Typical ID response to rebuttals?

Admittedly I haven't studied ID claims and the responses to them in all too great detail as yet. I do see references quite often to how, for example, many of Behe's initial examples of Irreducible Complexity, "have since been explained via random mutation and natural selection". I presume the theories of Dembski have been addressed in similar ways as well.I was wondering how the proposed rebuttals have been handled by these two, and whether there is a general pattern.Do they in general DISMISS the rebuttals, and insist that their initial examples or theories remain valid because something was misunderstood? Or maybe they refine their argumentation to illustrate that the "misunderstandings" were partly their fault, and argue that a better explanation of the same examples refutes the initial criticism?Or do they, maybe reluctantly, admit that the criticism is entirely valid, and as a response come up with OTHER examples/theories to replace the rebutted ones?I guess the type of reaction can tell quite a bit about underlying motivations. Was the DATA more important in the ideas they developed, or the PARADIGM they possibly started from and tried to hold up via data collected especially for that purpose?

any admin care to take a look?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

There are several examples of refutations and counter refutations and counter-counter refutations in the literatureYou can read some of them here:
Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates
A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch
by Richard Wein
Not a Free LunchThere is also:
The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
by Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.htmlMore specifically there is the "acid test" -- about a specific IC system that was observed evolving. This of course refutes the proposal that IC must be designed.{edit}I used to have a link here:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html
but it doesn't seem to be working.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html {/edit}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*25*2005 10:55 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think we already know the answere to this one. "It's true 'cause I believe it is and the data will have to conform to the belief or else the data is (are) automatically refuted." I asksed a similar (and I have to addmit, less elegant question) myself a day or two ago.

Here's a cache of your last link:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

Thanks. I've saved a copy of it now so I can reference it if need be.It also let me find the new webpage for the article
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.htmland I have updated my bookmark Note that this specific example doesn't refute the concept of IC, it invalidates it as a scientific concept: an IC system was shown to evolve, therefore there is not only no reason to expect any other IC system to be different, there is no need to.If Behe were {honest\scientific} he would accept that and move on.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*24*2005 11:42 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi RAZD,Has this article been discussed here before? I read over the webpage at the link, as well as the 2 pages of the book... I think it would be worthwhile to discuss. Do you know if it's been done?If not, I'm not sure this thread is the most appropriate place, what do you think?Thanks.
Ben

It has been raised several times before, but discussed in terms related to this thread, the rebutals and refutations of rebutals, no, not that I am aware of.I do feel that Ken Miller seems to belabor some points and take others as fully demonstrated when he could provide a little more detail, and that he repeats himself when he could be much more concise, but that could just be me (and I never do that ).To me the point is that an IC was observed to evolve (whether naturally or under the {intentional\influence\cause} of an experiment is not relevant). Especially as it did not re-evolve the previous IC system but a new one.What's your take?This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*25*2005 11:01 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I have really big doubts about the following things: But first, I have to get some things clarified, which I couldn't understand from the links you wrote: One of the most troubling quotes was How can we say this is "natural selection" in any way, shape or form? Seems to me artificially allowing mutants to survive.Let's start there. As I learn more about the tests, I can really drill down specific complaints. For the moment, I have to fill in the gaps of knowledge.

If the ID proponents are going to ask for experimental support and then suggest that it is invalid because it is a "non-natural" experiment they will look more than a bit disengenuous.The point is: a claim was made that such systems (IC) can not evolve throught mutation and selection. It doesn't matter in this context, based on the logic behind the suggestion about IC systems, where the selective pressure comes from . If through evolutionary processes (mutation and selection) an IC system can arise the basic concept of IC as a refutation of evolutionary theory is blown out of the water.If you are actually suggesting that the IC concept as an attack on evolutionary theory is in any way affected by the source of the selection I would love to see your logic for that.

"IC" isn't saying that the system couldn't be built through a bunch of mutations. It's saying the system couldn't be built through a bunch of mutations while being functional. Why is the "functional" part important? Because the organism needs the functionality to naturally surivive in a competetive environment. In other words, it's implicit within "IC" that the organism needs to survive on it's own functionality. "Built through a bunch of mutations" only is really meaningless.In this experiment, there seems to be artificial support for keeping the the organism alive. It directly undercuts the IC premise that if the organism didn't have a fully functioning system, it would die. It looks like they're artificially keeping an organism alive while they "piece together" (through mutation) a system underneath it. What good is that?AbE: The "irreducibly complex" title doesn't have to apply "in general"--it just has to apply in the EVOLUTION SCENARIO. That means "irreducibly complex" in the situation of random mutation and natural selection. If your artificial selection is too invasive and is not generalizable in any way to natural selection, then it's too artificial. Period.This message has been edited by Ben, Sunday, 2005/09/25 12:28 PM

My understanding is that the environment provided marginal sustenance for the bacteria unless it adapted to consume lactose, which was abundant. This would be similar to the one where a bacteria evolves to use nylon as a nutritional source (or oil or toxic waste ...) Promote mutations, according to the study. There was death of non-adaptive organisms, change in adaptive organisms, followed by the next generation. Competition is not necessary between individuals in survival situations for there to be evolutionary processes involved. This could be claimed of every single experiment. Did {mutation\selection} evolution occur (was there change in alleles over time)? Yes. Did this evolution allow the bacteria to consume lactose? Yes. Was this specific mutation caused directly by IPTG? No, according to the study. Would this {study\result} be repeated without IPTG? That is the test of science eh? I'd say probably, given sufficient time. Of course this is where Behe has an opportunity to do real science and invalidate the study. The study was not originally intended to generate an IC system, it is Ken Miller's observation of it that puts it in this position.BUT, according to the definition established by Behe, that removal of any one part causes the whole to fail, it is an IC system as it relies on the interaction of three parts working together. .... the usual Ben SOP? ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong, because the article says so explicitly:

quote:

---

All that Hall did was to use that inducer to set up growth conditions that would ensure that the mutants, if they appeared, could survive to be recovered and analyzed. In short, he screened for mutants, he didn't produce them as Behe implies. (emphasis in original)

---

The next quote seems to me to indicate the role of the IPTG was to promote survival of baceria which normally would not survive on their own:

quote:

---

All that Hall had done was to set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to replace the one he had deleted.

---

This makes me question your comment that Can you find any information from the articles from which your understanding derived? I didn't see any when I read through both. I saw no specification at all either way, which is troubling me. Given what was said above, I don't see any death at all. I see all organisms being kept alive, but only barely. However, only adaptive organisms are able to proliferate. So, I really disagree with your characterization. Can you point out to me if I'm just misinterpreting the paper? That's true. But that definitely puts limitations on this experimental finding which don't seem to be stated by the book author or you in your original post. If the only evolutionary situation possible for this "IC" system to evolve is when there's no competition between situations, then that's a really important restriction to state. Hey man I'm doing my best

Part of the problem is that the article itself is not on-line (as far as I can determine). There are other references to this study in other papers that don't have anything to do with this IC controversy, and one on NCSE has this:Excursion Chapter 1: The Origin Of Life
http://www.ncseweb.org/...nleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp They seem to accept the argument that this involved mutation and natural selection.There is also this from another discussion forum:http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319 (red for emPHASis)Again, this source does not discuss IC either, but goes on to make some interesting points, one of which is related to the issue of {survival\mutation} here: Just increased survival {threat\pressure} has been noticed to "turn up" the mutation rate on several bacterial organisms. Its as if the mutation rate is controlled by some factor having to do with the organisms health?This does seem to confirm my statementI also question how much difference there is between mine and Millers?: and both say marginal survival without lactose? Looking up the growth rate of e. coli (the bacterium used) I found this abstract about another experiment: Growth-rate recovery of Escherichia coli cultures carrying a multicopy plasmid, by engineering of the pentose-phosphate pathway.
Looks like they used IPTG to induce faster population growth (by cell division) from ~45% more/hr to ~63% more/hr. This would of course speed up the experiment, but I would think it would also add extra stress to the organism to gather sufficient resources in a shorter time. I could be wrong, but my experience (testing e. coli contamination) is that there is normally a portion of cells that die unless specific precautions are taken to reduce that during normal testing of water for contamination.Apparently all the ones in the other sample died. But more than that, there was no measure of dead cells mentioned so it is hard to quantify, nor does it say there was none. If they expected cell death it would not be a novel factor, but if they didn't expect it then there should be some comment about that other sample eh?E coli is a well known bacteria and does not form spores when threatened with individual cell death. It usually survives inside intestinal tracts and has lowered survivability at normal temperatures (hence is not widely spread in the environment and thus makes a good marker for fecal pollution, albeit source can be cows as well as people). But in order for the mutations to be expressed they have to reproduce, multiply, and if the population as a whole is barely able to keep at the same levels but show change over time there has to be {loss\old} as well as {gain\new}. I'm not sure I follow your point. Perhaps we need to define or evaluate your use of "competition" in this matter? Evolution by mutation and {survival\selection to reproduce} is all that is necessary. Competition for {most limiting} resources to {survive\reproduce} would occur but I see that more as first come first served rather than kill for it, outrun etc, competition. Perhaps competition has connotations that blur the picture?edited format, one typoThis message has been edited by RAZD, 09*25*2005 05:22 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.