On page 243, Carroll addresses and quickly refutes a new alternative belief to Darwinian evolution, referred to as 'intelligent design.' Explain in further detail the intelligent design concept, and examine Carroll's main points to render this belief "utter nonsense that disregards fundamentals of genetics. Find an examples of proponents of intelligent design as well as critics of it. Do any of them bring new information to the argument that Carroll doesn't mention? Carroll mentions one scientist in particular, Dr. Michael Behe, who he seems to suggest is awkwardly straddling the fence between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. Look up Behe's arguments in detail and explain how he tries to incorporate aspects of both beliefs in his theory. Do you agree that his reasoning is inconsistent and flawed, or is it more logically sound than Carroll says?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Intelligent design theory states that the universe and the living organisms that it contains can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection. Many proponents of intelligent design claim that the designer of the universe is God. The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism alongside evolution was a violation of the Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. The same Supreme Court ruling prompted the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson, in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, to advocate redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation A group including Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer and William Dembski joined Johnson in aiming to overturn the scientific method with "theistic realism". This was later referred to as the ”wedge strategy” and was taken upon by the Discovery Institute, the main proponent of intelligent design. Michael Behe cites several examples of irreducible complexities as his main arguments for intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain anatomical structures are too complex to have evolved from less complex versions of the system. Behe cites flagella, the blood clotting cascade, and eyes as his main examples.
ReplyDeleteScientists have found that the development of the motor-like flagella can in fact be explained by evolutionary development, thus disproving Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity. They have found that the body of the flagella is similar to a needle like structure that certain pathogenic bacteria use to inject toxins called the Type Three Secretory System. While it is very similar to the flagella, it lacks 40 of the proteins necessary for proper flagella functioning. This conclusion disproves Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity because in this case, the removal of 40 proteins doesn’t cause the system to cease functioning, but rather, to have a different function. His definition of irreducible complexity ignores the fact that successive mutations can create various different structures with entirely different functions, while still evolving into a complex structure like the flagella.
Another example disproving Behe’s theory is the blood clotting cascade. One of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system to function properly. Also, jawless fish perform blood clotting with just six of the ten proteins that Behe listed as crucial to the functioning of the blood clotting cascade. He fails to recognize that there are examples of organisms with reduced versions of seemingly complex systems and that their presence suggests an evolutionary development of the structure.
Behe also argued that the eye is the perfect example of an irreducible complexity, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. However, many scientist believe that eyes originated as very simple areas of photoreceptor cells used in the presence or lack of light. Later, organism’s developed a small depression for the photoreceptor cells in order to understand the light’s source. Even further in evolutionary development, this depression was deepened so that light would strike certain photoreceptor cells at certain angles, providing the organism with increasingly precise visual information. The aperture of the eye was then made smaller allowing organisms to make out faint shapes; this stage in the evolutionary development of the eye can be viewed in the nautilus. Finally, the outermost layer of cells became differentiated into a lens. Modern biologists recognize that the eye, an often cited example by intelligent design and creationism advocates, can actually be broken down into simpler structures and can indeed be explained by evolutionary development.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
The Intelligent design theory is the theory that some of the living things created, were made and explained by intelligent cause, and not just left to natural selection. In other words this is an indirect way to say that god created some of things not explained by natural selection, and a different way to explain creationism, and was renamed after a court case ruled that a public school was not able to teach creationism because it links things to god. However, this then led to the creation of term and theory with more scientific backing of intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and the living things in it are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. People believe in this because, some of the complex designs that have evolved, could not have come to be from their previous ancestor. These things are too perfect and advanced to have evolved from an inferior previous ancestor. This is also called irreducible complexity, and can tell by the name that it had to be created from the start; because of its complexity it could not have been reduced and therefore not evolve.
ReplyDeleteWilliam A. Dembski, one of the leaders of the intelligent design theory states that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” He follows another intelligent design believer that certain things like flagella, blood clotting, and the adaptive immune system. Flagellum is a tail like structure on the end of a cell that aids in the movement. It usually works like a motor in a whip like fashion to propel a cell forward or backwards. To refute the idea of Dembski, PBS/Nova found a logical and possible origin of the flagellum. A three type syringe system used by bacteria to inject toxins into other cells shows the making and basic structure that with specialization and modernization would create a flagellum. This however still has one leak, the locomotion process for a cell to recognize how to control the flagella and move it. In further research it shows that process to remove the syringe like thing of the bacteria from the infected cell, it must have needed a whip like movement to remove it. This could have been the basis and the bacteria could start to use it as ancestral flagella for movement, and then with time and chance create full components of the flagellum system. This could be seen by the bacteria that caused the bubonic plague. Under a microscope some bacteria use their needlelike injections to help propel them forward for locomotion. Meaning for this to happen is not out of the question. Blood clotting is used to repair bodily functions that are injured. This is a very complex process that requires the release and addition of many components to successfully work and maintain homeostasis. To put the theory in false, of blood clotting, some mammal’s especially aquatic ones have certain proteins and hormones absent from the clotting process. This shows that intelligent design could not be present because otherwise all mammals would have a very similar to near identical clotting system. Also for mammals and vertebrates living in the water, they must have a different type of clotting system because the water concentration and the shear presence of water will affect the ways things clot. The immune system which is perfect in its interlocking manner and them ability to fix problems quickly and when it comes back destroys it faster and faster. The thing with so many layers of the immune system it shows that something must have built it to be so protective. The adaptive immune system coding must have come from a transposable element that invaded the DNA, and then coded for the powerful immune system. Science can also see that this started and just appeared in jawed fish. The gene that was created with the insertion, which is popular in mutations, must have created a T-cell which is explains why much of the immune system works around this. Once this proved to be advantageous gene rearrangement proved to create more parts of T-cells and by mutation more of the immune system evolved. Gene rearrangement then makes it possible that for the immune system to create genetic diversity, and code for many different antigens and possible ways to help protect the body. These strong points to prove intelligent design have over time been proved false because there has been evolutionary evidence that shows where a possible origin could have came from. Since we cannot travel back in time, this is the best option, by looking at specific examples and test DNA to see if the relationship is close.
Intelligent deign has been under intense scrutiny from many of the peers that read the science articles. The most intensive scrutiny comes from the fact that intelligent design does not follow the scientific method, and no experiments can be used to prove its validity that something was created. However, natural selection has several ways to be proven mainly by DNA testing to show the close relationship between structures and their functions. Many of the followers including Dembski and Behe cite their failure of acceptance to the fact of the biased science community that does not want to accept something that is not being natural because it has a mythological idea that has to go along with it. To even further remove intelligent design from the conversation, a courts descions stated that there was no scientific evidence to prove that this existed, and the one scientific paper that was printed was set out by Behe and it doesn’t cite irreducible complexity or intelligent design. Furthermore Behe himself stated in the paper that he did not rule natural evolutionary chance to create the things on this earth. Possibly the largest problem of evolutionary design is that the supported said something helped in the creation or diagram of the organisms. This fact that they link it to creationism which has been proved false; and the supporters are not able to identify who did the creation but can only hint to the Christian god.
Dr. Michael Behe, a friend of Dembski, is one of the most outspoken and leaders of idea of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. I do not think that Behe is riding the fence between these two topics, I feel that Behe is a staunch supported of intelligent design; even though he believes that all creatures came from a universal ancestor. The fact that he doesn’t rule out natural selection is because he still wants to keep his name and be somewhat respected by the science community. He has published many books and papers that show his position of intelligent design and that he believes some things so complex shouldn’t couldn’t have evolved. This will then have to question of an organisms because they re all complex, but their level of complexity is different, nonetheless they are still complex and require a lot of evolution for it to happen. Behe stated that the first cell was created by something, and contained all the working parts. However, if they were all working how come there is evidence of cells without these parts and if the cell had the opportunity to use them it would because it would make life easier. His findings and beliefs are not true. In 2004, Behe and Snoke wore a paper that said the probability for many of the evolutionary process to happen is almost impossible and therefore irreducible complexity had to be done. However, they did not take into the account that the early bacterial and single cell organisms that divide rapidly and the more they divide the more chances for mutation that occur. In the Dover trials, Behe himself said that the belief of intelligent design depends how much one believe on god. He is linking his idea to creationism, just in a different name and not identifying who did the designing. I think his reasoning is flawed and has no scientific basis; it just goes by observation and what one believes to know about certain issues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.section.2374
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html