Typical ID response to rebuttals?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hey Mark.In running down some of the points of the Hall experiment I also ran across this:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5 And this last part (in yellow for emphasis) caught my eye as another multipart system. The citation is: The abstract at PubMed did not discuss the "multienzyme metabolic pathway" so I could not determine if this could be another evolved IC system. Any idea from your end?Thanks.

---

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.

Oh I know, that's why I wanted to find out more.

---

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.

Ben there is a logical falsehood involved here:the claim is that an IC system could not evolve, therefore evidence of an IC system is evidence of a designer,there is an IC system that has been shown to evolve, so this refutes the claim that evidence of an IC system is evidence of a designer.This does apply to all IC systems, because the premise has been falsified. The reason you can generalize is because of the claim of IC to be de facto unrefutable evidence of design. This has been shown to not be the case, the premise is falsified therefore the conclusion is logically invalid.Every other IC system now defaults to the argument from incredulity (I just can't believe it can evolve) and a lack of personal ability (to envisage such happening).It is an invalidated hypothesis, and science dictates that it is dismissed as such and we go to the next theory. But has any organism evolved use of a new food supply when the previous one(s) have been eliminated? Or do they normally add food supplies as they are able to expand their sources? Putting an organism is a situation with low normal food supply, but an alternate food source they are not currently using does not make them evolve to use it, but allows this to happen.Does that help?

---

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.