The Death Knell for ID?

quote:

---

Behe would argue that four simultaneous mutations is too implausible - even for viruses and bacteria. This study does not report that all four mutations must arise simultaneously in order to confer a selective advantage. Indeed, it could be that each mutation conferred some selective advantage.

---

So why not concentrate on that rather than arguing about the number of simultaneous mutations that Behe allows (and managing to miss the point that it is numbers - population size - that are the most important issue)

quote:

---

If I understand Trixie's main point correctly, then it is that ID proponents hold that the evolution of OmpF is extremely implausible because several mutations would be required before any selective advantage appears. Possibly, we're not communicating very well, though.

---

That's the problem when you ignore the context. You fail to understand the points being made. The point here is that your "clarification" of Behe's views on IC systems, assumed that Behe still held to the views in Darwin's Black Box . But it is far from clear that that is true, given that Edge of Evolution seems to derive from a radical redefinition of IC that Behe suggested (which in itself indicates that Behe realised that his original argument was in trouble).

I think I see the problem. I've expressed myself very badly and given the impression that the mutations have to occur in a specific order. This wasn't my intention, but re-reading my posts I think you're entirely justified in taking that from them. I'll try to be clearer in future.

So why not concentrate on that rather than arguing about the number of simultaneous mutations that Behe allows...I have absolutely no problem with concentrating on the implications of the study reported by Trixie, except that it'd be a touch superfluous since I don't think I could do better than Wounded King in explaining why multiple simultaneous mutations are not needed for the OmpF function to evolve in these phages.That's the problem when you ignore the context. You fail to understand the points being made. The point here is that your "clarification" of Behe's views on IC systems, assumed that Behe still held to the views in Darwin's Black Box . But it is far from clear that that is true, given that Edge of Evolution seems to derive from a radical redefinition of IC that Behe suggested...I suspect that you have not read EofE. In that book, Behe only mentioned irreducible complexity en passant. In EofE, the central argument is that the limits of Darwinian evolution is around four specific simultaneous mutations. For primates, he concluded that the limits of Darwinian evolution are at the level of two simultaneous mutations. From these arguments, he posited that the huge amount of sophisticated biological systems found in the cell could not have plausibly arisen through purely Darwinian mechanisms. Whether his arguments are, in fact, valid is an entirely different matter, of course.

quote:

---

I have absolutely no problem with concentrating on the implications of the study reported by Trixie, except that it'd be a touch superfluous since I don't think I could do better than Wounded King in explaining why multiple simultaneous mutations are not needed for the OmpF function to evolve in these phages.

---

So the only bit of your posts that might be useful has already been done better. Why post at all in that case ?

quote:

---

I suspect that you have not read EofE. In that book, Behe only mentioned irreducible complexity en passant

---

Unless Behe indicated that he still held to the views expressed in Darwin's Black Box that is irrelevant - since that is the point we are discussing, as I keep pointing out. And you have already admitted that you do not know if Behe still holds to that position or not, so I fail to see why you can't simply agree that you were wrong to try to "clarify" his position on IC and leave it at that.I begin to think that the "communications problem" you referred to is the failure of your continual attempts to change the subject.

quote:

---

Unless Behe indicated that he still held to the views expressed in Darwin's Black Box that is irrelevant - since that is the point we are discussing, as I keep pointing out. And you have already admitted that you do not know if Behe still holds to that position or not, so I fail to see why you can't simply agree that you were wrong to try to "clarify" his position on IC and leave it at that.

---

I was trying to clarify Behe's views on the "simultaneous mutations" issue, not on IC. Trixie's point seems to tie both points together. I'd be more than willing to agree that I was wrong in trying to clarify Behe's position on IC, except I wasn't trying to do that.

Remember writing this ?

PaulK:You are indeed right, of course, and I apologize for the confusion I caused. I admit that I do not know what Behe's current stand on the issue of IC is - so I was wrong on that one.

Perhaps they could acknowledge this fact more loudly and publicly. Or ... at all? Where did they say this? Is a new edition of Darwin's Black Box going to come out consisting exclusively of the words: "I was wrong"?

And yet that's exactly what was proposed in "Of Pandas and People", the book that Dover school board wanted to use in schools. That's what they wanted taught in science class. You're now saying that that was just so much marsh gas. Other "cdesignproponentsists" disagree with you and assert that irreducibly complex systems, by definition, couldn't have evolved. If ID can't even get it's own story straight, why should it be imposed on children who don't yet have enough knowledge to critically examine it's claims? Heck, ID supporters can't even do that!You are suggesting that Behe's ideas have transmogrifed so much since Dover that we don't recognise them. So does that mean that the "scientific evidence" that he said supported ID and nothing else, no longer exists? If the field is so fluid that it can contradict itself in 7 years, it has no place in a school science class.On top of that, what caused Behe to change his stance? Is it evidence? Scientific evidence? Is it from his own experimental work or is it from work that was done by others and that was freely available at the time that Behe was busily denying it's existence? In science class we want to give kids scientific information, it's not the place to teach kids the "learning pathway of Behe." Who the hell does he think he is that his painfully slow learning experience should be taught? I'd be rolling around laughing if this wasn't such a serious issue.

I am in complete agreement with you that ID should not be taught in any way in school/science class.

Dover "death knell". One local judge? There is a hopefull monster for ya. Did Scopes conviction kill evolution? Edited by idscience, : No reason given.Edited by idscience, : No reason given.

Your IDiocy is showing. Maybe some people will give you a pass because you seem to be Canadian. But if 5 secs on the intertubes can show how stupid this comment is I am not giving you a pass.U.S. District Courts are not local courts.

quote:

---

In the United States federal courts, the United States district courts are the general trial courts. The federal district courts have jurisdiction over federal questions (trials and cases interpreting federal law, or which involve federal statutes or crimes) and diversity (cases otherwise subject to jurisdiction in a state trial court but which are between litigants of different states and/or countries).

---

Source
You see how I did that? I did some research before I opened my yap and said something stupid. I have to laugh everytime someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about. How about you ID people show us some of this vaunted scientific research that is being done in the name of ID? How about pointing them out instead of just claiming they exist? Or can't you? Please present your argument on this or just shut up and quit wasting board space.You have done nothing but make attack and make assertions. How about making an argument? If you can't guhbye.District court - WikipediaABE
I see you edited your post but glad to see I got to it before you did. Not feeling confident in your assertions?Edited by Theodoric, : ID boy edited his post

Hi idscience, and welcome to the fray. Can you define macroevolution as it is used in biology\evolution\science? This is important so that we are talking about the same thing.Provide a reference so we can check your source.Enjoy.

wow, little bitter are we Theodor?What, no welcome to the forum?The middle discrict court means nothing. Macro-evolutions foundation is inference from similarities. A dog and a human have a similar limb therefore they are related? inference not testable, yet ID critics as I am assuming you are denounce ID because it is apparently not testable. The phylogentic tree is a mess and some say it needs to be discarded. Macro is also a product of slow step by step selected mutaional advantage passed down from generation to generation. Then comes Horizontal Gene Transfer. Now co-opted by evolution as an important evolutionary process.
How many generations of e-coli have been grown over the last decades with no appreciable changes. Most if not all are changes involving loss of information not gain. Broken bridges not new ones. The fruit fly experiments were dismal too. What else does macro stand on? Speciation, the fruit flies "evolved" I say experience some variation, into new species and could not breed together anymore, then it was discovered, not so fast, yes they could.
Darwin's famous finches. The headliner for evolution, again, just variation, was proven a net gain as their beaks returned to normal after the drought ended. Funny, that isn't in any of the
If there was not a crisis, censorship and personal attacks like the one that began this reply, would not be needed. Letters to congress to stifle ID would not be needed. Firing people just for publishing Id peer reviewed papers would not be needed. Look what happened over at "Preceedings" for publishing Meyers paper. The Sternburg was roasted by his own people. It is pathetic in my opinion, the lengths evolution politics goes. I won't even get into the "Quest for the missing links" promotions. All signs of a hypothesis in need of validation. From Neanderthols interbreeding with humans to DNA pointing to one branch while RNA points to an entirely diferent one, to areas of the human genome more in common with Orangutans than chimps and on and on.
I am not saying there isn't a case for investigation, I am tired of the "its a fact" rant all over the place, like if it is said enough times it will come true.
Tell me, outside of fossil inference and genome inference (which is just as likely to be inferred common design) What is there? finch beaks and moths? anti-biotic resistance? new evidence points to horizontal gene transfer for that not selection. So, what is there? What ya got?Edited by idscience, : No reason given.

Where are your examples/ Where is your evidence? You assert a lot of things but provide nothing.This is what we cal a Gish Gallop. How about you pick one or two things and actually present an argument instead of throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Ok. Discuss. What about the finches? Ok. Discuss. Sternberg was fired? That's news. Please show your source. Are you cut and pasting or are you so ignorant you don't even know how to spell his name or what the name of the journal is? Hint "Preceedings" is not in its name. Oh BTW that isn't even an English word.Lets start with those two. Ready. Set. Go.ABE I don't pander to liars aand spreaders of PRATTS.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.