessment provoked a response from somebody, and especially a Ph.D. student in evolutionary biology!", you should have said something more (apparently) honest, like: "I'm unhappy to see my assessment provoked a response from somebody, and especially a PhD. student in evolutionary biology, as such creatures are prone to discuss issues comprehensively and in considerable detail, adding critical questions of their own to the mix, expecting answers." It's as if... that would have shown some respect for Benjamin's time...
Miller is playing the part of a used car saleman, giving us a very slick presentation that he hopes will persuade us that Behe is wrong. Benjamin falls for it, and then tries to defend Miller's methods of argument. Miller didn't challenge Behe's 10^20 number, and even admitted that at better odds it would still be a problem. Benjamin decides to challenge Behe's numbers, which was beyond the scope of the Behe/Miller exchange. If Benjamin wants to discuss that, it's done much more competently already in the Behe/Moran debate.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty weird stuff. Benjamin says a whole bunch of things in this thread, but I can't find where there is a "challenge" to Behe's numbers per se - let alone a challenge that somehow goes outside the "scope" of the exchange he was extensively quoting and discussing. (There are various points in the comments where Behe's numbers are granted for the sake of argument, which is a way of challenging not them, but their employment in the argument.) And it's unclear how you can offer a serious exegesis of comments you admit to not reading before responding to them.
ReplyDeleteThus the typo I noted...
I'm going to stop commenting now. But I grant you, as the owner of the blog, the last snarky comment.
ReplyDeleteGranting for the sake of argument and then never challenging the numbers means that it is outside the scope of the discussion. I read enough of Benjamin's comments to realize what he wanted to do, and that I was interested in going there, espcially since it had already been done by Behe, Moran, and other, more competent people than I, in their debate.
ReplyDeleteoops..I was not interested...
ReplyDelete"Benjamin decides to challenge Behe's numbers, which was beyond the scope of the Behe/Miller exchange."
ReplyDelete...
"Granting for the sake of argument and then never challenging the numbers means that it is outside the scope of the discussion."
The only snarky comments I want to make are directed at Miller. I think Benjamin is sincerely pursuing truth, and I've directed him to a place where many of his questions have been discussed by somebody both he and I have great respect for - Moran.
ReplyDeleteBizarro JDB? Okay, whatever. Miller never challenged the numbers. If Benjamin wants to challenge the numbers, I'm cool with that. So I directed him to a place where others also challenged the numbers, and Behe responded.
ReplyDelete