Hi again Traderdrew,
| Once again, I have searched for a quote like this on the internet and in the Dover trial statements you provided in the other thread. Would you care to show us where it is and exactaly what Behe stated? |
I'll have to get back to you on that. It was discussed on another thread here shortly after the cross examination of Behe, but the search engine is a little funky, presumably with the new board. A link that was supposed to be
quote:
EvC Forum: Behe and blood clotting
One of Behe's examples of supposedly un-evolvable irreducibly complex systems is .... In the Dover trial, even after presented with a mountain of evidence ...
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f... - Cached - Similar
Except it lead to http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=221&m=1
Curiously it doesn't change the fact that an IC system was seen to evolve in the Barry Hall experiment.
| It is irrelevant to the discussion directly but other than that, I don't agree with the rest of that. First of all, plausibility suggests the best possible scenario. I have noted that the scientific process doesn't directly look for the truth; it looks for the best explanation by looking for what is false. Since we cannot go back and see how it all occurred, then we should look for the best explanation or conduct experiments that could support historical evidence. |
Yes, but the plausibility of an argument is not sufficient on it's own to make a concept scientific, and your personal opinion of what is plausible (or not) is not science.
| Irrelevant seems to be your favorite word so far but how does irrelevant information disprove any of the arguments that directly reference information in the main one? |
Interestingly, it would not have been used if you had not posted irrelevant material. It is a common ploy of creationists to try to divert the argument with irrelevant material.
| Vitamin C is another example of how evolution seems to have deconstructed a system ... |
Which is another example of an argument that is not about the development of an IC system in the Barry Hall experiment. This is another diversion attempt. Evolution says natural selection can construct and deconstruct systems, and there is no mechanism known to prevent the construction of systems. That however is a matter for another thread.
| You cannot show us how the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. Even my dog knows that you can't evolve the flagellum from a TTSS. The TTSS has 10 parts while the flagellum has 40. Pull out some logos and try to make a model of a flagellum with a model of a TTSS. |
Another argument from incredulity. This is also trying to move the goal-post to a different IC system. (ie irrelevant to the specific issue of this thread).
Let's stick to the IC system in Barry Hall's experiment first, and then IF you can refute that an IC system did in fact evolve, we can discuss other IC systems.
| You cannot explain in detail nor is there any evidence of a Darwinian step by step process that can produce an IC system. |
Don't need to. What we have is an existing IC system (as defined by Behe) that was disabled, and a replacement system evolved. That replacement system just happened to also be an IC system (as defined by Behe).
| I can illustrate this in the form of stepping stones. The first two stepping stones were resurrected from genes that divurged from the genome (Hall, 1999) and resurrected by a process known as natural genetic engineering. The stepping stones (mutations) were only made posssible with the inclusion of an artifical substance called IPTG. IPTG was obviously synthesized for specific experimental functions. |
The stepping stones were mutations that occurred naturally and that were selected by natural selection within the environment the bacteria was grown in. It does not matter that IPTG was there, as it was not involved in the mutation, it was not involved in the natural selection, so it was not involved in the evolution of the IC system. All that it provided was the marginal survival of the bacteria long enough to take advantage of the lactose when a beneficial muation occurred.
| Miller strongly implies that natural selection pieced together the whole pathway in Hall's experiments, but in fact it only replaced one component (and even then it could only replace the component with a spare near-copy of the original component). When two or more components were deleted, or when the bacterium was cultured in the absence of an artificial chemical (called IPTG), no viable bacteria could be recovered. Just as irreducible complexity would predict, when several steps must be taken at once, natural selection is a poor way to proceed. - Michael Behe |
Curiously, it does not matter where the original DNA were before the mutation, as any mutation would occur on existing DNA.
Interestingly, the fact that a "spare near-copy" was used still ignores the fact that this specific DNA sequence was unable to provide the missing component without the mutation.
Fascinatingly, the fact that IPTG was used to keep the bacteria marginally alive while the process of evolution took place only means that it was part of the ecology the bacteria was living in, where mutation and natural selection for the use of lactose occurred.
Amazingly, when several steps can be taken in sequence, natural selection is a good way to proceed. This is, in fact, what has occurred.
Incredibly, knocking out two components violates the terms of an IC system as defined by Behe, and we now have almost any system you care to name, that can be so disabled.
Tellingly, we are still left with the fact that an IC system evolved.
| Hall has not demonstrated how the lactose function in E. coli lacking both the lacZ and the ebg gene could really evolve from scratch. Where did those genes come from in the first place? Hall believes they existed in the genome 2 billion years ago. |
Again, this is irrelevant. The issue is really very simple:
- an e.coli bacteria could metabolize lactose using an existing IC system.
- that IC system was disabled by knocking out one of the components (the element that makes it an IC system).
- the bacterium was kept alive, barely, on a medium that provided just sufficient nutrients for survival, AND that provided lactose.
- the bacteria evolved the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg),
- then it evolved the control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present,
- finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
With this system now in place, the e.coli could once again metabolize lactose. The system is also an IC system because if you remove any one of the three elements, the e.coli cannot metabolize lactose.
| Despite what I state here, Darwinists will always fall back on the same old excuse. "If we give organisms enough time and chance, they will evolve the same sophistication that we see in life today." Just look at the quote below from the above post. |
Irrelevant: an IC system has been observed to evolve. That is the focus of this topic.
| I think that this belief should be testable or falsifiable. Science has stated this correct? If it is testable in confluence of neo-Darwinism, then there should be evidence in some places in the past that support that belief. Perhaps rapid evolution at first with slow evolution in the last 500 million years but that is not what happened. |
Once again, what you think has no - absolutely no - effect on reality, what actually occurred, nor on what is occurring now.
| Aside from that point, most of them don't want to see the math (something I cannot do but I have seen) that shows us the chances of evolving complex biological systems. Never mind the necessity of multiple coherent mutations that compound the odds of creating an IC system. Never mind that natural selection would have to preserve those mutations and cannot initiate them. Never mind that the complexity in the cell would require pin point mutations. Never mind that those mutations would have been mutated in such a way as to provide specific functions. Never mind that sophisticated error correction mechanisms actually correct transcription errors 99.99999999% of the time. |
And incredibly, in spite of that irrelevant ramble, and IC system was still seen, observed, confirmed, documented evolving.
In other words, your continued incredulity over what can and cannot evolve is not sufficient arguement to refute the fact that an IC system has been seen, observed, confirmed, documented evolving.
Once again, for the record:
- an e.coli bacteria could metabolize lactose using an existing IC system.
- that IC system was disabled by knocking out one of the components (the element that makes it an IC system).
- the bacterium was kept alive, barely, on a medium that provided just sufficient nutrients for survival, AND that provided lactose.
- the bacteria evolved the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg),
- then it evolved the control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present,
- finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
With this system now in place, the e.coli could once again metabolize lactose. The system is also an IC system because if you remove any one of the three elements, the e.coli cannot metabolize lactose.
| However, the concept of evolving doesn't contradict my belief system as an "assemblist". I am not a creationist. I am an assemblist. |
Incredibly, I don't care what you call yourself, what you need to do is look at the facts that show that, yes indeed, and IC system evolved, and as such the existence of IC systems cannot be used for the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.0 Beta
