Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Behe, Michael J.

doi:10.1023/a:1012268700496

Cited by 136 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A case in point is robustness, which pertains to how the mechanism would respond upon perturbation. Michael Behe's (1996) 'intelligent design argument' against evolution relies on the notion of irreducibly complex molecular systems, which are systems where the removal of any part leads to the system ceasing to function (Brigandt, 2013b, in press). Robustness is the opposite of irreducible complexity; and apart from showing Behe's vision of the nature of molecular systems to be misguided, robustness more generally highlights the flexibility and adaptability of many biological mechanisms.…”

Section: Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation

Brigandt

2013

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses how systems biology is working toward complex accounts that integrate explanation in terms of mechanisms and explanation by mathematical models-which some philosophers have viewed as rival models of explanation. Systems biology is an integrative approach, and it strongly relies on mathematical modeling. Philosophical accounts of mechanisms capture integrative in the sense of multilevel and multifield explanations, yet accounts of mechanistic explanation (as the analysis of a whole in terms of its structural parts and their qualitative interactions) have failed to address how a mathematical model could contribute to such explanations. I discuss how mathematical equations can be explanatorily relevant. Several cases from systems biology are discussed to illustrate the interplay between mechanistic research and mathematical modeling, and I point to questions about qualitative phenomena (rather than the explanation of quantitative details), where quantitative models are still indispensable to the explanation. Systems biology shows that a broader philosophical conception of mechanisms is needed, which takes into account functional-dynamical aspects, interaction in complex networks with feedback loops, system-wide functional properties such as distributed functionality and robustness, and a mechanism's ability to respond to perturbations (beyond its actual operation). I offer general conclusions for philosophical accounts of explanation.

show abstract

Section: Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation

Brigandt

2013

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…with the words 'By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck. '"-Michael Behe (1996) p. 38-39 "Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a "black box" relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.…”

Section: Origins Of Eye Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown. "-John Endler and Tracy McLellan (1988) "…a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon-such as sight…-must include its molecular explanation".-Michael Behe (1996) In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe raises some important scientific questions about eye evolution, but then answers these questions with unscientific (namely, untestable) claims that visual biochemistry implies intelligent design. In 1996, he pointed out a "Black Box;" a then rather unexplored area of scientific inquiry.…”

Section: Origins Of Eye Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening the “Black Box”: The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye Evolution

Oakley

Pankey

2008

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyes provide a rich narrative for understanding evolution, having attracted the attention of preeminent scientists and communicators alike. Until recently, this narrative has focused primarily on the evolution of eye structure and far less on biochemistry or genetics. Although eye biochemistry was once likened to an unknown "black box;" the flood of discoveries in biochemistry is now allowing an increasingly detailed understanding of the processes involved in vision. As a result, evolutionary comparative ("tree-thinking") analyses that use these data currently allow a new and still unfolding narrative, both richer in detail and more comprehensive in scope. Rather than toppling evolutionary theory by finding irreducibly complex molecular machines, eye evolution provides detailed accounts of how natural processes tinker with existing genetic components, duplicating and recombining them, to yield complex, intricate, and highly functional eyes. Understanding the new biochemical narrative is critical for researchers and teachers alike, in order to answer antievolutionist claims, and to provide an up-to-date account of the state of knowledge on the subject of eye evolution.Keywords Evolution . Phototransduction . Vision . Eyes . Phylogeny . Novelty . ComplexityThe evolutionary history of eyes is one of the most intriguing and often-told stories in biology. It is a topic researched and discussed by members of the pantheon of evolutionists, including Darwin (1859), Salvini-Plawen and Mayr (1977), Gould (1994), andDawkins (1996). The commonly told story is familiar and has not changed much since Darwin first proposed it: A light-sensitive nerve gradually changes over evolutionary time, adding complexity across the generations. To Darwin's sketch, Salvini-Plawen and Mayr (1977) added detail, and Nilsson and Pelger (1994) tested the temporal component. The ancient canon of gradual evolution is certainly valuable for demonstrating that some assumptions are met for the hypothesis that natural selection generates complexity, serving as a colorful and graphical example (Dawkins 1996). However, this account-if taken too far-can easily be criticized, as demonstrated, for example, by proponents of Intelligent Design (ID; Behe 1996) who point out that the Darwinian canon ignores complexity at the molecular level. The structure of this article is first to briefly present the "gradual morphological" account of the evolution of eye form and to describe how this account relates to understanding evolution by natural selection. Section II will point out two primary limitations of this "gradual morphological" model, including one highlighted by ID proponents. Third, the paper will present molecular and biochemical details describing how phototransduction (the cascade of signaling events that generate a nervous impulse in response to light) and complex lenses evolved. These two case studies provide specific details about how eyes evolved. The processes elucidated, such as duplication and co-option (the use of existing components ...

show abstract

“…Now I emphasize this issue again by tying it to intelligent design ideas against evolution (Brigandt 2013b). According to Michael Behe (1996), a biological system is irreducibly complex when the removal of any part leads to the system ceasing to function (the alleged implication being that such a system cannot have evolved gradually but must have originated with all parts in place). This is actually a resurrection of Paley's (1802) watchmaker argument, though Behe claims irreducible complexity of molecular systems.…”

Section: A Broader Philosophical Conception Of Mechanisms and Mechanimentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation

Brigandt

2015

History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is considered a 'mechanistic science,' in that it causally explains morphological evolution in terms of changes in developmental mechanisms. Evo-devo is also an interdisciplinary and integrative approach, as its explanations use contributions from many fields and pertain to different levels of organismal organization. Philosophical accounts of mechanistic explanation are currently highly prominent, and have been particularly able to capture the integrative nature of multifield and multilevel explanations. However, I argue that evo-devo demonstrates the need for a broadened philosophical conception of mechanisms and mechanistic explanation.Mechanistic explanation (in terms of the qualitative interactions of the structural parts of a whole) has been developed as an alternative to the traditional idea of explanation as derivation from laws or quantitative principles. Against the picture promoted by Carl Craver, that mathematical models describe but usually do not explain, my discussion of cases from the strand of evo-devo which is concerned with developmental processes points to qualitative phenomena where quantitative mathematical models are an indispensable part of the explanation. While philosophical accounts have focused on the actual organization and operation of mechanisms, properties of developmental mechanisms that are about how a mechanism reacts to modifications are of major evolutionary significance, including robustness, phenotypic plasticity, and modularity. A philosophical conception of mechanisms is needed that takes into account quantitative changes, transient entities and the generation of novel types of entities, feedback loops and complex interaction networks, emergent properties, and, in particular, functional-dynamical aspects of mechanisms, including functional (as opposed to structural) organization and distributed, system-wide phenomena. I conclude with general remarks on philosophical accounts of explanation.

show abstract

Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Cited by 136 publications

References 14 publications

Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation

Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation

Opening the “Black Box”: The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye Evolution

Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About