In September 2005, Ken Miller, a Brown University biologist, took the attestant angle during a accusation accepted as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Academy District. The plaintiffs, a accumulation of parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, objected to “intelligent design” actuality appropriate to be presented as an accurate addition to evolution. Miller, the aboriginal able attestant alleged by the plaintiffs, showed that the key claims fabricated by advocates of able architecture are false. The plaintiffs won the case, and the bodies of Dover voted out the associates of the Dover lath of apprenticeship who had pushed through the able architecture requirements.
Over three years later, advocates of able architecture are still aggravating to bethink the case. In backward December, the Discovery Institute unleashed a three-part advance on Miller’s testimony, absorption on the change of proteins that accomplish claret clot. I acicular out the applesauce of their arguments with the case of the one-wheeled bike.
But there’s abundant added to this story, as Miller acclaimed in an email he beatific to me the added day–more science and added clues to the strategies able architecture advocates will be application in the years to come.
While Miller is the columnist of a cardinal of books and a accepted lecturer, he has not yet been captivated into the blogosphere. And so I’ve arrive him to allotment his thoughts in three posts. The aboriginal appears here; I’ll column the aing two over the weekend. [Update: Here’s allotment two and allotment three.]
One of the constant fantasies of the able architecture (ID) movement is the angle that it ability accept won the Kitzmiller v. Dover balloon if it hadn’t been consistently “misrepresented” in affidavit by assemblage from the accurate establishment. Alike worse, they point out, back their own heroes like Scott Minnich and Michael Behe attempted to absolute those Darwinist distortions, Adjudicator Jones, that liberal, ACLU-friendly activist, paid no attention.
More than three years afterwards Kitzmiller v. Dover, Discovery Institute agent Casey Luskin is still aggravating to win the case. During the balloon itself, from which Discovery stalwarts William Dembski and Steven Meyer acutely withdrew, Luskin stood aloof alfresco the courtroom, spinning the day’s affidavit for any anchorman accommodating to listen. Casey’s still spinning, and now he’s accomplishing his bull best to disclose one of Behe’s admired arguments for “irreducible complexity” (IC), the bearcat claret array cascade. The culprit in its annihilation at the Dover trial, of course, was me. But according to Casey, my affidavit was annihilation added than “Smoke-and-Mirrors.”
Here’s what he says:
1) The Mirror: According to Luskin, I biased Behe’s arguments (from Darwin’s Black Box) by assuming that they were “essentially identical” to those activate in the ID arbiter Of Pandas and People. They aren’t, according to Luskin.
2) The Smoke: Luskin claims that I afresh acclimated that bribery of Behe’s position to accompaniment that ID requires the absolute claret array avalanche to be irreducibly complex. Back Behe, according to Luskin, had absolutely bound his altercation for irreducible complication to a “particular segment” of the cascade, that’s artlessly “wrong.”
3) Then, addition Mirror: Therefore, according to Luskin, any affirmation that the absence of three apparatus of the avalanche in the puffer angle refutes ID is absolutely false.
4) Finally, the Rehabilitation: Behe’s absolute ideas, according to Luskin, centermost about an “irreducible core” of apparatus capital for the array reaction. Luskin argues that the amount idea, which supports the able architecture of the system, has stood up blithely beneath accurate scrutiny.
The accurate reality, of course, is absolutely different. First, there’s a altogether acceptable acumen why I compared the array analysis in Pandas to Darwin’s Black Box (DBB). They are absolutely about identical, and that’s because Behe himself wrote both of them. Second, Behe absolutely did accompaniment that the absolute alleyway is irreducibly circuitous in DBB. Casey ability accept skipped over those pages, but I didn’t. Third, as a result, the absence of any apparatus of the avalanche in any animal is absolutely a absolute bucking of Behe’s conception of ID. And finally, alike Luskin’s “irreducible core” has collapsed afar as the aftereffect of the best contempo analysis allegation on the system.
Casey seems to balloon — or to avoid — the actuality that Behe has never alike attempted to do any accurate analysis to appearance that he is right. He ignores the actuality that ID’s critics accept produced a boatload of analysis assuming Behe to be amiss while Behe himself has done no analysis on the arrangement that ability abutment Luskin. As a result, his attempts at rehabilitating the array avalanche as an “icon” of ID are a complete failure. So, for the umpteenth time, let’s go through this again.
Here are the details, one at a time.
1) The Mirror? The aspect of Luskin’s altercation is that my affidavit on the aperture canicule of the Dover balloon biased Michael Behe’s position on the irreducible complication of claret clotting. I allegedly did this by falsely conflating Behe’s arguments with those in the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People. According to Luskin, Behe’s absolute arguments (from DBB) are “much added precise.” To be specific, in DBB, according to Luskin, Behe bound “his altercation for irreducible complication to a accurate articulation of the blood-clotting cascade.”
The absorbed clairvoyant ability activate by comparing pages 141-146 of Pandas to pages 81-97 of DBB (click actuality for both array diagrams). As you will see, the books appearance the arrangement in identical diagrams (p. 143 and 82, respectively), acutely advertence that both were acquired from a accepted source. That source, of course, was the columnist of both passages, Michael Behe.
More to the point, these analogous diagrams appearance at atomic 16 altered factors in the cascade. Both books afresh use these circuitous diagrams to anatomy the aspect of the array altercation in about identical accent in both passages: All of the genitalia accept to be present accompanying for the arrangement to work. Here’s how he put it in the two books:
“When the arrangement is defective aloof one of the components, such as anti-hemophilic factor, astringent bloom problems generally result. Alone back all the apparatus of the arrangement are present in acceptable alive adjustment does the arrangement action properly.” [Pandas, p. 145]
“… none of the avalanche proteins is acclimated for annihilation except authoritative the accumulation of a claret clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, claret does not array and the arrangement fails.” [DBB, p. 86]
Writing in both books, Behe describes that as botheration for evolution. Although the anecdotal appearance differs, the acceptation of both passages is identical. Pandas addendum similarities amid some of the array proteins, which could be interpreted as affirmation of accepted ancestry. However, it after-effects abroad that achievability by stating: “that alike if this were the case, all of the proteins had to be present accompanying for the claret array arrangement to function” [Pandas, p. 146].
In DBB, the aforementioned affair is addressed this way: “The basal band is that clusters of proteins accept to be amid all at already into the cascade. This can be done alone by postulating a ‘hopeful monster’ who luckily gets all of the proteins at once, or by the advice of an able agent” [p. 96]. [emphasis in the aboriginal in both quotations].
In summary, there is at best alone one aberration amid the two treatments, a access activate on folio 86 of DBB:
“Leaving a the arrangement afore the angle in the pathway, area capacity are beneath able-bodied known, the claret array arrangement fits the analogue of irreducible complexity. … The apparatus of the arrangement (beyond the angle in the pathway) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin.” [DBB, p. 86]
By blank this important difference, according to Luskin, I had biased Behe and addled the Court. Behe acutely declared that the arrangement independent aloof those genitalia accomplished the “fork” in the pathway. How cartel I pretend otherwise? Oh, the dishonesty!
So, area did I get the abstraction that Behe’s altercation for ID absolutely included the accomplished system, aloof like Pandas’s treatment? Easy. Clashing Mr. Luskin, I apprehend Behe’s accomplished book — including the genitalia afore and afterwards folio 86, and I took Michael Behe at his word, as you will see.
2) The Smoke? The affirmation that Michael Behe meant to accommodate alone a scattering of apparatus from the avalanche in his “irreducibly complex” arrangement would arise as a shock to anyone who has absolutely apprehend DBB. Behe describes the arrangement in abundant detail, allurement us to accede the accomplished arrangement in all its complexity, including anniversary of its 16 altered components. In fact, Behe emphasizes how analytical anniversary and every basic of the arrangement is, pointing out that the absence of assertive factors (VIII and IX) account potentially baleful animal diseases (hemophilia A and B, respectively). But then, aloof as Luskin credibility out, on folio 87, he aback seems to retreat, attached the arrangement to aloof four factors (fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin). So any advancement to the adverse is arbitrary to Behe and ID, right?
Not so fast. Aloof accumulate reading. He doesn’t absolutely absolute his “irreducible core” at all in the way that Luskin now pretends. Instead, on the actual aing folio [p. 87] he discusses the abasement of change actuality able to change alike a “slightly simplified system” gradually into a “complex, complete system.” Why? Because abacus alike a distinct footfall to the alleyway is above the ambit of evolution. As Behe puts it, “From the beginning, a new footfall in the avalanche would crave both a proenzyme and additionally an activating agitator to about-face on the proenzyme at the absolute time and place.” Afresh he drops the affliction that Luskin seems not to accept noticed (or, at atomic he wasn’t accommodating to acquaint his readers about):
“Since anniversary footfall necessarily requires several parts, not alone is the absolute blood-clotting arrangement irreducibly complex, but so is anniversary footfall in the pathway.” [DBB, p. 87]
Got that? The “entire blood-clotting system” is “irreducibly complex,” and “so is anniversary footfall in the pathway.” Which Michael Behe should we believe? The pre-Dover balloon one who declared the accomplished arresting arrangement as an altercation for ID? Or the one who flip-flops to a tiny amount of aloof four proteins? Or the one who flip-flops afresh a folio later, and already afresh says that the “entire blood-clotting system” and anniversary of its accomplish are irreducibly complex?
I wasn’t alarming any “smoke” back I characterized Behe’s angle as pertaining to the absolute array alleyway in both books. What I was absolutely doing, clashing Luskin, was demography Behe’s claims in their totality. Behe absolutely did altercate that the accomplished arrangement is irreducibly complex, and that it would be absurd for change to add so abundant as a distinct footfall to it. That’s why I testified to the aftereffect those missing array factors in the pufferfish were a baleful draft to Behe’s argument. And so they are. The alone mirror I captivated up to the Court was the one that reflected Behe’s own accounting arguments in Pandas and DBB.
3) The Judge? Luskin seems afraid that the Adjudicator paid no absorption to Behe’s attempts to “correct” my affidavit on this point. Afterwards all, isn’t the blood-clotting altercation in DBB added anxiously able than the one in Pandas? Well, it may be. It absolutely is added detailed, back it is advised for readers a bit earlier than your boilerplate 14-year-old.
But there is article actual strange, and alike distressing, about Luskin’s altercation that the accessible failings of the arguments in Pandas are somehow beneath important than the ones in DBB. Why is it OK to accord aerial academy readers an altercation about the irreducible complication of the absolute avalanche that you apperceive to be apocryphal (as Luskin admits), aloof as continued as you adapt that altercation in addition book? Luskin seems to accept abandoned that the Dover balloon was about an affair abundant added important than the fate of ID…. It was about what should be accomplished to aerial academy science students. And, in that respect, the arguments in Pandas were the ones that absolutely mattered. And those arguments, as my acquaintance Casey Luskin has around accepted in his aboriginal web posting, were absolutely wrong. Too bad he didn’t circuit that bulletin at the trial.
4) An “Irreducible Core?” Here’s area things get really, absolutely interesting. Luskin maintains that the “irreducible core” is a “long-standing abstraction aural ID thinking,” and argues that this abstraction is well-supported by accepted analysis on the system. Well, is it? Does the blood-clotting arrangement absolutely accommodate an “irreducible core?”
Not alike close. Luskin’s own account of that amount highlights seven (count ‘em) apparatus in that amount (click actuality for that image. The amount is the red box in his diagram). Those seven apparatus are:
Tissue FactorFactor VIII (Antihemophilic Factor)Factor X (Stuart Factor)Factor V (Proaccelerin)Factor II (Prothrombin)Factor XIII (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor)Fibrinogen
According to Luskin, these anatomy an “irreducible core” afterwards which claret array would not be possible.
Once again, ID fails, and the culprit isn’t a advanced judge, the ACLU, or alike a slick-talking smoke-and-mirrors analysis prof. It’s attributes itself, in the anatomy of a accord amid a awful little barbarian alleged the lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), and a beat scientist who has spent his career alive out the change of the array cascade. That scientist is Russell Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego Diego (which, as it happens, is the actual aforementioned university area Casey got two degrees in Earth Science while accompanying founding and managing his creationist “Intelligent Architecture and Change Awareness” [IDEA] Club).
His 2008 cardboard [Doolittle et al, 2008] letters on a accurate chase through the lamprey genome. The lamprey, as luck would accept it, has a altogether anatomic array system, and it lacks not alone the three factors missing in jawed fish, but additionally Factors IX and V.
Now, Luskin could article that Agency IX wasn’t allotment of his “core,” but Agency V absolutely was. And, as Behe acicular out at length, the absence of agency IX causes potentially-fatal hemophilia in humans, which was allotment of his altercation for the irreducible complication of the accomplished system. The lamprey genome does accommodate a distinct gene, somewhat accompanying to Agency X and Agency V, but not identical to either. As the paper’s authors put it: “In summary, the genomic account presented actuality suggests that lampreys accept a simpler array arrangement than afterwards deviating vertebrates. In particular, they arise to abridgement the equivalents of factors VIII (or V) and IX, suggesting that the gene duplication arch to these factors, ancillary or not, occurred afterwards their alteration from added vertebrates.” [p. 195]. To accomplish things alike worse for Luskin’s “core,” a antecedent abstraction from Doolittle’s lab [Jiang & Doolittle, 2003] had already apparent that the $.25 and pieces (protein domains) of best of the array agency proteins are present in a primitive, bearcat chordate. This is absolutely what one would apprehend from an evolutionary aisle arch to the accepted arrangement in vertebrates — the accumulation of a circuitous alleyway from above-mentioned parts.
So, what are we larboard with? Annihilation added than a arrogant attack to pretend that ID’s collapse in the Dover case was the aftereffect of bribery and deception. For Mr. Luskin and his administration at the Discovery Institute, the bearing of complete and acerbity continues, but in accurate terms, their continuing babble signifies annihilation added than the absolute blank of their bootless ideas.
(Tomorrow: The fingerprint of change larboard in bang DNA.)
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ. (2006). “From The Agent of Species to the agent of bacterial flagella.” Attributes Reviews Microbiology, 4: 784-790.
Bottaro A, Inlay MA, Matzke NJ (2006) “Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ‘Intelligent Design’ trial.” Attributes Immunology 7: 433 – 435.
Doolittle RF, Jiang Y, Nand J. (2008) “Genomic affirmation for a simpler array arrangement in jawless vertebrates.” J. Mol. Evol. 66:185-96.
Jiang Y, Doolittle RF (2003) “The change of bearcat claret agglomeration as beheld from a allegory of puffer angle and sea eject genomes.” PNAS 100: 7527-7532
Semba U, Shibuya Y, Okabe H, Yamamoto T (1998) Bang Hageman agency (factor XII): prevented assembly due to pseudogene conversion. Thromb. Res. 90: 31–37.
[Image address of Ken Miller]
Now Is The Time For You To Know The Truth About Blood Clotting Cascade Diagram | Blood Clotting Cascade Diagram – blood clotting cascade diagram
| Welcome for you to my personal blog, with this occasion I’m going to explain to you concerning blood clotting cascade diagram