Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

I would make a crack about how people with engineering degrees tend to think they own all subjects; unfortunately, from my experience in physics it appears that physical scientists are not immune from this, either.

You consider that a response worthy of debate? It would probably been better all round had you simply declined to comment. You could at least have shown how I was redefining science. However, it seems you have given up attempting a constructive response or presenting an actual case re: abiogenesis/evolution conflation, or indeed refuting my points.That's fine, I leave with a conclusionary statement of my own.Science assumes a natural origin of life, until such ideas are falsified. However, the Theory of Evolution is not the only life science out there. I agree that any theory regarding the natural origin of life will have to be consistent with the ToE or one of them is wrong. That does not mean that abiogenesis and ToE are one unified theory.

While protein synthesis might be going on during DNA replication, it is not an absolute requirement of DNA synthesis. If the necessary proteins are present in sufficient quantities then DNA replication will occur without protein synthesis.in vitro, DNA synthesis occurs with absolutely no protein synthesis. Its called PCR and is a standard technique in labs the world over.Yes, in vivo certain enzymes are required to uncoil, unzip and rezip the DNA, but their synthesis doesn't have to be during replication. So, although DNA synthesis and protein replication are linked and both can occur at the same time, they are considered two different processes.In science, you have to look at systems stripped to the bare essentials if you want to understand the mechanisms involved. However, scientists are well aware that when they look at a particular stripped-down system, they're looking at a stripped-down system (mainly because they stripped it down in the first place before they started). We know that all the systems are interlinked in all sorts of ways. However we also have a basic understanding of what is going on in each of these systems and that's why we don't tend to add amino acids to our PCR reactions.If you do a search on the internet you can find molecular diagrams of amino acids and nucleotide bases and you'll see that amino acids could never take the place of purines and pyrimidines.

Hi Percy, I understand that you may be a bit concerned about the on topicness or otherwise of this, but I feel that some of the comments on DNA replication and, especially amino acids in DNA, are most definitely on topic.The topic title is "Is ID Scientific?". Quite frankly, if proponents are trying to defend their position by wittering on about amino acids being the four bases in DNA, then the answer to the question is a resounding "NO!!!"To try to take on the intricacies of the cellular systems while having serious flaws in the understanding of even small parts of the systems is like pushing jelly uphill.

Well some enzymes are required in vitro as well, I find that my PCR reactions never work as well when I forget to put TAQ in.I believe Evopeach was not claiming that protein synthesis was required concurrent to DNA replication, but rather that without protein synthesis there would be no enzymes for DNA replication and without DNA there would be no template for the synthesis of new proteins.It is the same old tired claim of irreducible complexity, just made in a highly confusing manner and mixed up with some aparent gross misunderstandings of molecular biology.TTFN,WK

Hi WK, you quoted Evopeach as saying (bold text mine)This states that Evopeach believes that without protein synthesis, replication won't happen. I merely pointed out that while proteins might be needed, their synthesis doesn't have to happen during DNA replication.As to PCR reactions I never claimed that enzymes weren't required in PCR, I claimed that the synthesis of those enzymes wasn't required. As you said yourself, you add Taq, you don't have it being synthesised in the reaction. It may seem like a minor point, but I never claimed that enzymes weren't required, just their synthesis.Every time Evopeach has mentioned the mechanism of DNA replication, mRNA and ribosomes are brought in. You yourself suggested he had a problem with confounding the two.Admin quotes Evopeach as saying then asks which suggests to me that Admin also interpret Evopeach to be saying that the processes are concurrent.To be perfectly honest, Evopeach has used jargon that he doesn't understand to try to make his points and then backpedals furiously when his mistakes are pointed out. For example another minor error is that he says It's just a minor quibble, but the ribosome reads the bases three at a time and the three bases are called a codon. Reading codons three at a time means reading nine bases at a time.I agree with you that he's just trying the old irreducibility argument, but he's doing it in such a way that he demonstrates his own shallow knowledge of the subject he expounds on.

Evidence War? Science IS an EVIDENCE WAR! What do you want us to do, throw out all genetic, paleontological, geological, morphological and biological evidence so we can hold your hand and walk down the yellow brick road discussing philosophy and fairplay? What is it that you want with ID? There are thousands of scientists making the world a better place for us, extending our lifespan and you want to pull the rug out from under them because you're not comfortable with the mechanics and origin of our bodies?Stop playing the victim and hold yourself to the higher standards that your opponents have occupied for a century and a half. Then perhaps you will make some headway. Until then, you're more whinny than Luke Skywalker in Episode IV.

I am used to thinking about how all the parts of a system work together and how in many cases in the real world such systems are essentially IC.To be sure my experience in aircraft avionics and fire control systems followed by MIS, IT, OR, finance etc. are not yours whether physics, archeology, biology or chemistry but whether you believe me or not my experience is that you can never understand the complexity of a system by concentrating on individual parts assuming that bench stocks, WIP, transport facilities will just be there for the piece under investigation.In the case of manufacturng and administrative systems it is best to use "LEAN" principles and minimize interrelated waiting times, extra "floor" inventory, WIP excesses, feed stock inventories, etc.It is remarkable then that in the human cell, the most complex system man has yet encountered and still unfolding, that there appears to be a "push" system in place, start and stop signals etc. to achieve the 6 billion base pair replcation in less than 8 minutes while experiencing only about 1-2 errors in the replication.That exceeds the human quality goal of Six Sigma 3.4 errors/million operations.If you choose to continue to ignore my rationale for using hyperbolic examples and systems thinking to support yur claims of my not studying the subject sufficiently so be it.In my next post I will attempt to posit a rational for ICS and ID as a discussion starter in good faith.Evopeach

Though it isn't mentioned in the Forum Guidelines, misspelling whiney (which can also be spelled whiny) isn't permitted at EvC Forum. This is very important, and so it almost isn't worth mentioning that your criticism is a bit over the top. Seriously, tone it down just a tad. You're replying to a message from last March, anyway.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sorry, I agree I was a bit harsh on that, I'll check that on the future.

Let us posit a biological system with a defined set of functions that are both necessary and sufficient to provide supportative operations within a larger system and an interbreeding population of same. The functionality might be more than is necessary at the time and under the conditions but certainly is sufficient for the needs at hand to survive and to promote stasis in numberes through reproduction at a minimum.Through rigerous scientific examination involving several discliplines over a long period of time we find that there are 46 functionalities that relate to boundary conditions/relationship intersystem and 460 that relate to intrasystem functionalities, all appearing to be necessary for long term sustainable performance. of the system.I. It is likely that one can develop a large number of possibe assembly steps that result in the observed system but only one was used for reasons that are not certain and not at all clear.II. Suppose I posit that the system is IR and thus cannot have arisen by any method because it would have functioned so poorly or not at all that the system and the population would likely have ceased to exist period.III. What is the obligation of the falsifier in I to show that the precursor system(s) are each one workable and realizable in an experimental fashion backstep by backstep until the sub-system has no necessary function that is "required" by the larger system.III. If I remove a component that I can demonstrate leaves a workable system then all the interactions with other components must be shown to substitue either with a simpler version, a different still available component or that in the prior state all or most of the components were simultaneously less demanding of the function removed if at all.IV. Repeating this backwards is a huge task for complex systems that is obvious but that is the only fair falsification of an IC system. But it is mandatory as demnstrating on or even a few backward steps is insufficient to demonstrate efficacy of the total staged proposal.V. It should be rejected that a simple statement of how a viable series of precursors could have come about as a verbal rejourner for such is never permitted in scientifice falsification experiments... iii and IV are required.The person proposing is entitled to maintain their position of IC until it is falsified as above.

These seem somewhat contradictory positions. Surely the whole point of irreducible complexity is that if even one of the components which is claimed to be part of the irreducibly complex system is removed but the system maintains a reasonable degree of functionality then that particular system has been shown not to be irreducibly complex. Perhaps the burdein is rather on the proponents of ID to determine beforehand which componets of the system are absoloutely vital to function so as to have a minimal set of irreducibly complex components. If even one component can be successfully removed then the claim of IC for that system has been falsified, but low and behold we have a new smaller system which can noe be claimed to be IC, you just seem to be presenting us with an automated goalpost moving procedure.By these standards all systems should probably be considered IC until shown to be otherwise. Do you mean that this is a natural corollary to the fact that the system still works or that even though the system still works we must examine every part of it in detail to determine why it still works?This also fails to address the important problem that no one denies that IC systems can exist, they just deny that it is impossible for IC systems to evolve. So showing a system to be IC does not show that it could not have evolved.TTFN,WK

Good morning, Evopeach.You wrote:

quote:

---

V. It should be rejected that a simple statement of how a viable series of precursors could have come about as a verbal rejourner for such is never permitted in scientifice falsification experiments... iii and IV are required.

​

The person proposing is entitled to maintain their position of IC until it is falsified as above.

---

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that Irreducible Complexity is a verbal rejoinder to the theory of evolution. According to your criteria, proponents of the ToE do not yet have any reason to entertain IC as a possible falsification.Any system you nominate for IC status functions within a large set of complex systems, all of which, according to the ToE, are subject to mutational changes subject to natural selection.In order for an IC claim to falsify the ToE, evidence must show not only that removing a single component deprives the subsystem of function, but also that it would deprive the subsystem of function in any possible set of companion subsystems (i.e., fail to cohere as a viable, reproducible organism).You have radically redefined falsification: as already pointed out, IC collapses entirely if a single component can be removed without loss of function--that it cannot is the essence of the IC claim.It seems fair, since IC is an attempted falsification, for you to go first.Once you have reverse engineered an organism and demonstrated that the ToE fails because no possible constellation of prior subsystems can cohere as an organism, then ToE will be compelled to consider IC a serious candidate for falsification. As you say,

quote:

---

Repeating this backwards is a huge task for complex systems that is obvious but that is the only fair falsification

---

After you, Evopeach.

To put a less formal flair on it than Wounded King and Omnivorous, what you're requesting goes something like this: "Hey, evolutionists, here's an irreducibly complex system, how do you explain this one? Oh, well, okay, how about this one? Oh, well how about this one? Oh, well how about this one?"It takes a lot of time and effort to tease out the possible evolutionary histories of microbiological processes and structures, and in many cases there simply isn't sufficient information or evidence to do so. With no compelling evidence in favor of ID, and combined with the obvious origin of ID as a movement within evangelical Christianity motivated by a rejection of evolution (despite all the denials), only scientists who take the threat to science education seriously will be motivated to put time and energy into developing scientific answers to the questions posed by IDists like Behe.A similar analogy would be theories about aliens on other planets. Someone says there are aliens living on the moon. We go there, no aliens. So he says there are aliens living on Mars. We go there, no aliens. So he says there are aliens living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. We go there at great expense, no aliens.At what point does this silly process stop? To anyone familiar with science, disproving aliens and disproving claims of IR is patently ridiculous right at the outset, and to explore even the first claim makes no sense, because there's simply no evidence supporting the original claim, just a desire by a significant religious community that it be so.--Percy

Remember I named the topic ID and ICS.In biological life the theory of ICS states that taking away a component of a system that will not function so as to meet the needs of intra and inter system and their components at the same level of competancy before the removal of that component is an irreducible complex system.The corrolary is that every ICS in biological life is Intelligently Designed but the reverse is not necessarily true.Example: The "snurps" in the human cell cut out bad copies of base pair sequences single and double stranded and repair same to restore the correct sequences. If all the repair enzymes are removed cells would succomb to such frailities quite quickly and in their operation would not contribute to the formation of correct proteins etc. and perhaps cease to exist more quickly than otherwise .... failing.Thus could well not be IC becoming dead or useless more quickly is not non-functional.But if we remove from the human prokarotic cell the selectively semi-permeable membrane it fails catastophically, the cell is immediately non-functional and being ubiquitious the system is dead also. That would constitute IC and since there is no precursor that can be demonstrated operational in the same way absent the cell membrane by microevolutionary processes. Thus the cell did not evolve and was then created by an ID. Without a cell membrane the components of the protein synthetic apparatus could not be held together ... a plethora of simultaneously occurring catastrophic failures.IRS and ID is a separately proposed theory of how like began and how it functions, surely you do not perceive that these ideas are somehow historically post darwin... that would be a foolist position indeed.It is not a response to darwinianism, it preceeded it by centuries, is an alternate theory and thus is not required to "go first".These things are of course follow naturally from my initial premise several posts back where I laid out such with predictive and falsifying pieces as well.that where there is life there is "informational content" in its design and function. Where there is no infornational content .. there is no life, biologically speaking.Evopeach