Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

If you have the book (Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study) you don't need me.

schraf:
So, JohnPaul, how can I tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system and a natural one that we do not currently understand, and may not have the intelligence to ever understand?John Paul:
We would use the design explanatory filter as a starting point. If what comes out is a design inference then that is our starting assumption- that the object of our observation was the preoduct of ID. Then research would either support or falsify that inference. To falsify ID all that needs to be done is to show that purely natural processes is all that is required to produce that object. So far no one has shown that purely natural processes can account for CSI/ SC or IC.

Despite NrHambre's claim to the opposite no goalposts have been moved. Or if they have it was by evolutionists and now they are back where they belong.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IC is the claim that something couldn't evolve via purely natural processes. However if something IC were designed to evolve that is another story altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH:
No kidding. It's actually a just-so story, since we have no way of knowing whether not-natural processes exist or how they would operate.John Paul:
What are you talking about? Of course we know and observe non-natural processes taking place every day. My house, car, computer etc. did NOT arise via purely natural processes.As for questions not answered I have asked evolutionists for over 30 years to provide evidence that RM & NS can do what they say it did. Yet no valid response has ever been made.It has also been pointed out that limits exist in all facets of life. Yet evolutionists want us to believe, without evidence and with evidence to the contrary, that life itself is immune to limits. You are fond of shouting that the evidence exists but when asked to present something from a peer-reviewed journal or a biology textbook that demonstrates RM & NS can lead to the scope of changes required, I get no answer or an answer pointing to irrelevant computer programs.

If you have worked out a practical way to reliably apply Dembski's filter to biology then please tell us. And you'd better tell Dembski, too because he hasn't been able to manage it.

John Paul,I understand that you don't expect to see the billions of years of evolution with your own eyes, just that you demand to see an experiment that replicates those billions of years of evolution. That typifies the rational, realistic basis that creationists have for their personal incredulity.And the non-natural processes that created your car can be traced to an existing, verifiable agent. However, perhaps you could show me one instance where similar non-natural processes ever created a tree, or a baby, or a bacterial flagellum. In your design inference, wouldn't the first question be "to what conceivable agent could we attribute the formation of the first biomolecules?" In other words, it's convenient that you get to disqualify verifiable natural processes because you can't believe they operated billions of years ago; however, we're not supposed to disqualify some unverifiable intelligent designer from the process.I've asked and asked and asked "what sort of evidence would you consider acceptable?" We could present fossils or molecular evidence, and the cumulative weight of all the successful research that has operated under the assumptions of the validity of Darwinism and methodological naturalism. However, people like you don't think such evidence exists, and if they're shown it, they claim it's not evidence because it exists.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Loudmouth my point is, and it should be obvious, that you can't refute IC without the biological / genetic evidence that demonstrates random mutations culled by NS led to those alleged changes.

---

Let us use the nylon bug as an example (reference here). I am assuming that you are familiar with this flavobacterium and will continue accordingly. This flavobacterium has three different enzymes that cleave nylon derivatives. The first two are nylA and nylB. However, these two enzymes are not enough to allow the flavobacterium to survive on nylon derivatives as its sole source of carbon. A third nylonase gene is nylC. This gene came about due to a frameshift mutation, an insertion of a nucleotide in the DNA that caused a shift in the codon reading frames. Once this gene was present, the flavobacterium could metabolize nylon as its sole source of carbon. What makes this interesting when compared to IC systems is that the bacterium no longer has the ability to live off of glucose. This metabolic pathway is no longer functional and the bacterium relies solely on nylon derivatives for energy. If anyone of those enzymes is removed, this species of flavobacterium will no longer exist. Such is characteristic of Behe's IC blood clotting system, if it is removed the organism is extremely compromised. So I can show, through RM and NS that systems can arise that the organism then becomes dependent on for life itself, a characteristic that Behe pins on many IC systems (blood clotting).I can not show that the IC systems that arose in the past (again, blood clotting) were due to the same process. However, I can show that intelligent design is not necessary for such systems to arise. Evolutionary pathways that create redundant systems (nylonase and glycolytic pathways for metabolism) may delete one of the systems so that the newly evolved pathway appears to be necessary from the very start. For intelligent design, no such force has ever been shown at work on biological systems in nature. It would seem to me that the logical path is to assume observed mechanisms instead of unobserved mechanisms (ID). BTW, I am using Behe's own definition of irreducible complexity: You seem to take the definition as so: "Anything that is complex that can not be shown to evolve beyond any doubt". This isn't the definition that Behe uses.

quote:

---

Or are you saying that these organisms that were lucky enough to get a random mutation in the right locus as to add to some other random mutation's phenotypical change, also got the right random mutations that brought about reproductive changes, hair/ fur, warm bloodednessairy, etc.? Talk about believing in fairy tales.

---

You seem to not understand how beneficial mutations accrete in populations, both before and after speciation. One beneficial mutation will spread through the population due to the fact that the mutation confers improved fitness to the carrier. Over time the mutation will become common place due to the fact that more offspring are produced with that mutation. Each subsequent mutation will go through the same thing. This is not limited to one population either. If a population speciates, that beneficial mutation may be common between two different populations.Now, imagine this process happening over and over, not all at once. This is how scientists look at the theory of evolution, not your distorted "all at once by chance" scenario. This is also supported by the span of time such changes in phenotype are observed. The fossils in the OP are found millions of years apart, more than enough time for slow accretion of multiple beneficial mutations. Your version of evolution is the only fairy tale I see.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-05-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-05-2004]

Well MrH if Creationists have personal incredulity because they want real evidence that would make the ToE a theory based upon credulity. And we all know that credulity isn't scientific.Verifiable agent- Well there you go again MrH. Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data. IOW there isn't any reason to believe that life originated via purely natural processes. Design is based on the following:Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Dr. Behe.The designer identity is NOT necessary to discern design. I don't know who designed my car and I have never seen a car being designed. Yet I know how to operate and maintain my car.Your appeal to the "billions of years " fallacy is duly noted. How convenient it must be to have a theory that is unverifiable and of no use to any scientific venue.I have told you and told you what type of evidence I would require. You just keep spinning and spinning and present nada.

Loudmouth why don't you just stick to the IC systems that Behe discusses? Just because YOU say something is IC doesn't make it so. Also with the bateria that could digest nylon- how do we know those mutations were random and not the result of an adaptive mutation- a mutation brought on by the organisms' sensing the environmental change and reacting to it....

quote:

---

Loudmouth why don't you just stick to the IC systems that Behe discusses?

---

Because you asked how RM and NS could cause the desired effect. I gave you a well observed example of how redundancies can come about and be eliminated which then leads towards an IC system.

quote:

---

Just because YOU say something is IC doesn't make it so.

---

I use Behe's definition. If he doesn't like how it is applied, maybe he should redefine it.

quote:

---

Also with the bateria that could digest nylon- how do we know those mutations were random and not the result of an adaptive mutation- a mutation brought on by the organisms' sensing the environmental change and reacting to it....

---

Can you show me the intelligently designed mechanism that caused this mutation? Can you show me how this process was non-random? Just saying there is an intelligent design mechanism is far from observing one. How do you know that this mutation was not caused by a Flatulent Pink Unicorn who happened to fart in the nucleotide. Can you show me how this is not possible?You must show me positive evidence that this is due to non-random mechanisms before I will accept intelligent design. One piece of evidence against you is this: If there is a mechanism that will create the same mutation time after time, then this should be observable. All you have to do is put this bacterium in nylon derivatives and show how this same, exact mutation happens in 100% of the cases. Feel up to the task?

LM:
You must show me positive evidence that this is due to non-random mechanisms before I will accept intelligent design.John Paul:
You haven't shown this to be random mutation. Where is YOUR positive evidence?

quote:

---

Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data. IOW there isn't any reason to believe that life originated via purely natural processes.

---

Aside from the fact that purely natural processes are the only ones that have ever created a living organism or a structure thereof. You infer a designer because that's what you want to infer. Are we talking about the origin of life now, or are we still arguing that every species that exists or has ever existed is a product of a design event? It's so difficult to tell when the goalposts keep moving.Just because your car was designed, you think you have the right to assume that order in Nature only arises through intelligent agency? I could just as easily assert that snowflakes and rainbows only arise through intelligent agency, since any evidence to the contrary makes the unwarranted assumption that natural processes are capable of creating order.The "billions of years fallacy" is one that has been independently confirmed by various methods, and has been of immense worth in a vast amount of scientific research. Are you arguing that the Earth is not billions of years old, the entire universe, or just that organic life originated suddenly last Thursday?John Paul, for someone who thinks his car is proof of the supernatural origin of life, you should be careful about whom you accuse of presenting nada, okay?regards,
Esteban "Nada Ms" Hambre

A couple of things:
1) Your souce, Behe, does not, (correct me if I'm wrong) disagree with billions of years. Do you mean he is not credible in this area?2)If you think it is a fallacy then why not show what is wrong with dating on one of the appropriate threads. It seems this is important since if you don't agree with something as clear as that further arguments are not going to go anywhere. It seems that creationists frequently make these littel dating comments but never are able to defend them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data. IOW there isn't any reason to believe that life originated via purely natural processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Aside from the fact that purely natural processes are the only ones that have ever created a living organism or a structure thereof.John Paul:
Ahh the only life begets life strategy does NOT help your case. Ya see MrH life does not arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Except in the minds of the true believers of Mother Nature.MrH:
You infer a designer because that's what you want to infer.John Paul:
WRONG! I infer design because that is what the evidence points to.MrH:
Are we talking about the origin of life now, or are we still arguing that every species that exists or has ever existed is a product of a design event?John Paul:
ID is about life and its origins. However this thread is about IC and its alleged refutation based upon non-evidentiary support.MrH:
John Paul, for someone who thinks his car is proof of the supernatural origin of life, you should be careful about whom you accuse of presenting nada, okay?John Paul:
So now you revert to lies? I NEVER said or implied anything like what you just posted. The FACT is life exists. Why is only one alternative for life's origins considered scientific even though it isn't supported by any evidence?
Why is it that all of knowledge shows us that CSI and IC can only arise via design?BTW MrH, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Galileo et al. also saw the universe and life as the product of a Creator. I guess their science was incorrect....

Dating arguments were put forth by someone (Cook) who found out that Pb from U decay is un-discernable from Pb that has always been Pb.Behe is a biologist. What he has to say on the age of the earth does not mean much to me. I notice when asked how the earth formed in that scenario I keep getting the nebula hypothesis. There is a reason why after all these years it is still a hypothesis...

quote:

---

You haven't shown this to be random mutation. Where is YOUR positive evidence?

---

That this mutation was not and could not be predicited. If you can not predict something, it is a random event. If you think this is non-random, you must show how you could predict that precise mutation and the activity of the resulting enzyme in response to an environmental cue.One study created a model that incorporated random mutations into a genome at rates comparable to that found in the laboratory. What they found is that their model matched what they found in 10,000 generations in the lab. If randomness is assumed, the facts match up. This is positive evidence that mutations are random.