Homepage |
The Computer Inside You |
Other Writings essays and commentary |

Prev | book’s homepage --|-- table of contents --|-- entire book in a single web page | Next |

The Behe test refers to the main argument made against Darwinism by the biochemist Michael Behe:

By

irreducibly complexI mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.[61]

After giving the example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex system, Behe then gives several detailed examples of specific biochemical systems that are irreducibly complex: the cilium;[62] the bacterial flagellum;[63] blood clotting;[64] the immune system’s clonal selection, antibody diversity, and complement system.[65]

By focusing on the issue of irreducibly complex systems, and being clear about that focus, Behe avoids the strong part of Darwinism, which is natural selection, and instead concentrates on the weak part of Darwinism, which states that random physical events are the cause of the changes winnowed by natural selection. Note that the previous section uses as its probability example the DNA needs of the first self-reproducing bacterium, so as to avoid any possible involvement of natural selection.

Calculating the probability for one of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems given by Behe, assuming the system arose
by chance, is non-trivial. However, mathematician William Dembski, in his book *No Free Lunch*, tackles the specific
problem of calculating a probability for the formation of a bacterial flagellum by chance.[66]
For a bacterium that has one or more flagella, its flagella are a means of moving that bacterium about in its watery environment.
Each flagellum has a long whip-like filament that extends outward from the bacterium’s cell wall. This filament is
attached to a structure, called a hook, that acts as a universal joint which connects the filament to a specialized structure
embedded in the cell wall that acts as a bi-directional motor that can rotate the filament in either a clockwise or counterclockwise
direction. Because of the helically wound structure of the filament, one of these rotation directions causes the spinning
filament to act like a propeller that pushes the bacterium in one direction, and the opposite rotation causes the spinning
filament to act as a destabilizer that causes the bacterium to tumble (the bacterium tumbles when it wants to change the
direction it is moving in).

For comparison purposes, Dembski first calculates what he calls a universal probability bound, the idea of which is that
anything dependent on chance whose probability is smaller than this universal probability bound is extremely unlikely to
happen no matter how much time and material resources in the universe one invokes on the side of chance.[67]
His universal probability bound, which is very generous to those who want to invoke Darwinism and its reliance on chance,
is computed as follows (10^{80} is the estimate by physicists of the number of elementary physical particles in
the visible universe; 10^{45} is roughly the number of Planck-time intervals in one second; 10^{25} is more
than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds):

1
^{80} × 10^{45} × 10^{25} |
= |
1
^{150} |

Thus, given this universal probability bound, anything with a probability less than 10^{–150} can be safely
dismissed as so unlikely that there is no reason to consider it as possible when offering an explanation for the formation
of an irreducibly complex biochemical system.

Dembski then defines an equation for the probability of a structure arising by chance.[68] His equation may be written as:

*p*_{structure} = *p*_{originate-parts} × *p*_{localize-parts}
× *p*_{configure-parts}

In the above equation, *p*_{structure} is the probability of getting either the specified structure or a functionally
equivalent structure; *p*_{originate-parts} is the probability of originating all the parts that are needed
to build an instance of the specified structure or a functionally equivalent structure; *p*_{localize-parts}
is the probability that the needed parts are located together at the construction site; *p*_{configure-parts}
is the probability that the localized parts are configured (assembled) in such a way that either the specified structure
or a functionally equivalent structure results.

At this point one may object to the application of the above equation to the structure of a bacterial flagellum, by raising
the current assumption in biology that cellular structures such as the bacterial flagellum are completely encoded in the
DNA (this encoding is typically assumed to include, in effect, localization and assembly instructions, even though at present
the only code in DNA that has been deciphered is the code that specifies the structure of individual proteins). However,
even if one grants this current assumption in biology, the above equation is still applicable, because the information content
that one then assumes arose by chance in the DNA to fully specify a bacterial flagellum, must overcome whatever random chance
events oppose that specification’s realization. In effect, 1 – *p*_{structure} is a measure
of the random chance events that oppose that specification’s realization. Thus, the imagined specification in the
DNA must have a specificational complexity whose probability of arising by chance is similar to the probability *p*_{structure}.[69]

In Dembski’s computation of *p*_{structure} for a bacterial flagellum, the parts of the structure are
individual proteins. For the *Escherichia coli* bacterium, Dembski refers to the technical literature and says that
about 50 different proteins are needed to make the flagellum, with about 30 different proteins being in the final form of
the flagellum, including:

The filament that serves as the propeller for the flagellum makes up over 90 percent of the flagellum’s mass and is comprised of more than 20,000 subunits of flagellin protein (FliC). … The three ring proteins (FlgH, I, and F) are present in about 26 subunits each. The proximal rod requires 6 subunits, FliE 9 subunits, and FliP about 5 subunits. The distal rod consists of about 25 subunits. The hook (or U-joint) consists of about 130 subunits of FlgE.[70]

Given these details, Dembski computes *p*_{localize-parts} as follows:

Let us therefore assume that 5 copies of each of the 50 proteins required to construct

E. coli’sflagellum are required for a functioning flagellum (this is extremely conservative—all the numbers above were at least that and some far exceeded it, for example, the 20,000 subunits of flagellin protein in the filament). We have already assumed that each of these proteins permits 10 interchangeable proteins. That corresponds to 500 proteins inE. coli’s“protein supermarket” that could legitimately go into a flagellum. By randomly selecting proteins fromE. coli’s“protein supermarket,” we need to get 5 copies of each of the 50 required proteins or a total of 250 proteins. Moreover, since each of the 50 required proteins has by assumption 10 interchangeable alternates, there are 500 proteins inE. colifrom which these 250 can be drawn. But those 500 reside within a “protein supermarket” of 4,289 [different] proteins. Randomly picking 250 proteins and having them all fall among those 500 therefore has probability (500/4,289)^{250}, which has order of magnitude 10^{–234}and falls considerably below the universal probability bound of 10^{–150}.[71]

For computing probability *p*_{originate-parts}, Dembski is willing to concede a value of 1 (certainty) if one
wants to assume that the needed proteins are already coded in the bacterium’s DNA for other uses. For computing probability
*p*_{configure-parts}, the computational approach used by Dembski is more complex than that used for computing
*p*_{localize-parts}, but gives a similar result of a probability that is much smaller than his universal probability
bound of 10^{–150}.

*footnotes*

[61] Behe, Michael. *Darwin’s Black Box*. Touchstone, New York, 1998. p. 39.

[62] Ibid., pp. 59–65.

[63] Ibid., pp. 69–72.

[64] Ibid., pp. 79–96.

[65] Ibid., pp. 120–138.

[66] Dembski, William. *No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without
Intelligence*. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham Maryland, 2002. pp. 289–302.

[67] Ibid., pp. 21–22.

[68] Ibid., p. 291. The *p*_{structure} equation is equivalent to—but more
descriptively labeled than—the *p*_{dco} equation given by Dembski.

[69] The analysis in this paragraph is mine not Dembski’s, because this objection is
not dealt with in Dembski’s book *No Free Lunch*.

[70] Ibid., p 293.

[71] Ibid., p 293.

http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy7-5.html