Mismatch of the decade: Thornton vs. Behe

A level-headed response; Lenski's was somewhat annoyed. Thornton did miss a slight bet on Behe's Point #3, not labeling as the classic "lottery winner fallacy": The odds of winning the lottery are so low that if you did, then somebody must have rigged it.

Somebody needs to ask Behe: When are you going to give it up? All this work and it's just going to sink out of sight like a stone thrown in a pond.

Before this thread goes too far down the argumentative track let's have a moment to appreciate the beauty of Joe's work. Being able to actually do experiments this detailed to identify the more or less exact pathway that molecules evolved (or to within a small amount of uncertainty). That should be more than enough precision to give the physicists biology envy.

Somebody needs to ask Behe: When are you going to give it up? All this work and it’s just going to sink out of sight like a stone thrown in a pond.

— wile coyote

Frank J said: Why should he give it up?

"His interpretation of our work is incorrect. He confuses “contingent” or “unlikely” with “impossible.” He ignores the key role of genetic drift in evolution. And he erroneously concludes that because the probability is low that some specific biological form will evolve, it must be impossible for ANY form to evolve".

"We identified the specific “restrictive” historical mutations, which occurred after the shift in function, that either clashed with or failed to support the ancestral conformation. If these mutations are reversed first before the key function-switching mutations, the ancestral structure and function can be restored. "

"Our paper shows that re-evolution of the underlying ancestral form is unlikely, but it says nothing about the re-evolution of the ancestral function. We found that chance processes play a key role in determining which adaptive forms actually evolve under selection, but this does not mean, as Behe alleges, that no adaptive form can evolve."

"It had a different function and was exploited to take part in a new complex system when the hormone came on the scene," Dr. Thornton said."

IOW, just wishful thinking on Thorton [sic] et al’s part. Science? Meh.

Now how in the hell does an organism ‘exploit’ a new part? And just how pray tell did the hormone ‘come on the scene’?

Steve P. said: Isn't this darwinian 'philosophy in a nutshell? Even if the probability is next to nil, the fact that in 'theory' a nano-chance still exists, then evolution, with deep time on it's side will 'somehow' eventually find it?

Chris Lawson said: You are a living example of the Kruger-Dunning Effect.

Steve P. said: What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

Oh, I know, we’re going to get the “pseudoskeptic” response: “Well, I’m just an impartial skeptic. Modern evolutionary science is on the wrong track. There’s [ahem] SOME OTHER THEORY [if pigs had wings!] out there that could do a better job … “

— wile coyote

Quick every adult who had a dairy product this week we need to get some gene therapy so we can fight off this horrible mutation that allows us to still digest lactose into adulthood!
It is an unexpected bonus in this day and age of horrible conflation of terms and ideas in pretty sciency sounding language when someone comes out, Steve P., with a conception so wrong I could easily explain why it's wrong to a 5th grader.

Steve P. said: Isn't this darwinian 'philosophy in a nutshell? Even if the probability is next to nil, the fact that in 'theory' a nano-chance still exists, then evolution, with deep time on it's side will 'somehow' eventually find it? IOW, just wishful thinking on Thorton et al's part. Science? Meh.

Steve P. said: Thornton:

"We identified the specific “restrictive” historical mutations, which occurred after the shift in function, that either clashed with or failed to support the ancestral conformation. If these mutations are reversed first before the key function-switching mutations, the ancestral structure and function can be restored. "

No shit sherlock. If the mutation has not been fixed, of course the function will be restored. That is what the organism is trying to do, fight off the mutation. It is trying to preserve what is already adequate. If it can't, and the mutation gets fixed, there is no reversal possible. So it deals with it to the best of its ability. This is exactly Behe's point. The organism is not building anything, it is fighting, then losing the mutation battle, then figuring out how to accomodate it without disrupting its normal operation. What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

The whole point of the essay, IDiot, is that evolution isn’t searching for “it”.

... and he erroneously concludes that because the probability is low that some specific biological form will evolve, it must be impossible for ANY form to evolve” Isn’t this darwinian ‘philosophy in a nutshell? Even if the probability is next to nil, the fact that in ‘theory’ a nano-chance still exists, then evolution, with deep time on it’s side will ‘somehow’ eventually find it?

Steve P. said: Thornton:

"Our paper shows that re-evolution of the underlying ancestral form is unlikely, but it says nothing about the re-evolution of the ancestral function. We found that chance processes play a key role in determining which adaptive forms actually evolve under selection, but this does not mean, as Behe alleges, that no adaptive form can evolve."

In other words, we 'know' organisms don't re-evolve but we are still 'hoping' we will someday find some evidence that it 'could' happen. Keep the faith, Thorton. Keep the faith.

The creationist argument from probability is the very definition of question-begging--an argument that assumes its own conclusion. The fact the Steve P., et al either don't understand this, or do understand it and use the argument anyway, tells us all we need to know about them.

woodchuck64 said: Remember the Lottery illustration just before yours? The odds of any given person winning the lottery are next to nil, but the odds of someone winning are 100%, that was Thornton's point.

Isn’t this darwinian ‘philosophy in a nutshell? Even if the probability is next to nil, the fact that in ‘theory’ a nano-chance still exists, then evolution, with deep time on it’s side will ‘somehow’ eventually find it? IOW, just wishful thinking on Thorton et al’s part. Science? Meh.

No shit shirlock.

If the mutation has not been fixed, of course the function will be restored.

That is what the organism is trying to do, fight off the mutation. It is trying to preserve what is already adequate. If it can’t, and the mutation gets fixed, there is no reversal possible. So it deals with it to the best of its ability.

This is exactly Behe’s point. The organism is not building anything, it is fighting, then losing the mutation battle, then figuring out how to accomodate it without disrupting its normal operation.

What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

In other words, we ‘know’ organisms don’t re-evolve but we are still ‘hoping’ we will someday find some evidence that it ‘could’ happen.

Keep the faith, Thorton. Keep the faith.

I tried the deck-of-cards analogy with a creationist acquaintance once, pointing out to him that the order of a shuffled deck must be impossible because there's just a one-in-52! chance that the cards could be in that particular order. It went something like this:

Creationist(C): But they have to be in *some* order.

Me: That's my point.

C: But the order is meaningless.

Me: That's also my point.

C: Well, that doesn't make any sense.

Me: If you keep shuffling the deck long enough, you'll get to an order that you *do* recognize.

C: That could take thousands, maybe millions of years.

Me: Exactly.

C: So what's your point?

Me: Never mind.

James Grover -

The other thing that is difficult for people to grasp - even non-creationists - is that of course, every particular order is exactly as likely as every other order.

Another point that is tricky to some is that whether or not an order has "meaning" is entirely defined by the observer.

Of course, these are arguments about probability.

They are relevant to the extent that the theory of biological evolution is entirely compatible with probability theory (and indeed, population genetics draws heavily on probability), and to the extent that, if a creationist argument is grounded in a wrong idea about probability, it is wrong on the face of it, with no further analysis needed.

However, we should also be careful to note that creationists sometimes use arguments related to probability that are not wrong about probability, but are dishonest misrepresentations of the theory of evolution.

It is interesting that this notion of “destiny” is so hard for humans to drop. Like Dawkins more or less said, it’s like our brains are not wired to understand a process that isn’t under long-range direction – not following a road map, just taking any interchange that seems handy.

What Thornton said was something completely different from this. What he said, to paraphrase accurately, was that it is highly improbable that the exact original form of the ancestor allele (implicitly, nucleic acid sequence) will re-evolve, but that equivalent function to the ancestor allele may more easily re-evolve (because more than one sequence may lead to the same function).

The organism is not building anything, it is fighting, then losing the mutation battle, then figuring out how to accomodate it without disrupting its normal operation.

Indeed, Steve P seems to be suggesting that an individual creature's somatic cells are mutating one by one and the creature is trying to fight off the invasion like an infection.

Steve P, here's a hint: In multicellular organisms, only mutations (copy errors) that appear in the gametes (sperm and eggs) get passed on. The new mix of genes either works better, the same, or not as well as the previous mix in surviving to reproduce.

Simple, really.

harold said:

What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

I notice that you are using evasive, highly metaphorical language. However, if you are trying to say that mutations never lead to new functions, you are wrong.

harold said: By the way, I agreed with you point that, among peripheral arguments, creationists are especially likely to make peripheral arguments about "information theory" - usually in a completely uninformed way - for the reasons you described.

Steve P, here’s a hint: In multicellular organisms, only mutations (copy errors) that appear in the gametes (sperm and eggs) get passed on. The new mix of genes either works better, the same, or not as well as the previous mix in surviving to reproduce.

Ironically enough, his metaphorical use of the word “renovation” describing a mutation is actually pretty good. A “renovated” object is altered but doesn’t lose functionality.

wile coyote: the classic “lottery winner fallacy”: The odds of winning the lottery are so low that if you did, then somebody must have rigged it.

Chris Lawson said: ...But the principle is still correct. Michael Behe and Steve P. are behaving like the (possibly apocryphal) prosecutors in the German lottery case. They are sticking to their prosecution despite a complete lack of evidence and a false understanding of probability theory.

Chris Lawson said: There was, I am led to believe, a German man in the 1970s who was charged with fraud because he won the lottery twice.

Steve the creationist: This is exactly Behe’s point. The organism is not building anything, it is fighting, then losing the mutation battle, then figuring out how to accomodate it without disrupting its normal operation. What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

raven said: Genetic entropy doesn't exist.

Cue the, "that is microevolution but macroevolution is impossible."

Steve P. said: Sounds like more whining from the chance-in-the-gaps gallery. Thornton:

"His interpretation of our work is incorrect. He confuses “contingent” or “unlikely” with “impossible.” He ignores the key role of genetic drift in evolution. And he erroneously concludes that because the probability is low that some specific biological form will evolve, it must be impossible for ANY form to evolve".

Isn't this darwinian 'philosophy in a nutshell? Even if the probability is next to nil, the fact that in 'theory' a nano-chance still exists, then evolution, with deep time on it's side will 'somehow' eventually find it? IOW, just wishful thinking on Thorton et al's part. Science? Meh.

Thornton:

"We identified the specific “restrictive” historical mutations, which occurred after the shift in function, that either clashed with or failed to support the ancestral conformation. If these mutations are reversed first before the key function-switching mutations, the ancestral structure and function can be restored. "

No shit shirlock. If the mutation has not been fixed, of course the function will be restored. That is what the organism is trying to do, fight off the mutation. It is trying to preserve what is already adequate. If it can't, and the mutation gets fixed, there is no reversal possible. So it deals with it to the best of its ability.

This is exactly Behe's point. The organism is not building anything, it is fighting, then losing the mutation battle, then figuring out how to accomodate it without disrupting its normal operation.

What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

wile coyote said:

Cue the, "that is microevolution but macroevolution is impossible."

Yep. Gosh, no matter which way we go we always run into one of those danged "magic barriers", don't we?

wile coyote said: Oh, I know, we're going to get the "pseudoskeptic" response: "Well, I'm just an impartial skeptic. Modern evolutionary science is on the wrong track. There's [ahem] SOME OTHER THEORY [if pigs had wings!] out there that could do a better job ... "

Stanton said: Like imaginary magic cellophane, woven of pixie hair and stainless steel.

Cue the, “that is microevolution but macroevolution is impossible.” Followed by “the earth is 6,000 years old and Noah had a boatload full of dinosaurs”.

— raven

Chris Lawson said: There was, I am led to believe, a German man in the 1970s who was charged with fraud because he won the lottery twice. The only evidence against him was statistical: the chances of him winning twice were so astronomically small that he must have cheated. Apparently it took a couple of mathematicians testifying for the defence to show that while the chances of this particular man winning twice were very small, the chance of *someone* winning twice was quite feasible. Unfortunately my Google-fu is weak today and I can find no link to the actual story. But the principle is still correct. Michael Behe and Steve P. are behaving like the (possibly apocryphal) prosecutors in the German lottery case. They are sticking to their prosecution despite a complete lack of evidence and a false understanding of probability theory.

Stanton wrote (something Behe apparently said at one point):

"A) we, puny mortals will never ever hope to understand how Life ticks, and

B) Mutations occur solely through the direct, but invisible interventions of an Omnipotent but Otherwise Imperceptible Intelligent Designer, whom puny mortals will never hope to understand (save only through Jesus Christ, as his colleagues constantly hint at)"

Actually, we understand a lot about how life "ticks" and we understand a lot about mutations. We have lots of knowledge about what mutations occur and their absolute and relative rates. We have detailed information at the atomic level about what processes are responsible for these mutations. We have explanatory and predictive models that are used to study lots of things from the development of antibiotic resistance to the origin of developmental pathways to phylogenetic relationships.

One good reason to ignore all of this knowledge, (besides being just plain lazy). is that it makes it easier to stand up in front of a congregation and spout this nonsense with a strtaight face. It also makes it a lot easier to take the witness stand if you haven't read any of the relevant literature.

"To the best of my knowledge your honor, there is no research on mutations. It's a complete mystery to me. And that's the truth, so help me God."

Matt G said: How unlikely does a given event in evolutionary history have to be for them to say that their Designer did it? Maybe once they calculate this number they can start doing some real science.

Have the Creationist Information Theorists ever given us a number that separates the actions of an Intelligent Designer from a “highly unlikely event?”

— Matt G

Frank J said: They have used the 10^-150 as the boundary of being so unlikely that it probably never happened.

Not from Behe of course. He might say that “macroevolution” is exceedingly improbable, and “support” it with irrelevant calculations, but he is shrewd enough to avoid committing to “impossible.”

steve P. the creo: What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

wile coyote said:

Frank J said: They have used the 10^-150 as the boundary of being so unlikely that it probably never happened.

Oh GOOD! Since the probability of the formation of a nice neat salt crystal 10 atoms on a side (ASSUMING RANDOM ASSEMBLY) is 1 out of 4.16E300 -- we can reply that common salt crystals demand ID.

wile coyote said:

Frank J said: They have used the 10^-150 as the boundary of being so unlikely that it probably never happened.

Oh GOOD! Since the probability of the formation of a nice neat salt crystal 10 atoms on a side (ASSUMING RANDOM ASSEMBLY) is 1 out of 4.16E300 -- we can reply that common salt crystals demand ID.

raven said: The Steve P. fallacy is just another name for genetic entropy. If beneficial mutations are uncommon or impossible, than evolution is impossible. Therefore the entire biosphere is running down as mutations accumulate. We will all gradually turn into deformed, sick zombies.

Frank J said: So the snake oil will keep flowing for the foreseeable future.

@Stanton: Human chitinase genes? Some of us can digest exoskeleton? Cool.

@Raven: Have you secured the copyright and funding for Zombie Death Future yet?

wile coyote said: But at the least I can get them to stop playing the “probabilities” game here.

fnxtr said: @Raven: Have you secured the copyright and funding for Zombie Death Future yet?

Chris Lawson said: Actually, you can't get them to stop playing games, you can only get them to change subject until they think people who know better have left the audience.

fnxtr said: @Stanton: Human chitinase genes? Some of us can digest exoskeleton? Cool.

Stanton said: According to the Wikipedia article, human chitinase genes arose as a response to certain, chitin-rich allergins and pathogens, i.e., dust mites and fungi.

The chitinase stuff is quite interesting. Particularly the circulation in the blood. I wonder if the human version evolved from a different source protein than some of the other chitinases, and currently has some kind of duo function?

JGB said: I wonder if the human version (of chitinase) evolved from a different source protein than some of the other chitinases, and currently has some kind of duo function?

Here's an upcoming Dishonesty Institute program that'll curl your hair and show their true colors:

http://www.discovery.org/e/901

There's a "new" stink in town called www.conservapedia.com, the conservatives' answer to wikipedia. Check out their "definition/article" of evolution and note the defenders from the other "dark" side.

DavidK said: There's a "new" stink in town called www.conservapedia.com, the conservatives' answer to wikipedia. Check out their "definition/article" of evolution and note the defenders from the other "dark" side.

W. H. Heydt said:

Steve P. said: Isn't this darwinian 'philosophy in a nutshell? Even if the probability is next to nil, the fact that in 'theory' a nano-chance still exists, then evolution, with deep time on it's side will 'somehow' eventually find it?

This is what I usually refer to as a "wrong end of the telescope" argument. Thornton's point, and also that of evolutionary theory--as I understand it--is that while a *specific* outcome is unlikely, *some* outcome is highly probable. And, of course, the probability of anything that actually does happen is 1.000. If there are enough tickets in a lottery, one of them *will* win. You just can't predict which one before the winning numbers are selected. What's so difficult to understand?

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

As opposed to all the details we have observed about the Mysterious Alien Designers (or Functional Equivalent) who supposedly can account for it all. Y'know, like who they were, what they did, when they did it ... little things like that. Oh, I know, we're going to get the "pseudoskeptic" response: "Well, I'm just an impartial skeptic. Modern evolutionary science is on the wrong track. There's [ahem] SOME OTHER THEORY [if pigs had wings!] out there that could do a better job ... "

wile coyote said: Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with {the idea that the Earth went around the Sun}.

Stanton said: That's because it contradicted what some people thought their translation of the Bible said, and had absolutely no qualms about censuring big-mouthed contrarians with fines, forced loss of social status, torture and or murder.

Steve P. said: Is this your attempt to outflank an IDiot Kreationist? Your wilier than I thought there, Coyote?

Stanton said: As opposed to supporting Behe's inane pseudoscientific babbling with stupid and incorrect analogies?

James Grover said: The creationist argument from probability is the very definition of question-begging--an argument that assumes its own conclusion. The fact the Steve P., et al either don't understand this, or do understand it and use the argument anyway, tells us all we need to know about them.

Steve P. said: Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered intuition of observation of the Sun going around the Earth as it passes through the sky from morning to evening trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection that the Earth actually goes around the Sun? Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with this idea.

Wheels said: I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

Steve P. said: James, Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

All that could be said in reply to questions of emergence is - "It just happened, K? So jus' shut up and watch the Greatest Show on Earth, would ya? And stop bugging me."

Question for ya. How do you build a fire without a starter kit?

wile coyote said:

Wheels said: I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

Wheelsie old boy, we've tried the old "holding feet to the fire" trick before but PT'ers won't really play along.

Stanton said: Well, imagine how far you'd get using a coyote to do the herding.

wile coyote said:

Stanton said: Well, imagine how far you'd get using a coyote to do the herding.

Do you live in coyote country? If you do, you know coyotes REALLY like cats.

Stanton said: I don't, but I'm keenly aware of how the coyote's love of cats (and other small pets) mirrors my love of boxed chocolates.

Somewhere Kliban is grinning, Wile.

Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

— Steve P.

It is masterful how you say that probability can only appeal to the potential idea and not the actualization Steve P. While completely ignoring that the role of selection is turn a probability into an actualized event.
That and the notion that there are multiple pathways to build new organisms from other organisms. It's very important for the deceptiveness though that you maintain there is only 1 strategy for these mindless calculations.

Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

Question for ya. How do you build a fire without a starter kit?

Probability is a poor defense of darwinian concepts. Probability can only appeal to the potential of an idea not its actualization.

fnxtr said: Somewhere Kliban is grinning, Wile.

Am 10. September wurden im bulgarischen Lotto dieselben Gewinnzahlen gezogen wie in der Woche zuvor.

raven said:

Steve the creationist: This is exactly Behe’s point. The organism is not building anything, it is fighting, then losing the mutation battle, then figuring out how to accomodate it without disrupting its normal operation. What is observed is at best a renovation, at worst a repair job, but never a construction site.

Got that wrong. This is just an assertion, it is wrong, and it is also a lie. We see construction jobs all the time. Lenkski's citrate user evolution, evolution of new lactose and other sugar catabolic pathways and so on. More recently, we are in the middle of a new pandemic that was predicted by evolutionary theory. The swine flu virus has evolved recently and is evolving as this is typed. People are dying and some of them probably are being killed by a newly evolved virus while not believing that newly evolving viruses are possible. What you don't know, can kill you. Genetic entropy doesn't exist. We have a fossil record going back 3.7 billion years. Cue the, "that is microevolution but macroevolution is impossible." Followed by "the earth is 6,000 years old and Noah had a boatload full of dinosaurs".

Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

Probability is a poor defense of darwinian concepts.

Probability can only appeal to the potential of an idea not its actualization.

The fact that you can conceive of successive step wise mutations building up an organism does not confirm its inevitability.

If so, then God is as likely as Amino and the Acids belting out ‘break on through to the other side. break, break, break, oh yeaaaahhhh’.

Ah, I get it. Flying pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters are highly improbable yet inevitable events from your standpoint.

So since you can’t afford a car and FPU’s, in theory, could meet your transportation needs, i can see how you might go with that train of thought..

Here’s one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

All that could be said in reply to questions of emergence is - “It just happened, K? So jus’ shut up and watch the Greatest Show on Earth, would ya? And stop bugging me.”

Question for ya. How do you build a fire without a starter kit?

Steve P. said: James, Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it [sic] not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

James Grover said: The creationist argument from probability is the very definition of question-begging--an argument that assumes its own conclusion. The fact the Steve P., et al either don't understand this, or do understand it and use the argument anyway, tells us all we need to know about them.

wile coyote said: Love to eat them kitties, Kitties are what I eat. Bite their furry heads off, Nibble on their little feet.

Rolf Aalberg said: But what are 'uncaused natural events'? I don't think such things exist: If they are natural they have a cause. If they are uncaused, they did not happen, or they are miracles. AFAIK, a miracle is something without a cause that happens even though it could not happen.

Rolf Aalberg said: Something that I never see addressed is what to me sticks out as an obvious observation: If life did not have the ability to evolve, to adapt to the ever changing environment, and that includes everything including food resources, climate, ice ages, predation, continental drift, volcanism, meteorite strikes and much more - all a continuous process of adapting to the whims of nature - how come we find all kinds of species adapted to and surviving even in the most unlikely environments? What is the alternative?

Steve P. said: All that could be said in reply to questions of emergence is - "It just happened, K? So jus' shut up

Massive amounts of evidence from geology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and other fields, obtained over the past 150 years, converge to support the theory of evolution.

— harold

But how does one distinguish between uncaused events and events for which the cause is not presently known? Henry

Do virtual quantum particle/antiparticle pairs have a cause?

Henry J said: Do virtual quantum particle/antiparticle pairs have a cause?

At the “quantum foam” level, we can’t say for sure what “causal” connections are involved; and we certainly can’t say outcomes are predetermined. Not only do we not know, there appears to be no way in principle we can know.

— Mike Elzinga

Steve P.: Actually, Darwinian concepts of emergent properties of supposedly uncaused natural events it not an improvement upon intelligent agency.

Frank J:...“quantum indeterminacy” is more than enough for me to “leave the door open for God.”

I don’t really see what God is going to do within that framework that is going to have any meaningful impact on human lives.

— Chris Lawson

Frank J said:The IDers' favorite icon, the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum, has no meaningful impact on human lives for that matter.

IIRC Yersinia pestis has flagella. That has certainly had a meaningful impact on many human lives over the years.

— rossum

I look at it as Zeus throwing cosmic rays at specific nucleotides.

Chris Lawson said: The term "emergent" came from chaos theory, not evolutionary biology. Not to worry. The point is that emergent properties arise from unpredictable, chaotic functions. This is not just theoretical, it is an observed phenomenon. And yet you seem to think that emergent properties from natural events require intelligent agency. I guess ice pixies in the clouds must be behind all those gorgeous snowflakes.

Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t work well for me in this regard. While it most definitely is a “gap” in our knowledge, as it were, it does not seem to me to be a particularly useful gap to find God in. For a start, indeterminacy is actually highly predictable. Heisenberg’s formula tells you exactly how much trade-off there is between momentum and position. I don’t really see what God is going to do within that framework that is going to have any meaningful impact on human lives. Secondly, I don’t see how lack of precise knowledge translates to intelligent agency.

Mike Elzinger:

Hmm. Seems I was making the mistake of conflating "chaos theory is where I first heard of emergence" with "chaos theory is the origin of emergence." Silly mistake. According to Wikipedia, the concept goes back to Aristotle.

rossum said:

Frank J said:The IDers' favorite icon, the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum, has no meaningful impact on human lives for that matter.

IIRC Yersinia pestis has flagella. That has certainly had a meaningful impact on many human lives over the years. rossum

Chris Lawson said: Mike Elzinger: Hmm. Seems I was making the mistake of conflating "chaos theory is where I first heard of emergence" with "chaos theory is the origin of emergence." Silly mistake. According to Wikipedia, the concept goes back to Aristotle.

dNorrisM said: I look at it as Zeus throwing cosmic rays at specific nucleotides.

So not even Zeus can control the nucleotides?

fnxtr said:

dNorrisM said: I look at it as Zeus throwing cosmic rays at specific nucleotides.

... and missing a calculable percentage of the time. :-)

Oh, so some people he strikes, and others he spares?

Henry J said: Oh, so some people he strikes, and others he spares?

Speaking of strikes, has Steve P. struck out? I had such simple questions. Ones that any YEC, OEC or "evolutionist" would have no problem answering.

Frank J said: Speaking of strikes, has Steve P. struck out? I had such simple questions. Ones that any YEC, OEC or "evolutionist" would have no problem answering.

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: Speaking of strikes, has Steve P. struck out? I had such simple questions. Ones that any YEC, OEC or "evolutionist" would have no problem answering.

Apparently the fading of such a weak mind is an insignificant perturbation on the general level of background chatter. But I guess the conservation did get a bit more interesting after its fade-out.

Frank J said: Speaking of strikes, has Steve P. struck out? I had such simple questions. Ones that any YEC, OEC or "evolutionist" would have no problem answering.

For the record, YEC, OEC, whatever. Nice acronyms.

The crux of the matter is what animates matter. Emergence is question begging. It flies an F16 over the untold chasmic (is that a word?) biological development thresholds life had to traverse; abiogenesis being the most noted, successive thresholds no less daunting.

Resting your case on the mere possibility of something being possible in theory is not a foundation to build on.

Steve, the questions, which you still refuse to answer, are whether you agree with Michael Behe that life has existed on Earth for 3-4 billion years and that modern humans share common ancestors with most or all past and present other species. The questions are really simple, and are completely independent of whether designer(s) or Creator(s) ever intervend or by what process species change. Try again.

Hello Dears. Im afraid this blog entry doesnt make any sense at all. It is a well know fact hat Behe accepts common descent, so all the remarks about how creationists "reject every piece of fossil evidence you might show them because there are still gaps" is misdirected rubbish. Behe is not arguing against evolution, he is arguing against the plausability of undirected darwin style eveolution. Enough with the strawmen! I would love to hear someone with a real argument against Behe's thesis.

Dolly Sheriff said: Hello Dears. Im afraid this blog entry doesnt make any sense at all. It is a well know fact hat Behe accepts common descent, so all the remarks about how creationists "reject every piece of fossil evidence you might show them because there are still gaps" is misdirected rubbish. Behe is not arguing against evolution, he is arguing against the plausability of undirected darwin style eveolution. Enough with the strawmen! I would love to hear someone with a real argument against Behe's thesis.

Dolly Sheriff said: Hello Dears. Im afraid this blog entry doesnt make any sense at all. It is a well know fact hat Behe accepts common descent, so all the remarks about how creationists "reject every piece of fossil evidence you might show them because there are still gaps" is misdirected rubbish. Behe is not arguing against evolution, he is arguing against the plausability of undirected darwin style eveolution. Enough with the strawmen! I would love to hear someone with a real argument against Behe's thesis.

Steve P. said: For the record, YEC, OEC, whatever. Nice acronyms.

The crux of the matter is what animates matter. Emergence is question begging. It flies an F16 over the untold chasmic (is that a word?) biological development thresholds life had to traverse; abiogenesis being the most noted, successive thresholds no less daunting.

Resting your case on the mere possibility of something being possible in theory is not a foundation to build on.

"late with", not "with late"

Enough with the strawmen! I would love to hear someone with a real argument against Behe’s thesis.

Steve P. writes... Resting your case on the mere possibility of something being possible in theory is not a foundation to build on.

Wheels said:

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered intuition of observation of the Sun going around the Earth as it passes through the sky from morning to evening trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection that the Earth actually goes around the Sun? Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with this idea.

I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

It is a well know fact hat Behe accepts common descent...

— Dolly Sheriff

What is Behe’s thesis?

— stevaroni

Frank J said: Steve, the questions, which you still refuse to answer, are whether you agree with Michael Behe that life has existed on Earth for 3-4 billion years and that modern humans share common ancestors with most or all past and present other species. The questions are really simple, and are completely independent of whether designer(s) or Creator(s) ever intervend or by what process species change. Try again.

At least these guys here are actually, you know, doing some work instead of just sitting back and wacking off.

So, did God create this "mother cell" some two billion years or more ago? Assuming that the answer is, as implied, "yes", very well then, it's a hypothesis. Let us explore it, by all means.

Did He do it by (how shall I put this?) divine powers? By speaking the Word, and it was done?

stevaroni said:

Steve P. writes... Resting your case on the mere possibility of something being possible in theory is not a foundation to build on.

Except that the creationist case requires self-replication of simple molecules to be impossible. Demonstrating possible pathways may not prove evolution, but it solidly disproves one of the basic underpinnings of the creation argument.

Dave Luckett said: So, did God create this "mother cell" some two billion years or more ago? Assuming that the answer is, as implied, "yes", very well then, it's a hypothesis. Let us explore it, by all means. Did He do it by (how shall I put this?) divine powers? By speaking the Word, and it was done?

Steve P. said: fnxtr, What, is this the dreaded "Argument from Labour" I've been hearing about? Damn it all. ID is done for.

At least these guys here are actually, you know, doing some work instead of just sitting back and wacking off.

Steve P. said: Dave, Why not? I am surprised that it would be so difficult for people here to wrap their minds around such an idea. God is the last, great frontier. The frontier of pure Mind. Yet, there is this unfounded skepticism based on the erroneous assumption that matter is all there is that stands in the way IMO of deeper understanding. Shit, even Einstein was not hung up on that. He knew intuitively there was 'something out there'. Deny if you must.

Steve P. said: I agree with Dembski's position. The earth appears to be billions of years old. However, I won't be aghast tomorrow if someone proves that carbon-dating is flawed and the earth is now actually only 10,000 years old. It makes no difference for me. Why would it? It would only make a difference for your neo-darwinian position.

As for ancestry, I agree with Behe that there was a mother cell. I believe it was pre-programmed to produce each phenotype in succession, where in turn each produced phenotype was programmed to produce similar organisms down the line, using a Russian egg type method of execution.

Wheels said:

Wheels said:

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered intuition of observation of the Sun going around the Earth as it passes through the sky from morning to evening trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection that the Earth actually goes around the Sun? Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with this idea.

I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

Steve P., still need an answer here.

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Dave, Why not? I am surprised that it would be so difficult for people here to wrap their minds around such an idea. God is the last, great frontier. The frontier of pure Mind. Yet, there is this unfounded skepticism based on the erroneous assumption that matter is all there is that stands in the way IMO of deeper understanding. Shit, even Einstein was not hung up on that. He knew intuitively there was 'something out there'. Deny if you must.

So please explain how appealing to otherwise undetectable and untestable supernatural causes is a superior means of doing scientific research than actually studying and observing the natural world.

Steve P. said: Wheels, You are quite right. It was demonstrated that in fact the earth revolves around the sun. So then, let's demonstrate how life is not designed. Let's demonstrate that the intuition of design is false, a misunderstanding based on faulty interpretation of what is seen. "Give us the calculations, Scotty. I want outta this malaise". "But sir, we have no more power. Our dilithium crystals are dead."

Wheels said:

Wheels said:

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered intuition of observation of the Sun going around the Earth as it passes through the sky from morning to evening trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection that the Earth actually goes around the Sun? Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with this idea.

I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

Steve P., still need an answer here.

Confirming the supernatural?

I suspect he hasn’t thought this one through.

This is one of the dangers of pretending to know something about science when one’s knowledge is maxed out somewhere around middle school at best.

Steve P. said: Stanton, You misunderstand. The supernatural is not being used as a tool to do science. Science is confirming the supernatural. Get you your other post later. Wife's calling now. Gotta go.

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Dave, Why not? I am surprised that it would be so difficult for people here to wrap their minds around such an idea. God is the last, great frontier. The frontier of pure Mind. Yet, there is this unfounded skepticism based on the erroneous assumption that matter is all there is that stands in the way IMO of deeper understanding. Shit, even Einstein was not hung up on that. He knew intuitively there was 'something out there'. Deny if you must.

So please explain how appealing to otherwise undetectable and untestable supernatural causes is a superior means of doing scientific research than actually studying and observing the natural world.

(Steve P. hands mplavcan a Bible)

"Here ya go. All in the book."

fnxtr said: (Steve P. hands mplavcan a Bible) "Here ya go. All in the book."

Stanton got there before me.

We have before us two explanations for the first cell. One is Steve P's: God the Creator made it from nothing. The other is that the first cell was the result of natural processes that can be traced at least as far back as the first self-replicating molecules; and that these in turn were the result of natural chemical processes that are difficult to trace in full, because those processes are immensely complex and the conditions under which they took place not sufficiently known.

Now, how are we to establish the first possibility, which is, essentially, that a miracle occurred at the behest of God?

I can think of no way to do this. A miracle is, by definition, a single event outside the course of nature. Science can only investigate phenomena that can be repeatedly observed, measured, quantified. If it's a miracle that happened exactly once and only God observed it, then we cannot investigate it.

How does one establish the second possibility? Why, by doing what scientists do, and are doing. Dig in the rocks for the evidence. Try to establish the chemistry of the ancient earth by observing the evidence. Show by experiment that simple chemicals form complex organic compounds spontaneously. At the same time, work backwards from molecular biochemistry to establish self-replication as a property in simpler and simpler compounds, and show ancestral linkages between them. That is, pursue explanations.

Explanations, because - and here's the problem - what Steve P says is an explanation actually isn't one. It's only saying that the origin of life is a mystery that we shall never understand. To say we can't know how life began is not an explanation of life. It's the exact opposite of an explanation.

So scientists do what scientists do. They pursue explanations by observing evidence. That's what they do. And if this process is to work - and let's be clear about it, it does work - then they have to assume that they can investigate, that they can establish evidence, that they can observe natural events and draw data from them about causation.

Which is to say, as Steve P does say, let us work to show that life is not designed, as such. (But Steve, let's be careful about defining the word "design".)

Maybe Steve P is right. Maybe, no matter how much research is done, no matter what data is found, no matter what evidence is accumulated, there will never be an explanation for the origin of life, nailed down, certain, sure. It will always be a mystery, a possible miracle.

On the other hand, every year that goes by, the gap between organic chemistry and molecular biology gets smaller. I'm not betting Steve P is right. In fact, I'd bet against it. And I am saying that whether he's right or not, science and scientists have to try to explain phenomena by natural means that can be investigated, and that includes the phenomenon of life.

Steve P. said: Wheels, You are quite right. It was demonstrated that in fact the earth revolves around the sun. So then, let's demonstrate how life is not designed. Let's demonstrate that the intuition of design is false, a misunderstanding based on faulty interpretation of what is seen. "Give us the calculations, Scotty. I want outta this malaise". "But sir, we have no more power. Our dilithium crystals are dead."

Wheels said:

Wheels said:

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered intuition of observation of the Sun going around the Earth as it passes through the sky from morning to evening trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection that the Earth actually goes around the Sun? Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with this idea.

I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

Steve P., still need an answer here.

However, I won’t be aghast tomorrow if someone proves that carbon-dating is flawed and the earth is now actually only 10,000 years old. It makes no difference for me. Why would it? It would only make a difference for your neo-darwinian position. As for ancestry, I agree with Behe that there was a mother cell. I believe it was pre-programmed to produce each phenotype in succession, where in turn each produced phenotype was programmed to produce similar organisms down the line, using a Russian egg type method of execution.

— Steve P.

Now for the rest of you "Darwinists": Please get off the God, Bible, supernatural tangent. You have a rare opportunity to discuss countless "what happen when" questions with someone who radically disagrees with YECs and most OECs.

And FL, where are you? Here's an excellent opportunity to debate a common-descent-accepting OEC and show that your objection to "Darwinism" is more than just an emotional objection to "naturalism." Maybe you can convince Steve that conception is a design actuation event (as you admitted last year), and thus every bit the "evidence" of God as that elusive first "irreducibly complex" flagellum. The one that you think originated ~10K years ago rather than the ~2B years ago that Steve, Behe and mainstream science contends.

Steve P. said: As for ancestry, I agree with Behe that there was a mother cell. I believe it was pre-programmed to produce each phenotype in succession, where in turn each produced phenotype was programmed to produce similar organisms down the line, using a Russian egg type method of execution.

Ah! The Great Chain of Being.

— Richard Simons

Tell me, on your chain, what would be the relative order of a bee, a bee orchid, a Venus flytrap and an octopus?

Frank J said: I can understand those who haven't really given 5 minutes' thought to it (which is 90+% of the public) but those we encounter here, or (like Behe) devote a career to it must only turn down such fabulous opportunities because they know they will fail.

Steve P. said: I agree with Dembski's position. The earth appears to be billions of years old. However, I won't be aghast tomorrow if someone proves that carbon-dating is flawed and the earth is now actually only 10,000 years old.

Behe can write books and get around peer-review; his followers can bandy about thoughtless speculations derived from total non-comprehension of the issues. But it is the funding proposal where the rubber hits the road. Behe has to know that he cannot even think of a workable proposal that will pass muster with any funding review at any scientific funding agency. And knowing this, he certainly must know there are no scientific research routes to his claims.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: as. You might recall that 2 1/2 years ago on Talk.Origins I posted a request for all who have alternate ideas of human origins to have their proposals (or "pre-proposals") constructively reviewed by a wide range of "evoltionists" and anti-evolutionists. As you would expect, there has yet to be one reply.

Huh, this might be slightly off-topic, but Richard Lenski biological archive of 40,000 generations of E. Coli has been sequenced by JE Barrick.

Larry Moran has a review on Sandwalk.

None other than Michael Behe commented on Barrick's research with:
"Lenski’s decades-long work lines up wonderfully with what an ID person would expect — in a huge number of tries, one sees minor changes, mostly degradative, and no new complex systems. So much for the power of random mutation and natural selection. "

That would be worth a Panda's Thumb article, IMHO.

Barrick, J.E., Yu, D.S., Yoon, S.H., Jeong, H., Oh, T,K., Schneider, D., Lenski, R.E., and Kim, J.F. (2009) Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature Oct 18.

stevaroni said:

Steve P. writes... Resting your case on the mere possibility of something being possible in theory is not a foundation to build on.

Except that the creationist case requires self-replication of simple molecules to be impossible. Demonstrating possible pathways may not prove evolution, but it solidly disproves one of the basic underpinnings of the creation argument.

Looks like I already answered that one from another angle. Anyway, more ammo for you guys to aim my way.

mplavcan said: Huh? Seriously? Demonstrating that the intuition of design is false is fairly trivial, actually. People see patterns where none exist as a matter of course. The assumptions of both Behe and Dembski have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false. And it is relatively easy to demonstrate that apparent "irreducible complexity" arises spontaneously in simulations. Last week's Science reviewed a case of the observed evolution of an irreducibly complex system in bacteria in the lab. Deny all you like, but denial is neither science, nor a a coherent argument. No wonder people here get frustrated with you.

Steve P. said: Wheels, You are quite right. It was demonstrated that in fact the earth revolves around the sun. So then, let's demonstrate how life is not designed. Let's demonstrate that the intuition of design is false, a misunderstanding based on faulty interpretation of what is seen. "Give us the calculations, Scotty. I want outta this malaise". "But sir, we have no more power. Our dilithium crystals are dead."

Wheels said:

Wheels said:

wile coyote said:

Steve P. said: Here's one for ya. How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered observation of design in nature trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection of design as illusion?

How is the intuition garnered from direct, unfiltered intuition of observation of the Sun going around the Earth as it passes through the sky from morning to evening trumped by the counter-intuitive, filtered objection that the Earth actually goes around the Sun? Believe it or not, there was a time when people had a problem with this idea.

I think this one deserves an answer before Steve P. goes any farther.

Steve P., still need an answer here.

Steve P. said: Stevaroni, Sounds 'stawmanishy' to me. Self-replicating molecules only do just that, replicate themselves, no? But how does that help your case for darwinian step-wise change building organisms?

Actually, I suspect that life is a product of the interaction of several dimensions. Quantum activity IMO is evidence of this. Since matter cannot break the Law of Causation, what appears as quantum particles appearing and disappearing is not evidence of the spontaneous, causeless, appearance of physical particles, but rather the effect of the interplay between different dimensions.

However, all reality roads untimately lead to God. Inescapable. But I don't need to 'appeal' to Him to discuss it.

"Holding pattern"?

Your argument is nothing more than a chimera of the sharpshooter fallacy and an appeal to ignorance, not to mention a rehash of Behe's moronic demand that scientists need to document every single detail of the evolution of every single biological structure just so Behe and his cronies can dismiss them as pathetic trivia.

Stanton said: So how does this psychobabble disprove evolution and provide evidence for Intelligent Design, instead?

Steve P sez... Stevaroni, Sounds ‘stawmanishy’ to me.

Steve P. said: mplavcan, Er, Dembski's and Behe's ideas have been replied to, but hardly refuted. Can you demostrate the pathways that bacteria used to produce a flagellum? How could NS select for proteins in cellular machinery? How did the bacteria 'organize' each protein in step-wise form? Logically, the proteins for each stage of production of the flagellum would necessarily have to exist in a holding pattern waiting for the next stage to be completed before any of them could do something? Once, the proteins for the rotor got in place, could they do anything in the meantime? How about the proteins for the bushings, etc? They too would have to be put in place, then held there for who knows how long, until the other parts spontaneously found themselves in the right spot. Furthermore, how did the bacteria 'know' when the correct amount of parts and configuration achieved 'critical mass' so to speak, in order for the filament to start rotating? No scientific literature has even begun to tackle these practical considerations. It's always just an appeal to emergence, which is like declaring magic stuff happened. Appealing to emergence is like appealing to God. how is it different? Can you demonstrate emergence? No, you can only contemplate it. But that's not what science is asking for, correct? We're supposed to demonstrate, at the very least through mathematical calculations, that show those floating proteins ultimately destined to become rotor proteins, bushing proteins, filament proteins, etc could do nothing else but end up in a 'huddle'pattern, do to such and such specific environmental factors, themselves having to be quantified, and their effect on the proteins to be quantified. It is a daunting task but it is the only way to demonstrate it scientifically, right? Every question always leads to the dilemma of trying to explain biological activity without reference to design, intelligence. In the end, it can't be done, except by fudging reality with the likes of magical, emergent concepts.

Mike Elzinga said: Confirming the supernatural? I suspect he hasn’t thought this one through. This is one of the dangers of pretending to know something about science when one’s knowledge is maxed out somewhere around middle school at best.

Not much magic here, but looks like some good science ... http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf

By claiming “GODDIDIT” as an explanation, like you just did right now, you are making an appeal to the supernatural, and have abandoned any pretense of scientific explanations, not that you were trying to make any scientific explanations in the first place. That, and you still haven’t explained how saying “GODDIDIT”, or in your cause, “REALITY = GOD”, is supposed to be a meaningful alternative explanation. Then again, what with your haughty pontification, it’s very doubtful that you ever intend to provide any meaningful explanation.

Steve P. said: And contrast that to science' appeal to emergence to explain biological development thresholds. Shit, Stanton. You can't even model a single friggin' biological development threshold, let alone abiogenesis. You are mesmerized by all the technical jargon, thinking it is an actual answer to something. It's bullshit. Emergence, my ass.

Steve P's question, "Why did NS not act on a partially built flagellum", makes absolutely no sense. It implies Steve P thinks there was some advance-planned program whose _final goal_ was a flagellum- in other words, creationism- and he can't get his head around the idea that natural selection _does not plan ahead_. It's not a science or history problem- it's a concept problem.

At _every_ stage in the development of the flagellum, natural selection was active. But it wasn't selecting structures that _would be a flagellum one day_. It was selecting structures that helped their hosts to survive and reproduce _right then_: membrane pores, secretion systems.

Until Steve P gets his head round this idea he's going to keep asking "Why did Napoleon cross the Mississipi?" and wonder why nobody takes him seriously.

Steve,

How do you explain the homologies between the flagellum protein genes and other genes? If the flagellum were created by an intelligence, why would the proteins show homologies to other genes? If however, the flagellum were constructued from co-opted proteins, then the pattern makes perfect sense.

Steve P. said: strong, ah, you thought cutting and pasting was all you had to do. Viola, there it is, right? Not that easy.

The article is a genetic historical narrative. Where in the article does it describe how the flagellum was constructed? What caused gene activity to start placing proteins in certain positions creating what we now know are bushings, rings, motor, hook, etc. And under what time span did each part get put in position? And what was happening between each phase of construction? Why did NS not act on a partially build flagellum? It is not enough to say the proteins for each part 'could have' been used by the bacteria for other purposes. The key is that these proteins, once placed in a particular configuration, could only be used within that configuration. So what were the bushing doing while waiting for the motor? What was the motor doing while waiting for the hook? And if these parts did in fact do other jobs while in that partial flagellic configuration, what signalled them that it was time to "Stop what you are doing. We've got all the parts in place finally. OK, let's get to work". IOW, you can't escape the reality of a starter-kit.

Here comes the "common design" and "God can do whatever he wants" schtick....

What is it about science-denial that puts right-wing fundagelicals in the same camp with Gary-Zukav reading, peyote-munching newage flakes? Big tent, indeed.

No scientific literature has even begun to tackle these practical considerations. It’s always just an appeal to emergence, which is like declaring magic stuff happened. Appealing to emergence is like appealing to God. how is it different? Can you demonstrate emergence? No, you can only contemplate it.

— Steve P.

Steve wrote:

"Er, Dembski’s and Behe’s ideas have been replied to, but hardly refuted."

Actually, the Behe claim that the bacterial flagellum is irresducibly complex has been conclusively falsified by direct experimental evidence. Not by him mind you, but by a real scientist doing real science:

Nature (2008) 451:485-488

Thanks to SWT for the links.

Stephen Wells said: Until Steve P gets his head round this idea he's going to keep asking "Why did Napoleon cross the Mississipi?" and wonder why nobody takes him seriously.

Steve P. said: Er, Dembski's and Behe's ideas have been replied to, but hardly refuted.

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. [My bold. Original post at ISCID Forum, 18 September 2002, 9:08.]

Steve P. said: mplavcan, Er, Dembski's and Behe's ideas have been replied to, but hardly refuted. Can you demostrate the pathways that bacteria used to produce a flagellum? How could NS select for proteins in cellular machinery? How did the bacteria 'organize' each protein in step-wise form? Logically, the proteins for each stage of production of the flagellum would necessarily have to exist in a holding pattern waiting for the next stage to be completed before any of them could do something? Once, the proteins for the rotor got in place, could they do anything in the meantime? How about the proteins for the bushings, etc? They too would have to be put in place, then held there for who knows how long, until the other parts spontaneously found themselves in the right spot. Furthermore, how did the bacteria 'know' when the correct amount of parts and configuration achieved 'critical mass' so to speak, in order for the filament to start rotating? No scientific literature has even begun to tackle these practical considerations. It's always just an appeal to emergence, which is like declaring magic stuff happened. Appealing to emergence is like appealing to God. how is it different? Can you demonstrate emergence? No, you can only contemplate it. But that's not what science is asking for, correct? We're supposed to demonstrate, at the very least through mathematical calculations, that show those floating proteins ultimately destined to become rotor proteins, bushing proteins, filament proteins, etc could do nothing else but end up in a 'huddle'pattern, do to such and such specific environmental factors, themselves having to be quantified, and their effect on the proteins to be quantified. It is a daunting task but it is the only way to demonstrate it scientifically, right? Every question always leads to the dilemma of trying to explain biological activity without reference to design, intelligence. In the end, it can't be done, except by fudging reality with the likes of magical, emergent concepts.

Those who criticize science for supposedly thinking it has all the answers are the first to declare science impotent when it admits that it does not have all the answers. Consistent in these attitudes is the implicit denial of what researchers do.

What makes a scientist is not the answers he has, nor the questions he poses, but the answers he pursues, and the manner in which he does so. Those who only pose questions may be engaged in something worthwhile (say, philosophy), but it isn't science, and it doesn't become science just because the questions contain technical jargon. Until Behe pursues the answers to those pesky questions he considers "unfruitful", he is doing the work of a rhetorician, not a scientist.

Steve P sez Er, Dembski’s and Behe’s ideas have been replied to, but hardly refuted.

True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Wow, this thread is still open!

Anyway, since I see Dembski's famous admission that ID claims an exemption from "connecting dots", here are my 2c about it.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that, even if Dembski, Behe or Steve P. did test their "theory" and validated it, none of it would be any comfort to YECs or old-earth-young-lifers.

FYI, Behe then responded to this in 3 parts (actually 4, but one post is basically an introduction):

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/not_so_many_pathways_response.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/severe_limits_to_darwinian_evo.html#more

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/probability_and_controversy_re.html

Behe is basically arguing that despite what Thornton claims, his paper does support Behe, that he hasn't read his argument, that he misunderstands probability, that he is spinning the implications of his results, that he contradicts himself and various other stuff.

SteveF said: FYI, Behe then responded to this in 3 parts (actually 4, but one post is basically an introduction): http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/not_so_many_pathways_response.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/severe_limits_to_darwinian_evo.html#more http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/probability_and_controversy_re.html Behe is basically arguing that despite what Thornton claims, his paper does support Behe, that he hasn't read his argument, that he misunderstands probability, that he is spinning the implications of his results, that he contradicts himself and various other stuff.

I stand for Michael Behe, but not for Religion.
When will you Evolutionists study the logic of evolution, that is illogical ?
No "being" animate can have inanimate matter make it.
Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations...!
The alleged lottery of Evolution, is only an illogical assumption...!

I suspect George is not a native Engish speaker, so I'll go easy.

George, all living things are made up of inanimate matter. It is called Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc...

george said: I stand for Michael Behe, but not for Religion. When will you Evolutionists study the logic of evolution, that is illogical ? No "being" animate can have inanimate matter make it. Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations...! The alleged lottery of Evolution, is only an illogical assumption...!

fnxtr said:

george said: I stand for Michael Behe, but not for Religion. When will you Evolutionists study the logic of evolution, that is illogical ? No "being" animate can have inanimate matter make it. Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations...! The alleged lottery of Evolution, is only an illogical assumption...!

I see a lot of baseless assertions and opinions but your post is a little light on proofs there, George. Science doesn't give a rat's about opinions. Show your work.

The illogic of evolution is that "senseless" matter, makes something "with sense", which is different than to be "made of", basic "irreducible complex" elements, like O2, H, etc.

So Evolution is non-sense...!

Explain to me what is wrong with this statement ?:

"Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations…!"

Please show further your amazing communication
capabilities, and knowledge of English, or rather the meaning of words.

The illogic of evolution is that “senseless” matter, makes something “with sense”

Pure Logic, and me have already made Evolution illogic, by big examples in my Book of Pure Logic, and by "semantics".

You just avoided and mis understood me.

Sense here would mean something different than a zombie or something a human cannot make themselves, like a basic cell...Until you can make a basic cell, and prove to me,"your mother nature" made it and perfected it, Evolution is illogical and senseless...

Here we go again.

George, you are saying that if we cannot demonstrate each and every step between non-living things and living things, up to the point where we create a living cell, you won't believe that evolution happens.

That means you are ignoring all the evidence. You are saying that if we don't know everything, we know nothing. As my Welsh grandmother would say (English was her second language, too) "There's nonsense for you."

But let us by no means discard your ideas out of hand. Let's hear them. Tell us, if natural processes did not produce the "first basic cell", what did, and how long ago? And further, once we have that first basic cell, is evolution by natural selection sufficient, in your view, to account for the origin of the species? If not, what process is, and how much time has passed during that process?

Michael Behe's fans fail to realize that Behe has never ever done any research to support, justify or even demonstrate his claims of irreducible complexity and finding the alleged "edge" of evolution. Behe is also stupid enough to hope, if not wish that his critics are as intellectually moribund as he.

I mean, what sort of idiot would trust an academic zombie like Behe, whose redefinition of "science" would include not only Intelligent Design, but Modern Astrology, as well?

So, George, the burden of proving that Evolution doesn't occur is on your shoulders: closing your eyes to pretend that the thousands upon thousands of evidence for evolution does not exist, while blasting us with almost incomprehensible word salad does not count.

Wait, no, Behe's fans don't fail to realize that he's never bothered to do any research: they don't care that he can't be bothered to do any research.

It would be more enlightening if you explained to me, what is the most of the lacking all that Evolutionists claim to know. Because if your mother had not taught you to speak, read and write, we would not be communicating here...

Because "living forms" adaptability, is very different of life "arising" by itself from the Oceans, from a common ancestor. My common ancestor was "only" a human, which one was yours...? The apes, and via which mechanism ?

And by "mechanism(s)", I mean step by step, bio-chemical processes. [like when DNA replication went rampant, and all kinds of beings were born, until the ones we see today, and these intermediate being were all lost...][this of course is against DNA replication logic of today...]

Oh, lookie: george the troll is trying to pull the "Which grandparent was the ape you were descended from?" nonargument from his word salad.

Well, george, I'd sooner be descended from a noble primate like a drill or a mandrill, than be descended from a barely coherent twit, like you, who misuses what little intelligence he has in order to spout illegible nonsense and insult his betters in an inane attempt to please God.

So, in other words, present proof that evolution doesn't work, or get lost.

translating from George's babbling: *blahblahblah me want you show me step by step examples of chemical evolution just so me can close eyes and call you stupidhead!*

Here comes the part where he tries to sell you his book.

You caught us, George. All those thousands of scientists in every related field for the last hundred + years got it all wrong. All the biologists, all the paleontologists, geologists, biochemists, they all got led down the garden path and nobody realized it.

But YOU saw through all that, didn't you, genius?

Thanks for clearing it all up.

As the saying goes, "I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter."

Guess what? Evolution doesn't care if you believe it or not. Neither does anyone else. If you have real questions, go read a real book.

George said: Explain to me what is wrong with this statement ?: "Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations…!"

George said:

Explain to me what is wrong with this statement ?:

“Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations…!”

Um… it’s meaningless gibberish?
...............................

Well thanks for showing to all here, your obvious ignorance, and proof, of all that I have clearly written...

................................

gibberish is the only DNA, Evolution can produce, you "senseless" zombie...

George,

Perhaps you would like to explain what mechanism you propose. Was it just poof! And by mechanism I mean a detailed description of exactly what happened when and why. What did god do? How did she do it? Why did she do it? When did she do it? You know, a step by step magical process that doesn't conflict with anything that anyone claims to know about god.

When you have done that, then perhaps someone will answer your questions for you.

Is a very complex and intelligent being, more possible by mere "nature forces", than a man made "robot-computer"...?

fnxtr said:

George said: Explain to me what is wrong with this statement ?: "Evolution is only, high survivability modifications, that a being has with very big limitations…!"

Um... it's meaningless gibberish?

Love, please read my book, mentioned above. I do not know by what you mean by a god ! Rather an "entity" or "entities".

george said: Is a very complex and intelligent being, more possible by mere "nature forces", than a man made "robot-computer"...?

george said: Love, please read my book, mentioned above. I do not know by what you mean by a god ! Rather an "entity" or "entities".

Oh my dear,

Book no2. will give you some better ideas, plus the ones given in my book no.1, than Evolution.

But anything than the Big Bang and Evolution...!

It could be all like the beautiful rings of Saturn...

courious george:

I don't know. Is a three wheeled tricycle capable of ambulation in the reptograde dimension without accelerated paraphenelia? Or is it destined to freeze inextricably to the soul of its confabulation? All phasmagorical discombobultions aside, you shouldn't try to interpose anoxia with hyperbolism, that can be very pernasticating.

PZ:

Even though this guy is technically on topic, (mismatch of the decade, remember), I vote that we avoid the rush and send the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise people might be tempted to respond to his incoherent gibberish. What kind of person thinks that incomprehensibility constitutes an argument?

So stop babbling and tell us what these incoherent mutterings of yours are.

DS said: PZ: Even though this guy is technically on topic, (mismatch of the decade, remember), I vote that we avoid the rush and send the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise people might be tempted to respond to his incoherent gibberish. What kind of person thinks that incomprehensibility constitutes an argument?

Due to the limitations of grammar. Most of my book no.1 is legible clearly, that is to who wants to understand. But book no.2 will interpret all for you. And in chapters and verses if you would prefer. You see what has a "grammar" style of your own, is yours and leaves many ideas open or to be covered...

george babbled: if scientists are on the same trend of thought as you guys are, the world will evolve to "perfection" and bliss ... go with your gibberish to some other planet...

I think George's comments should be left up. People who stumble over this thread in years to come will be struck by the intellectual calibre of his remarks.

george,

youre leavin.....

good ridance.....

why would anyone ever considered, reading anything you wroted?????

you are the morons.....

Man, this is easy.

george babbled: you are all pathetic... evolution is worse than a 6 day creation... and that means, illogical, brainless, the worst science ever humans have ever accepted in ACADEMIA...

george babbled: evolution is taught in universities around the world, because it must be a global conspiracy

or they like showing publicly, and for that matter, legally, how stupid they are...

Have a look at the book. I hope Authorhouse got full payment in cash before they printed a word.

It would appear that george's first language is Spanish, which may account for his epic struggles with English grammar; but that hardly conveys the full flavour of his magnum opus. As a work of imagination his "Book of Pure Logic" is up there with "Atlanta Nights" or "Naked Came the Stranger", but where in those great epics can we find the value of pi to a thousand decimal places? What more could anyone ask? Other than coherence, that is.