REVISE THIS:Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, September 18, 2009, 23:46 (5543 days ago) @ David Turell

"Behe used a calculation to try to show that a protein like trypsin (which is a protein in your intestines and helps you digest food) could never evolve through natural selection. Trypsin contains a specific kind of bond (called a disulfide bond) that stabilizes the structure of the protein; if this bond isn't formed then the protein doesn't work. Behe decided he'd try to predict the probability of a disulfide forming throughout natural selection. His calculation requires that the protein form a disulfide only at one certain position in the protein's structure, which was his first scientific error. A disulfide bond can form not just in one specific place in the protein for it to stabilize the protein, as Behe presumes in his calculation. Additionally, a protein doesn't necessarily need a disulfide bond to be stable, there are many other mechanisms to stabilize a protein than Behe considers in his calculations. When you factor these 2 caveats into the equations, then natural selection suddenly becomes much, much more attractive as a model for biological change than Behe claims. This is merely a simple criticism of Behe's work; there are also many other, more complicated problems with his work that I won't go into here. "
> > > 
> > > This reference is in neither of his books. As an MD I know about pancreatic trypsin and its functions to digest protein.. Human trypsin has to have an exact structure to work as an enzyme. The disulfide bond has to be in its proper position. There are three disulfide bonds. The molecule itself is huge, molecular weight about 21,000. Behe is a full professor of biochemistry at Leigh U. I doubt that the university allowed him to reach tenure making the kind of imputed mistakes your biochemistry friend attributed to him. To accept any of the above paragraph I would need exact references, not off-hand quotes from a biochemistry friend. I would like to see your research of Behe, and quotations produced by Behe. Like you I can only believe what I find or what is presented to me by reputatble quotations.
> > > 
> 
> 
> I've reviewed the criticisms of Dembski's theory and they make sense, even though I have no idea how the math works. Your pointed questions about Dembski has made me realize that I am much more influenced by Behe's biological line of reasoning, obviously because of my biologic background and I follow Behe's thoughts more easily. I note that you have not responded about Behe as re-quoted above. Can you, or is the entire issue based on a hearsay conversation?-It was in reference to a debate the prof attended where the panelists were given 20 minutes each to make their cases, and then another 20 minute wrap-up. -I will have to look harder to find you valid criticisms about Behe, he appears to be a bit more active (and more hated) than Dembski, probably because biological arguments are not nearly so easy to refute. I can tell you that he shares a strong affiliation with the DI and to me that is enough to poison the water. -Remember: I'm here not because I'm an atheist, I'm here because I'm looking for other searchers, "design" as it were is not invalid.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"