Hi Bob,
You repeated Borger's claim that single non-synonymous point mutations in the SRC gene family are fatal because they cause cancer. I requested support for this statement, but I also provided a response just "for the sake of discussion."
So you addressed that response but provided no evidence for Borger's claim about the SRC gene being so sensitive to mutations, and WK had this to say in
Message 17:
As Percy says, it is very hard to find anything that actually backs up this statement. Certainly we do know about mutations that produce constitutively active forms of SRC especially, since it has massive historical importance in our understanding of cancer and oncogenes, but to turn that into a blanket statement about many more mutations in all of the SRC family genes extends well beyond where the evidence takes us.
In other words, the available evidence does not support Borger's claim.
quote:
If the model for design is the way humans design, then in a YEC scenario we should see evidence of massive complexes of laboratories...etc...
Funny you should mention that - because that is exactly what we see at the cellular level. Intensely complex machinery working in synchronization, operating from a set of coded instructions that code multiple tasks simultaneously, and a self-regulating self-repairing, redundant system to carry it all out. The complexity far exceeds the limits of mechanics or computer science.
Gee, you completely dodged the question, what a surprise!
So again, if life was designed, where are the 6000 year-old remains of the necessary massive infrastructure, not only for design, but also for production and world-wide distribution. Where is the 4350 year-old genetic bottleneck?
You mean, other than the irreducible complexity I eluded to above? Nope that's it. See what you want to see.
The originator of the idea of irreducible complexity is Michael Behe of Lehigh University, and neither he nor anyone else has published or even submitted a scientific paper on the topic. Instead he publishes books in the popular press for creationists. There's no scientific support for the idea.
It should be apparent to you by now that every time you've referenced a scientific paper cited by Wile or Borger or AIG or ICR that it doesn't support their antievolutionary claims. How could they since the papers are all produced by the community of scientists who accept evolution based on the available evidence? Do you really believe that scientific papers containing meaningful evidence against evolution are buried in old issues of scientific journals? Scientific evidence calling evolution into question would find space on the front page of the New York Times, likely in the right most column and above the fold. The people and groups from whom you're drawing your "evidence" are not speaking to the community of scientists, but to people like you who need hope that science is wrong where it differs with their Biblical interpretations.
The people you're discussing with are not anti-religion. Many of us are religious or at least spiritual. We're united primarily by the threat to science education presented by the creationist movement. If creationists didn't keep showing up at school board meetings or conducting national campaigns of "Teach the Controversy" and so forth then websites like this wouldn't exist. People like you would keep your religious beliefs in your churches and out of our classrooms and we would all go our merry way almost completely unaware of each other.
As others have already noted, you're arguing that some things we have good evidence for are completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or even unknowable, while simultaneously arguing that other things we have no evidence for are likely true. I think if you restricted yourself to arguing only for those things for which you have evidence that the nature of your arguments would change.
Remember that your starting point is that the Bible is correct, not that people like Wile or Borger or organizations like ICR or AIG are correct, and they don't all believe the same things about what the Bible says. When you finally achieve a community of conservative Christian scientists all backing the same set of consistent hypotheses, in other words when there's a positive consensus around ideas instead of just the unity of a common cause against evolution, then you'll probably find it's because they're taking their lead from real world evidence instead of Biblical revelation. Real world evidence can't be ignored, and that's why real scientists are able to develop meaningful consensus, something that never happens in religion and whose diverse nature also characterizes the creationist movement.
In science consensus happens because we've studied some aspect of the real world in sufficient detail that the same implications are apparent to many people. In religion consensus only happens through intimidation (e.g., the Spanish Inquisition), and only on the surface. The pattern of religion throughout history is continuous evolution of beliefs concurrent with the creation of new sects. A consistent set of scientific ideas is not going to emerge from what is fundamentally a spiritual search for meaning.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2