What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

The above really depends on what any of us lurkers want to believe. I for one have a problem believing that a new function such as digesting nylon could be formed by random mutations simply because of the complexities inside of the cell. How many things can go wrong and look at the error correction mechanisms inside the cell that catches and corrects something like a 99.99999999% of all errors. From a previous link:Because of the potential harm of mutations, humans and other mammals have evolved to make as few as possible. The machinery inside our cells has the ability to replicate our genomes extremely well, and the polymerase enzymes that replicate our DNA rarely make mistakes. Even when they do, we have multiple, redundant repair and proofreading mechanisms that would make even the most six-sigma-compliant NASA engineer jealous.The quoted statement from above would be more plausible if one of the first Darwinian predictions (below) was correct."The cell is a simple homogenous globule of plasm" - T. H. Huxley - "Darwin's Bull Dog". So what does the bacteria do with all of those mutations that it can't use?Smooth Operator,You are doing very well in this debate, much better than I would have done. You seem to be losing some of your patience but I don't blame you. Also, I don't believe the one who wins the debate is the last one who posts. Intelligent design is for those who can discern what is real from what is not."Computers are no more able to create information than iPods are capable of creating music." - Dr. Robert Marks - Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor UniversityEdited by traderdrew, : Just adding more "Complex Specified Information"Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This point was made to me in a previous debate. However, superficially it doesn't explain the complexities it would have to overcome such as the right mutations at the right places with the right expressions. I am thinking about the wrong places where random mutations could occur.

CSI is obviously suitable for detecting design. Are you just trying to wear Smooth Operator out? When information is arranged in a specific order that addresses a specific function and is designed for a specific use, there is obviously an intelligence behind it. You wouldn't say that my post is just a jumble of complex ramdom information since it replies to a specific statement you made. I think you can make a case that they are the result of a combination of an intelligent design and weather such as rain erosion. I wouldn't say that they are CSI. They are complex but so are many other things in nature. It is chaos.If a tree had to grow its way around a structure such as horizontal pole, I would say that is the chaos but not CSI.

I disagree. I think the first law of thermodynamics says "Never" since it says energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It seems to me that you should prove to me that CSI is not suitable for detecting design. Or what you can do is prove to us that new amounts of of CSI containing at least 400 bits can be produced by natural causes. Yes but it wasn't necessarily designed by an intelligence. It was designed by the forces within chaos. The cave doesn't produce or communicate any CSI. The termites build the mound with cooperation. The mound doesn't need to have any particular elucidean shape. Different mounds have different shapes. They don't need to conform to particular mathematical models. Forces such as heavy rain can effect the shapes of the mounds. With sentences like these I get the impression that you are trying to make us look bad rather than attempting to investigate what CSI is yourself. I'm not sure if I can draw the lines there. I suspect complexity is represented in natural phenomenon with different degrees of fractal dimension. You are making me think. Chaotic things are natural phenomenon that defy traditional linear measurements.

The 99.99999999% figure came from a pdf belowhttp://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf I believe you. I asked the queston because there is at least one other person around here who thinks that the cell will hold on to neutral mutations and use those mutations to build something new. I think it is called genetic drift? I'm sure neutral mutations do occur but I think the possibility of them coherently getting together and building structures such as proteins binding together and IC structures is more like Darwinian conjecture than a realistic senario that can explain what occurs in the real world.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Good point. However, as you would expect, I remain skeptical because if we are talking about one or two simple mutations, then I would have to agree with you. But when there are multiple coherent mutations that are required to produce new structures or to take large steps, I remain unconvinced. I must say that I don't know enough about the cell and genetics to really refute what you are saying.What I do know is that just after the first time I left this forum, I became a better debater. As my jiu-jitsu teacher taught me, "You will learn more when you risk exposing yourself than when you don't."

This is part of Darwinian theory, is it not?For one thing, a specific gene can be broken in multiple places. (missing amino acids, or insertions, substitutions are some examples) In order for a gene like that to regain its original function, there would have to be soe multiple mutations that are also the right kind of mutations "before" deleterious mutations can occur to that gene.I see that you are being cool. So in defense of Darwinism, I would suspect that multicellular organisms would more easily circumnavigate whatever hurdles it may encounter so it can continue to evolve.However, I don't think this would explain how to evolved IC systems without some type of blueprint. Also, how it would explain how functionally integrated proteins evolved through a step by step process. Multiple coherent mutations would be required just to get two proteins to bind to each other. Perhaps there is a theory that explains how the machinery, that makes these proteins, evolved through a Darwinian fashion.

I haven't explored mathematical probabilities of small hurdles in proteins. I casually have thought about it in greater proabilities but of course our minds tend to lose the concept of large numbers.According to information I got from Michael Behe, I would think a protein binding site would be a good example. There are many proteins in our body that work in teams. Just binding two proteins together would be around one chance in 10 to the 20th power.Of course, if the genetic code can't evolve a blueprint to make an IC system, what are the chances of evolving one through a Darwinian framework? Sure there are Darwinian models but do those models conceal any problems along the way?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Look at my post #299 in the link below.EvC Forum: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under AttackNow that I gave a link to a of mine in another thread,,, attack, attack, attack it. These forces may the result of some sort of chaotic order but, the problem with your thinking is that a cave or a waterfall do not transmit or produce information, much less CSI (complex specified information). You'reeee really the Devil's advocate aren't you? I just looked for the definition in a book of mine "Chaos" by James Gleick. I cannot find a good definition inside so far and I don't remember seeing one. I found the book hard to follow because I think I would learn some of the information better if I saw real life illustrations. I do see chaos everytime I step outside or even when cigarette smoke mixes with the air. How would you measure the precise dimensions of smoke (assuming you could flash freeze it) with Euclidean geometry?

Ummmm, I have heard it but I haven't seen any good ones. I have seen the pilus model for evolving a flagellum but it conceals at least one "major" problem plus other problems described by Michael Dembski. So you expect me to go through the transcripts of the Dover trial in order to refute or agree with you? Maybe I will just take your word for it. So what you are saying from your chemistry lesson is that biochemistry works with what it is there. But you see with protein bonding, oil and hydrogen bonds have to arranged in sequence with their counterparts in the other proteins as well as having the correct shapes. Of course there have been test planes that have fallen out of the sky or even blew up....and those evolutionary methods??? Dammit... Now I have to go and really study up on evolutionary computer programs and not rely on what Smooth Operator posted. I have to go because I have some serious studying to do on the Dover trial too. See you all around.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix dBCodes.

I see a lot of huffing and puffing from you about Behe but no real evidence so far. Believe it or not, I have read parts of books on evolution at my local B&Ns and Borders. Authors have included Jerry Coyne, Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins. Jerry Coyne seems to be the most rational of that bunch. I have not come across anything that convinces me to drop ID after I read the counterarguments from Behe or others. An example would be the mounting amount of evidence that seems to strongly suggest that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum.The reason why I was skeptical that your statement of whoever it was who threw down the publications or journals that refute Behe's irreducible complex arguments, is that is a friggin courtroom and I don't know who you are. I don't know much time everyone had to examine the evidence in court or how much evidence was provided by both sides. It would greatly strengthen your argument if you could provide me a link of something that I can examine. I really have some studying up to do. So I would rather see some evidence rather than participate in a dragged on useless debate.

Actually, I have been scanning the transcripts of the Dover trials and I look for specific things that support what posters such as RAZD and PaulK have stated around here. So far, I just haven't found them. Could I have overlooked them? I think psychology can explain people interpreting information into a way they want to hear.I can just see a lawyer throwing publications in front of Behe. Lawyers are not in trial to be fair, they are there to help win cases for their clients. Who is the jury? Most of the time, they don't want to be there. I'm sure most of them found the flagellum a boring subject.It is all good because if someone isn't smart or astute enough to see through the BS and I do see it in posts here that I haven't responded too, then they shouldn't be advocates of ID.

That didn't come out quite right but to be more specific, this is an example of what I saw: It is not my point of view that evolutionists haven't worked out every little detail yet. The point of view of Behe isn't that they have worked out every little detail and that there are hurdles in IC systems such as the vertebrate immune system. "Every little detail" tells me Darwin has worked out the basic step by step details. If this is so then, why would you say it hasn't worked out every little detail? And really, why would more IC systems such as the flagellum be a ridiculous one-sided demand?I'm also looking at this copied from the same message you posted. Below is a cut and paste from message 191. That doesn't appear to be hair-splitting to me. Behe is telling us there "might" be but nobody has showed me a good tortuous route that explains how to build a classic one. In other words he is keeping his mind open to a possibile explanation. I don't blindly accept Darwinian conjecture for building something like a flagellum. If Darwinian conjecture can be used to build a great model or explanation then, why aren't the more well known authors advancing a good model? The best I have seen for the flagellum is a TTSS and it has problems. I would think an unambiguous evolutionary model for an IC system would sell books and make the author famous because he or she was the one who bought Behe or an IC system down. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You are correct and I was wrong. Although it could raise another point, why would someone decide to leave the outcome of this trial hinging on one person to make?