By Phillip Klebba
Posted 9:09 p.m., Sept. 20, 2007	E-Mail Article • Print Article • Post Comment

Anonymous - 09/21/07 12:36pm

Professor Klebba, I appreciate your article, but would like to press you on something you raise toward the end. I don't think the setting was conducive to allow "a serious theoretician consider the logical and scientific aspects of an important topic." I think this was proven during the Q&A session when puerility was the norm and sensibility was the exception. Perhaps your desire to engage Dembski at a higher level would have been possible at one of the biochemistry lectures and not in a public auditorium with mostly non-specialists.

---

Tom - 09/21/07 1:46pm

Phillip, You gave the readers of the Daily a just so story just like you gave Dembski. You mention a few things that re homologous structures but never explain the mutations necessary for the flagellum to evolve. You basically concede that there are weaknesses in Darwinian theory, but that we should just wait for a better naturalistic explanation. This is reminiscent of just how dogmatic you and your colleagues are when it comes to Darwinism. Also, just because Dembski is not a biologist does not mean he cannot speak intelligently on the matter. If we follow that logic, you should not be writing newspaper columns, since of course you are not a journalist.

---

Abbie - 09/22/07 8:45pm

"...but never explain the mutations necessary for the flagellum to evolve..." Which was precisely the point Dr. Klebba and the student on the opposite mic made. No amount of detail will ever satisfy Creationists. If you fill a hole, there are two more 'gaps' on either side. If we explained every mutation, Creationists would retreat to 'quantum mechanics' (which Dembski did). No matter how much detail science provides, Creationists want MORE. Never mind Creationists provide nothing at all to support their claims.

---

Logan - 09/22/07 10:47pm

It would seem that some creationists have replaced their slang version of "theory" with a slang version of Gould's criticism of panadaptionism and "just-so stories", since it has been realized that "theory" in scientific terms means an explanation supported by evidence and tests. Other "just-so stories", in Dembski and Tom's terminology, include: 1. gravity 2. germs causing disease 3. plate tectonics There are "weaknesses" in "Einsteinism" and "Wegenerism" for the same reason there are "weaknesses" in "Darwinism": we are not omniscient. Get over it.

---

factician - 09/23/07 10:15am

"Also, just because Dembski is not a biologist does not mean he cannot speak intelligently on the matter." You're right. Just because Dembski is not a biologist does not mean that he *cannot* speak intelligently on the matter. But it's an interesting coincidence that Dembski *doesn't* speak intelligently on the matter...

---

Nathan Parker - 09/23/07 12:00pm

Tom wrote: Phillip, You gave the readers of the Daily a just so story just like you gave Dembski. Whether or not Dr. Klebba's sequence is a "Just So" story isn't important. Demski et al say that mechanisms such as this cannot be created by a stepwise transformation. A "Just So" story shows that it can. Whether it did or not is a separate question. It's then appropriate to ask for the evidence that the path described was the one taken.

---

AL - 09/23/07 1:13pm

"I think this was proven during the Q&A session when puerility was the norm and sensibility was the exception." The questions asked during the Q&A session were largely sensible. That Dembski was flustered and a few got laughs out of it does not render it "puerile." However, if you think changing the venue would lead to Dembski making a more brilliant case in defense of ID, think again. He has several books and many articles on the subject, and they are all just as vacuous as his talk and they have all been thoroughly addressed and shown to be empty. "You basically concede that there are weaknesses in Darwinian theory" There are weaknesses in evolution -- no one denies this. However, the weaknesses in ID are even worse, as no prediction whatsoever is made. ID is thoroughly devoid of any substance. Specifically, the model for flagellar evolution is plausible and within the realm of established and known scientific possibility. We know genes can duplicate and the protein products exapted into other systems and pathways, so an explanation in terms of these is possible. Magic acts of divine handwaving have never been established as being within the realm of scientific possibility. Explanations in terms of those magic acts thus require substantiating those magic acts first, otherwise they are complete non-starters.

---

Anonymous - 09/23/07 3:52pm

Remember kids: with Jesus, all things are possible. Also, monkeys can't drive a stick-shift; clearly we're not descended from them. QED

---

Anonymous - 09/23/07 5:15pm

Al- My comment about the Q&A session was directed to the general environment and not to particular questions. As the Dembski and Klebba exchange continued there was a noticeable restlessness in the audience that served as a distraction to the actual discussion. I think that is attributable to the fact that most people there had no idea what either one of them were talking about. In a more academic setting one has the ability to respond to a counter-argument without being distracted by a large number of hecklers and students with "OWNED" signs. The scene was reminiscent of bored and immature high school students at a mandatory assembly. Finally, you say that Dembski's books on the subject are just as vacuous as his talk. Why then would anyone even bother to come to the talk if it's such a settled matter? Could it be that people wanted to come to discuss his work in a mature and sensible way? I think so, but the setting didn't allow for that. (Please note that I'm not defending Dembski or ID. I'm simply saying that the discussion Professor Klebba was looking for was not possible. That may be Trinity Baptist Church's fault for setting it up, Dembski's fault for agreeing to it, or the attendees' fault for being boisterous and rude.)

---

Ian Musgrave - 09/23/07 9:18pm

Tom wrote: Phillip, You gave the readers of the Daily a just so story just like you gave Dembski. No Tom, it is not a just-so story, it is the conclusion of a large amount of research and evidence. Note especially the evidence part. We have evidence from the relationships between various parts of the flagella, experimental manipulations that remove parts of the flagellum and natural variations where parts are missing, and the existence of intermediates that Dembski and his ID colleagues claim cannot exist. Importantly, Dembski claims that the evolution of a flagellum is in principle not possible. Professor Klebba and many others have shown several times over that that it is indeed possible in principle to evolve a flagellum, thus completely destroying Dembski’s argument. The fact that we have significant evidence for our models is the icing on the cake. For example, one should examine the archebacterial flagellum. While resembling the eubacterial flagellum, it is composed of completely different proteins (and somewhat fewer proteins too), and is homologous to the functional intermediate, the type IV pilus, which in turn is homologous to the type II secretion system. Two independently derived flagella systems are both based in secretory systems with clear functional intermediates. Exactly the sort of thing ID advocates say we shouldn’t see. The mutations involved are those well known to molecular biologists, gene duplication with subsequent divergence (virtually all of the filament proteins are duplicates of each other), domain swapping and gain of function mutations, there is nothing mysterious or untoward about them. There is nothing wrong with Dr. Dembski talking about biology, however, he should at least make a token effort to under the biology he critiques. For example less than half of the “50 or so proteins” Dembski claims to be indispensable to the flagella are actually indispensable (either bacteria exist without them, or we can remove them via mutation and the bacteria swim just fine), of those, the vast majority are easily assigned to known precursor proteins. In the end, as Professor Klebba says, ID is nothing more than human ignorance, with flashy power point presenations.

---

Brian Foley - 09/24/07 12:41pm

The one thing that "intelligent design" proponents always fail to mention, is that replication plus random change plus selection is in fact one form of "intelligence". Genetic algorithms, for just one example in computer science, can solve very complex problems. There are many more intelligent systems than Darwinian biological evolution. For example, Lamarckian biological evolution would solve problems more quickly, by allowing each generation to "learn" from its parents experiences. Robin Ince, has hit the nail on the head with this short video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM And Phillip Klebba has also done a decent job with his letter.

---

Casey - 09/25/07 10:36am

The second poster "Tom" said: "Also, just because Dembski is not a biologist does not mean he cannot speak intelligently on the matter. If we follow that logic, you should not be writing newspaper columns, since of course you are not a journalist." Which is quite uninformed. Just take a look at Dr. Klebba's CV: http://cheminfo.ou.edu/faculty/pek/PEKFullVita0107.pdf

---

Cameron Leslie - 09/25/07 3:05pm

*high five*

---

Jill - 09/25/07 8:30pm

Dr. Klebba, thank you for doing such a wonderful job in taking Dembski to task for his poor science. More people should confront him the way you did. Bravo!

---

Lee - 09/25/07 10:12pm

"For example, the evolutionary relationships that led to the bacterial flagellar motor — the poster of irreducible complexity for proponents of intelligent design — are now well-known among scientists studying the biochemistry of bacterial cell envelopes." Great! it's well-known even--"that led to the ... motor" we read, it's established. Only, well, where? We are not told. "The emergence of the flagellar motility system involves a progression from pili to type-III secretory systems, that acquires the proton-motive, force-driven rotational capability of the ATP synthase motor (a primary source of energy generation) and sensory and regulatory systems that determine the direction and the duration of cell propagation." Yes, well, this would be nice indeed--only we don't see a response here to the point about type-III systems probably developing later than flagella, nor do we hear an answer to the problem of assembly, these all (we are so very lucky?) just happened? I see no reason to be so confident without examining these aspects. Otherwise it's "Nature-did-it"... "Each individual system alone has survival benefits for the cell. When combined one-by-one, they provide a stepwise path to the development of a new advantageous trait: the ability to swim toward something desirable, e.g., high concentrations of sugars — and away from something noxious, e.g., high concentrations of acid." Certainly the end product is beneficial, and yet all this needs to be peer-reviewed and published, we do need references. And what probability is associated with these steps? Without an estimate of probability, this is hypothesizing, instead of giving an explanation.

---

PEK - 09/26/07 12:31pm

Lee, a misconception exists on this point. The structural and sequence relationships among the extant flagellar components and pili, the needle complex, the rotary motors and the sensory and regulatory systems of the cell do not indicate that one was a direct precursor of the other (e.g., “...pili gave rise to the needle complex, the needle complex gave rise to flagella when it acquired a motor, etc). The correct view of the relationships is that current systems derived from or descended from common ancestral systems by the process of natural selection. In most cases the ancestral system no longer exists because it was superceded by the newer, more advantageous adaptation. Another problem with the desire for the molecular "smoking gun" of evolution, the exact nature at the level of DNA structure of mutations that confer selective advantage, is that these genetic changes occurred thousands, millions, billions of years ago. At present fossilized DNA cannot be sequenced, so molecular biologists and geneticists must study the DNA of the descendants in which the selected trait took hold. Over that extended timeline, selection preserves the more fit organism and eliminates its precursor, so in most cases, including that of the bacterial flagellum, it is impossible to directly compare, base-by-base, the DNA of the antecedent and its progeny. So you are asking to see something that usually does not exist. We look instead at sequence relationships in DNA or proteins that share a common ancestor, in order to infer their evolutionary relationships. The similarities between the components of the bacterial flagellar motor and other systems of bacterial cells fall into this category. To see the existing scientific data on this topic, please consult this article: Pallen & Matzke, Nature Reviews Microbiology 4:784-790, 2006, which is accessible to all OU students, faculty and staff by logging into the OU libraries website, entering your 4 x 4 and pasting the following the web address into your browser: http://www.nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.ou.edu/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/pdf/nrmicro1493.pdf Thus, in the case of bacteria the idea of scrutinizing the individual mutations that led to an evolutionary advance, which may have occurred a billion years ago, is unrealistic. However, in the case of human evolution, it is possible. and I cite one important example: sickle cell anemia. The disease is caused by a substitution of the amino acid valine for the amino acid glutamic acid at position 6 in the beta chain of hemoglobin. This change results because a single substitution mutation has occurred in the DNA on chromosome 11, changing the aspartic acid codon GAG to the valine codon GUG. Someone homozygous for (has two copies of) this gene makes a defective hemoglobin, that aggregates and stops functioning in low oxygen concentrations (e.g. exercise), and this is called sickle cell disease. However, individuals who are heterozygous for the sickle cell gene (one copy) are often not affected by symptoms and have a selective advantage in areas where malaria is endemic, because the partially defective hemoglobin confers resistance to the reproduction of the parasite. Hence evolution has selected for the retention of the sickle cell gene in the native populations of malaria-infested regions (the heterozygote advantage). This example is the smoking gun that you are seeking.

---

Damion - 09/26/07 4:37pm

PEK hit the nail on the head. It is downright ridiculous for anti-evolutionists to insist that if Darwin was right, we should be able to dig up a detailed frame-by-frame strip of the incremental evolution of any particular biological structure -- especially those which formed very long ago on very small scales. The anti-evo crowd has strongly stacked the deck here, in terms of both space and time, and then start caterwauling about a lack of gap-filling empirical data. They should be called out on this fundamental logical error, BEFORE we come back with "Oh yeah, well, we may well have some good ideas about the transitional forms after all."

---

Anonymous - 09/26/07 10:14pm

Damion, How is that a "logical" error and not just a scientific one? It might be unrealistic or scientifically unfeasible to suggest the detailed steps should be demonstrated, but that doesn't mean it's a "logical" error. (I don't mean to just point out your misuse of 'logical', but it just keeps coming up from a variety of sources.)

---

Lee Merrill - 09/27/07 11:18am

I appreciate the reply... > PEK: it is impossible to directly compare, base-by-base, the DNA of the antecedent and its progeny. So you are asking to see something that usually does not exist. > Damion: It is downright ridiculous for anti-evolutionists to insist that if Darwin was right, we should be able to dig up a detailed frame-by-frame strip... But this is not what I am asking for, I am asking for probabilities of these steps, some measure of the likelihood of these proposed events, in general, and not for specific DNA transitions with accompanying lists of base pairs. Otherwise we have a hypothesis, but not so arguably, an explanation, and the Matzke paper is interesting, for it indeed proposes a similar scenario, yet it suffers from the same difficulties, steps are given without probabilities, assembly is assumed, not examined, and Matzke himself says the type-III system probably came after flagella in the "evolution of flagella" Wikipedia article, though his scenario requires the opposite. Regards, Lee

---

Damion - 09/27/07 1:13pm

> How is that a "logical" error and not just a scientific one? A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true. I am not saying that Dembski's argument is deductively invalid, I am saying that it is unsound because it includes a false premise. (Moreover, it is inherently deceptive because Dembski refuses to make his premises explicit. As he is a trained philosopher, it seems unlikely that he does this out of sloppiness.) When Dembski's argument is framed deductively, then (and perhaps only then) becomes obvious that he has included a false premise, that is, "If Darwin was right, then we should be able to reconstruct every step leading to X." Dembski goes on to claim that, since the pili and the TTSS do not constitute *every* step leading to the eubacterial flagellum, then Darwin must have been wrong. It is only once we attempt to frame Dembski's (or Behe's) arguments in terms of logical deduction that the fundamental assumptions become obvious, and obviously false. This needs to be done, because while everyone should be able to follow basic logic, not everyone can do microbiology. In other words, why go to all the trouble to provide evidence of intermediates when Darwin’s theory does not predict an abundance of extant intermediates in the first place? It may be a fun exercise, but it seems to implicitly concede the soundness of Dembski’s obviously unsound approach. > I am asking for probabilities of these steps, some measure of the > likelihood of these proposed events, in general, and not for specific > DNA transitions with accompanying lists of base pairs. Without each antecedent step (not to mention estimates of population sizes and mutation rates) how can one hope calculate the conditional probability of the next step? Like Dembski, you are asking for evidence which would allow for a complete reconstruction, in the hopes the research biologists will take the bait. Perhaps more tellingly, though, you are deliberately focusing on the deep past and the microscopic scale in order to avoid having to deal with evolutionary transitions which are already well-understood. One might wonder why you stack the deck so heavily as all that. Are there no macroscopic “irreducibly complex” structures of more recent vintage?

---

Principia - 09/27/07 2:35pm

Lee Merrill demonstrates a key misunderstanding of the role of probabilities in science. As with all mathematical arguments in science, it is only as true as the initial model/assumptions that it starts from. Everything else is simply derivative. Thus, when Lee Merrill wants a probability assigned to each step, he commits two fatal mistakes. One, he assumes that there is an appropriate probability model for the evolution of the flagellum. Put bluntly, lee's argument is question begging. To derive a probability, we need an appropriate stochastic model. Yet, not enough is known about flagellar evolution to derive such a model. The corollary to this argument is that any number Lee Merrill wishes to commit to paper is pulled out of thin air. He cannot (and I imagine, will not) justify the model assumptions applied to his calculations. The second mistake is for Lee to argue that probability is required to defeat IC. This point is well addressed by the previous poster.

---

Anonymous - 09/27/07 7:15pm

Damion, I'm pretty sure that Dembski doesn't cast his argument deductively. That's why previous posters have asked for probabilities. But even if it were a deductive argument, a false premise doesn't make it illogical. It only makes it unsound. If it's an inductive argument, then we can evaluate it by determining the probability of certain premises. The more probable the premises, the more probable the conclusion. I don't know enough about science to make that judgment; I just wanted to point out there's no logical trickery involved. (But it's being logically flawless doesn't mean it has to be sound or even convincing. For example, either 7 + 5 = 22 or ID is true. 7 + 5 does not equal 22, therefore ID is true. That's perfectly logical, but not convincing.)

---

Damion - 09/29/07 3:17pm

I suppose "fundamental logical error" could be taken to mean "created an invalid deductive argument" but I would think it obvious that this was not my meaning. As I already explained, my point was that one of his implicit premises is false. Nevertheless, we can hope that readers have enjoyed the review of Logic 101. That aside, you are probably correct that I went too far in trying to cast Dembski's argument as a deductive argument. In truth, it was merely a few false premises with a non-sequitur arbitrarily tacked on. Recall the slide on the explanatory filter? 1) X is inexplicable in terms of regularity (i.e. deterministic processes) 2) X is inexplicable in terms of chance (i.e. stochastic processes) 3) X fits some apriori specification 4) Therefore X must be explicable in terms of intelligence.

---

Anonymous - 09/30/07 2:44pm

I forgot about that slide, but am glad you brought it up. I'm no ID proponent (seriously), I just am trying to get straight on their actual argument (I think I know enough to notice that many anti-ID arguments only show various strawman version of the argument won't work.) Back to the slide you mentioned... Obviously 1-3 doesn't entail 4, so there must be something missing that gets him there. Is this where people think the argument from ignorance comes in? I'd always thought they said there could be another non-ID explanation for X but 1-3 rules out the common ones and we often attribute intelligence to other things that are relevantly similar to 1-3 so why not do the same for X? It's an inductive leap, but is that alone enough to say ID is not scientific?

---

Monado - 11/22/07 3:21pm

I'm not a student at OU, but I'd like to make a comment. There is indeed a huge, huge logical fallacy at the base of Dembski's argument. It's the assumption that if you pick enough holes in evolution to let the air out, "God did it" is the only remaining conclusion. That's known as a false dichotomy. In reality, there are a lot more than two choices. If the received explanation of evolution were not true, it would be back to the drawing board for everyone. If it isn't random mutation plus natural selection plus sexual selection plus genetic drift, then perhaps it's inheritance of acquired characteristics plus natural selection plus sexual selection plus genetic drift. There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that unnatural causes are needed. The result of pushing the false dichotomy is that ID proponents are ready to use every rhetorical trick in the book, misrepresent evolution, continue to quote falsified "facts," and invent mathematical proofs based on strained assumptions that evolution can't occur without angels pushing the molecules. Dembski's arguments have been falsified again and again. Mutation produces new information. Mutation can produce improvements. Mutation can double the genetic material and then modify it (in spite of the "if I copied this paper I haven't doubled my knowledge" rhetoric). Natural selection is neither directed by God nor random at a particular time and place. It is probabilistic, however. When Dembski claims that something is impossible and actual researchers explain step by step how that could happen, his argument is demolished. The fact that our evidence is always "pathetic" and his evidence is non-existent tells you who has the logic on their side and who is blowing smoke.

---

Post Comment