The I in ID

In which of his scientific theories did he do that?That's the question you refuse to answer, presumably because you know the answer as well as I do: Newton never invoked God in his scientific theories, only in his metaphysical speculations. In which scientific theory? It's quite correct. For instance, no consensus about the methods used to construct the Pyramids was reached until people attempted to use those same methods in the same situations faced by the ancient Egyptians.So, in regards to supernatural beings using supernatural methods to create life, what supernatural beings have you observed? What supernatural methods have you attempted? By the definition of IC: Remove any element of the lac system in E. coli and the whole system fails.In an experiment, that whole system was stimulated to evolve again in a population. That's natural selection and random mutation creating an IC system. What else could have been? Bacteria possess no intelligence to "redesign" themselves; and they certainly contained no convinient genetic "program" that would have responded to the situation by "regenerating" the lac operons, because if they had, every bacteria would have done it.Random mutation is an inevitable result of physical law; no genetic duplication can be perfect. Natural selection is an inevitable result of biological reality; every generation in a stable population contains more organisms than can survive in the environment. That these forces were the source of the evolution of an IC system is irrefutable.

Another false canard. The present does not need to be explained to understand evolution and to see it working and being tested and the test results validating the theories (a point that IDeism has yet to reach).Complexity of existing systems does not need to be explained when new complex systems are seen to evolve, especially ones where they result in a system made up of several features which then qualify under Behe’s own definition as an system. If it is observed to happen once then it is likely to be observed again.And in spite of the attack on Miller the point he made has not been refuted: that is an IC feature according to Behe’s own definition as shown by the verifiable evidence of Hall’s experiment (which is in a journal, so that strawman is also irrelevant). Behe is refuted by Hall. Behe has not addressed the matter of the feature being IC, but has committed that logical fallacy of style over substance by attacking the manner of the experiment. and AGAIN you are attacking the people and not the argument.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It's actually fairly obvious you have little or no training or education in biology; otherwise you would have known that when you write the name of a species, like E. coli, only the genus name or inital is capitalized.I find it rather hilarious of you to critique Mr. Hambre for some supposed ID "ignorance" when you yourself are ignorant of the basic nomenclature of biology.

His isn't, but this one is:

quote:

---

Res Microbiol. 2004 Jun;155(5):352-9.

​

Adaptive mutation and amplification in Escherichia coli: two pathways of genome adaptation under stress.

​

Hersh MN, Ponder RG, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM.

​

Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Rm S809, Mail Stop 225, Houston, TX 77030-3411, USA.

​

The neo-Darwinists suggested that evolution is constant and gradual, and thus that genetic changes that drive evolution should be too. However, more recent understanding of phenomena called adaptive mutation in microbes indicates that mutation rates can be elevated in response to stress, producing beneficial and other mutations. We review evidence that, in Escherichia coli, two separate mechanisms of stress-induced genetic change occur that revert a lac frameshift allele allowing growth on lactose medium. First, compensatory frameshift ("point") mutations occur by a mechanism that includes DNA double-strand breaks and (we have suggested) their error-prone repair. Point mutation requires induction of the RpoS-dependent general stress response, and the SOS DNA damage response leading to upregulation of the error-prone DNA polymerase DinB (Pol IV), and occurs during a transient limitation of post-replicative mismatch repair activity. A second mechanism, adaptive amplification, entails amplification of the leaky lac allele to 20-50 tandem repeats. These provide sufficient beta-galactosidase activity for growth, thereby apparently deflecting cells from the point mutation pathway. Unlike point mutation, amplification neither occurs in hypermutating cells nor requires SOS or DinB, but like point mutation, amplification requires the RpoS-dependent stress response. Similar processes are being found in other bacterial systems and yeast. Stress-induced genetic changes may underlie much of microbial evolution, pathogenesis and antibiotic resistance, and also cancer formation, progression and drug resistance.

---

As is this one:

quote:

---

Genetics. 2004 Aug;167(4):2015-26.

​

Evolution of specialists in an experimental microcosm.

​

Dykhuizen DE, Dean AM.

​

Department of Ecology and Evolution, SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794.

​

The impact of adaptation on the persistence of a balanced polymorphism was explored using the lactose operon of Escherichia coli as a model system. Competition in chemostats for two substitutable resources, methylgalactoside and lactulose, generates stabilizing frequency-dependent selection when two different naturally isolated lac operons (TD2 and TD10) are used. The fate of this balanced polymorphism was tracked over evolutionary time by monitoring the frequency of fhuA(-), a linked neutral genetic marker that confers resistance to the bacteriophage T5. In four out of nine chemostats the lac polymorphism persisted for 400-600 generations when the experiments were terminated. In the other five chemostats the fhuA polymorphism, and consequently the lac operon polymorphism, was lost between 86 and 219 generations. Four of 13 chemostat cultures monomorphic for the lac operon retained the neutral fhuA polymorphism for 450-550 generations until they were terminated; the remainder became monomorphic at fhuA between 63 and 303 generations. Specialists on each galactoside were isolated from chemostats that maintained the fhuA polymorphism, whether polymorphic or monomorphic at the lac operon. Strains isolated from three of four chemostats in which the lac polymorphism was preserved had switched their galactoside preference. Most of the chemostats where the fhuA polymorphism was lost also contained specialists. These results demonstrate that the initial polymorphism at lac was of little consequence to the outcome of long-term adaptive evolution. Instead, the fitnesses of evolved strains were dominated by mutations arising elsewhere in the genome, a fact confirmed by showing that operons isolated from their evolved backgrounds were alone unable to explain the presence of both specialists. Our results suggest that, once stabilized, ecological specialization prevented selective sweeps through the entire population, thereby promoting the maintenance of linked neutral polymorphisms.

---

What I think is great is that the Lac operon in E. coli is so well-understood - that it so predictably evolves in E. coli if lac-negative specimens are placed on a lactose substrate - that its a common research model. In a peer-reviewed journal?

I would say that this counts as invalidation of the concept that an IC system means having to assume a designer.Here is clearly an example of an IC system that has developed under experimental conditions where the system was not induced but evolved from other existing elements.That this system is IC has also been shown, as it is composed of 3 features that have to work together for the system to work at all.IC is a dead concept. RIPed.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You have to suffer from a stupendous lack of imagination in order to give any credence to the idea that IC is some kind of barrier to evolution.And let's keep in mind that even when humans intelligently create IC systems, they're doing so through natural processes. Everything that humans do, they do through natural processes.To suggest, then, that natural processes can't result in IC systems is idiotic - the fact that humans can make such systems means that natural processes can make them, because humans use natural processes to make things.Show me a so-called ID "theorist" and I'll show you someone who spends so much time looking at made things that he never stops to think about how people make things.

yep. I went to the recommended ID forum to see what it was like and found this:http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000523.html In other words, if your not 100% for ID then go somewhere else. You can try to send an e-mail, but your chances of getting one approved that criticises ID in any way will not be allowed (our egos are too fragile). You can read all you want to, but can't post until we bless you.Also this is posted: Looks like Dembski is one of the head honchos. Sorry, but I've been to stifled debate sites before. I'll let the mountain come to mohammed.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
The information they have is no different than the information found in a single, inorganic carbon atom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

ID man: That is pure unsubstantiated crap.

---

No, it is not crap, it is observation. Does carbon require information to form carbon dioxide when it reacts with heat and oxygen? Does carbon require information to form carbohydrates when it reacts with hydrogen and oxygen? Does carbon need information to form into nucleotides and form polymers through the binding of pyrophosphates? If not, then the production of an RNA molecule through simple, non-information containing chemical reactions can result in a cyclic chemical reaction. If no information is needed for a catalytic RNA molecule to form, then replicating reactions, and therefore the begining of life, do not need information to get started. Once you have a replicating chemical reaction with RNA then evolution takes over and creates complexity through variation and selection. Life is a chemical reaction. Can you show me any part of biological life that is not governed by chemistry or physics?

quote:

---

More assertion. We are finding out it is like a computer code. Even Bill Gates sees this.

---

Well, if Bill Gates says so it must be true (rolls eyes). Give me a break. You will have to actually form an argument instead of relying on appeals to authority (and poor authorities at that).

quote:

---

I agree with the IDists who say no further intervention is required. Everything a population required was programmed in before that population came to be.

---

Great, let's run an experiment. I will post two different DNA sequences. One will be random (made up by myself) and another will be from an organism. Your task is to tell me which one is from an organism and which one is random. Also, you must show me the criteria or theories that you used to come to your conclusions. Ready? Oh, and no cheating, you can't look up either sequence using an online database.Sequence A: tgaaataaac ctgggatacc taggatttaaSequence B: tgggattttg cttcaaaata tccaaaaaaaCould you also show me what parts are programmed and what they are programmed to do when the organism is met with new selective pressures?

quote:

---

Again you are wrong. However IF [the presence of atoms] was all that was needed it tells me the scientists involved with the materialistic naturalisms' search for the origins of life are utterly useless. They are clue;ess. Maybe you should give them a hand.

---

So how did the first designers come about? If the first designers did not come about through purely natural mechanisms, how did they come about and what evidence do you have to support their origins?

quote:

---

That is your assertion anyway. I bet you think the information on your hard drive arrived when the compounds that make the disk were mixed together.

---

The information on my hard drive is not chemical, it is abstract computer code. It only contains information because human intelligences have agreed on a certain syntax and rules. To an alien, there would be zero information on my hard drive. Therefore, information only exists because humans organize it to make it appear. The information in genomes is a human contrivance due to our ability to organize data.

Again: Do I really have to know Behe (and the like) off by heart in order to criticise the concept on which they base their work. I don’t expect you to have read Origin of Species etc (or the excellent update ‘Almost like a Whale’) to be able to criticise the ToE. All I would ask is for you to be up to date with current evolutionary theory (ie via pubmed) and to have a vague understanding of the arguments put forward on talkorigins (for example). I’ll repeat: I have seen many different arguments on the web (many of which are torn straight from Behe’s work), I’ve even read the laughable attempt at science by Meyer and none of what I have seen bares any resemblance to the science that I understand and carry out on a day to day basis. Save your petty little insults:

quote:

---

This proves to me that you don't understand ID OR science

---

and actually put your money where your mouth is. Show me that ID can follow scientific method and has been tested, or demonstrate why my blueprint for science is wrong. Which brings me to how the ToE stands up to testing: Right here goes:

1. Observation: There is a variety of species and complex structures in life
2. Hypothesis: Life evolved by a process of mutation and natural selection
3. Tests: Every time a new fossil is found. Every time a species has parts of its’ genome sequenced. Every time a developmental process is examined at the molecular level.
4. So far ToE stands up to testing

This is what I am talking about when I ask for a test to falsify a theory. If the cladograms made by comparing the DNA sequences from different species didn’t ape those made by looking at morphology, or if the same biochemical pathways didn’t control processes in bugs, worms, flies, frogs and mice the ToE would be up a brown high-sided river without a rowing implement. If the best that you, a self proclaimed ID reference library, can do is this:

quote:

---

ID would be falsified if it could be shown that life can arise from non-life by nature acting alone. Another falsification would be to show the bacterial flagellum arose by step-by-step processes or any way nature acted alone.

---

then my conclusion is that ID has never been tested. Why then should it be treated as equal with the ToE? Don’t try to wriggle out of this again. ID has declared based on current evidence that there are things in life that are definitely designed, and yet you accept (I hope) that there are aspects of life tht can be well explained by mutation and natural selection. So: based on current evidence where is the design/selection line? OK, explain to me why Behe finds organelles a problem for evolution and why a professor of biochemistry feels the need to ignore (or gloss over) the very strong and persuasive evidence of their non-designed origins. Edited to correct spelling (again)This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-11-2004 04:22 AM

Oooh oooh *waves hand in the air* - I know this one.Wasn't it in one of his laws of motion:Every action has an equal and opposite (Godlike) reaction

I thought it was this one:F = G Ma Mb / r2 + God