The I in ID

Nice article, added to my bookmarks (thanks).Now we see if ID man (1) tries his usual response or (2) claim that disproving IC does not disprove ID.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Is your reference from a peer-reviewed journal? No, it is the rantings of an oft refuted and bitter Ken Miller. Also it has been refuted by Behe:“A True Acid Test” | Discovery InstituteNext...

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

more ad hominems ... failing to see that the article in question is in response to Behe's poor response that also did not address the issue (seems to be a common IDeist failing here).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I disagree. Leaving aside the still-murky area of adaptive mutation, the admirably-careful work of Hall involved a series of micromutations stitched together by intelligent intervention. He showed that the activity of a deleted enzyme could be replaced only by mutations to a second, homologous protein with a nearly-identical active site; and only if the second repressor already bound lactose; and only if the system were also artificially supported by inclusion of IPTG; and only if the system were also allowed to use a preexisting permease. Such results are exactly what one expects of irreducible complexity requiring intelligent intervention, and of limited capabilities for Darwinian processes. BeheMiller stands refuted by the evidence. Remember this was Hall's experiment not Miller's.Added by edit:
Miller's page does not exist in a peer-reviewed journal. If it ever makes it that far I am sure Behe will step up his response.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-09-2004 02:21 PM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

As Barry Hall wrote in a 1999 review, "The genome of each organism contains not only information for functioning in its current environment, but the potential to evolve novel functions that will allow it to thrive in alternative environments" (Hall, BG, FEMS Microbiology Letters 178: 1-6 [1999]).

---

And that, my unworthy opponents, is what IDists have been saying for years. That is what Behe says- organisms have the information already within them to evolve. That is not how materialistic naturalism operates. MatNat has to show where that information came from in the first place.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

Again, that qupte from Behe is from his review of the book, and the website addressed that assertion: {color yellow for emphasis}That last is the rest of the quote, a conclusion at variance with your self asserting one, and one that is backed up by the evidence in question. Now we are getting to the front-loaded question. Another unnecessary assumption. Obviously if evolution were working well enough to reach this point it would have a mechanism to evolve, therefore this ?ability? is no marker of design, no way to say this happened due to design as that would have happened otherwise. Once again we are left with the conclusion that the only way to believe in an Intelligent Designer is to have faith in an Intelligent Designer, an a priori assumption not justified by the evidence.Miller trashed Behe’s weak response, taking the argument piece by piece and refuting it. You should study how it is done, you might learn something.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What anti-IDists don't understand is that they are starting (or start) from the complexity that needs to be explained in the first place. Evidence shows that even asexual reproduction is IC. Show us ONE piece of evidence that displays nature, acting alone, producing IC.Even Hall's experiment starts with an organism that needs to be explained to begin with. Then there isn't any evidence that the mutations were random. What is it- just a stroke of luck or a miracle that those mutations showed up in the locus (loci) that needed them at the time they were needed?Miller only conflates the facts. If he had something it would have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. That was Behe's point- there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that shows IC systems can evolve by nature acting alone.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

I disagree. Leaving aside the still-murky area of adaptive mutation, the admirably-careful work of Hall involved a series of micromutations stitched together by intelligent intervention. He showed that the activity of a deleted enzyme could be replaced only by mutations to a second, homologous protein with a nearly-identical active site; and only if the second repressor already bound lactose; and only if the system were also artificially supported by inclusion of IPTG; and only if the system were also allowed to use a preexisting permease. Such results are exactly what one expects of irreducible complexity requiring intelligent intervention, and of limited capabilities for Darwinian processes.

---

And yet a new system was constructed using just mutations and selection, something that IDists like yourself claim can't occur in IC systems. Therefore, mutations and selection are all that is needed.Secondly, Behe likes to cry foul every time an experiment is done. No matter the outcome he claims that it is only the result of intelligent intervention. This is a poor claim, since then ID theories are themselves are obtained through intelligent intervention and can not detect natural mechanisms. If ID is incapable of detecting natural mechanisms then they can not claim that natural mechanisms are insufficient.

quote:

---

Miller stands refuted by the evidence. Remember this was Hall's experiment not Miller's.

---

What evidence? That Hall relied on a gene having a similar active site? Excuse me, but the gene didn't work without being mutated, that the gene was previously used for another purpose besides lactase production? That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me. That he relied on IPTG to shut down the old lac operon? Of course he would, so that a new system would evolve. That the new system used an existing permease? Of course it would, that is how evolution works, through coopting existing systems such as the type III transport system being part of the bacterial flagellum. Everything that Hall did is equivalent to natural pressures that real bacteria face when they lack a control mechanism for lactase production. Behe's only real complaint is that Hall shows something that Behe believes, through faith, is impossible.

quote:

---

Miller's page does not exist in a peer-reviewed journal.

---

Neither does anything from "Darwin's Black Box". And, Hall's paper does exist in the peer reviewed literature: EVOLUTION OF A REGULATED OPERON IN THE LABORATORY | Genetics | Oxford Academic . Hall's work stands on it's own and has yet to be refuted by Behe.

quote:

---

Then there isn't any evidence that the mutations were random. What is it- just a stroke of luck or a miracle that those mutations showed up in the locus (loci) that needed them at the time they were needed?

---

Yes, it was luck. That is why they call it random. Start with a billion bacteria and you are sure to come up with a beneficial mutation at some point. Also, can you name all of the other possible loci that would have resulted in the same enzymatic activity? I sure can't, but you seem to think that this was the only possible mutation. Care to show us how you came to that conclusion?

quote:

---

What anti-IDists don't understand is that they are starting (or start) from the complexity that needs to be explained in the first place.

---

What IDer's don't understand is that complexity is not a problem for evolution. However, it is a problem for IDer's since there is excessive complexity in biological designs compared to observed human constructs. Somehow IDer's forgot that Rube Goldberg's comics were meant to be funny because they were more complex than was necessary for the job they were doing. Behe thinks that Goldberg like machines display intelligent design when in fact they display unintelligent design.

quote:

---

Miller only conflates the facts. If he had something it would have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. That was Behe's point-

---

Uhh, can you you point me to the volumes of ID papers and experiments in the peer reviewed journals? Can you point me to the methodology that they use to detect design AND non-design in genetic systems? Can you point me to the experiments that they have done to test ID theory?

quote:

---

And that, my unworthy opponents, is what IDists have been saying for years. That is what Behe says- organisms have the information already within them to evolve.

---

The information they have is no different than the information found in a single, inorganic carbon atom. It is chemical information, not abstract information such as human language or computer code. So you are saying that random mutations and selection are all that is necessary as long as DNA of some kind is present. Great, then you agree with evolutionists that no other kind of intervention is needed.What you are saying is that all that is needed is atoms. Therefore, for life to arise all we need are atoms. This is what abiogenesis researchers have been saying all along. This is what evolutionists have been saying all along. Nature is all that is needed, no matter the origin of nature.

quote:

---

MatNat has to show where that information came from in the first place.

---

It came from the formation of atoms. The formation of atoms is due to quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are not bound by time or space, therefore they are outside of space/time. Quantum fluctuations have been observed to create matter and atoms throught the Cassimir effect.

ID man,Your reply to me appears to be quite substantial, yet doesn’t actually tackle any of the issues. And you have the gall to accuse me of practicing ‘spin’!?! Really? Do I have to put my hand in my pocket and shell out cash to the peddlers of pseudoscience to earn the right to criticize the ‘theory’ of ID? I’ve taken part in a number of on-line debates with ID proponents like yourself, and been directed to umpteen different websites which try to tell me the ‘truth’ about ID and not once have I come across even the whiff of proper scientific method. Why do I have to read a book to tell me that the entire concept has holes in it large enough to drive a double decker bus through?I did actually pick up Darwin’s Black Box fairly recently in a book shop and had a quick flick through. I was so disgusted at how misleading and downright wrong whole sections of the text were that I had to fight the urge to write SYMBIOSIS across a paragraph on organelles.So I am familiar with the arguments made by ID, they just don’t make sense as a scientific theory.Let me reiterate what I was saying about how a scientific theory should work:

1. Make an observation
2. Construct a hypothesis based on the observation
3. Test the hypothesis
4. Rinse and repeat

The ToE has gone through this process many times, which is why it is such a well established theory. ID, to my knowledge has never got passed point 2. For example:

1. There is complexity in life
2. Life was therefore designed
3. Errrrr

If you know otherwise please provide me with an example from your vast bank of ID knowledge, if not button it! This is a blatant assertion, please provide a proposal for a way to test the ID hypothesis. Otherwise, don’t repeat it. And please don’t whine about lack of resources:

quote:

---

What tools have we been denied? Public schools, universities, grants, etc.

---

Are you really trying to tell me that the various ‘institutes’ that are trying to promote ID as science are penniless? Do me a favour! Besides, if you haven’t been able to put together a decent test of ID, then why the hell should you expect it to be taught in schools?So onto the questions that I would still like you to answer: For the second time:I think your cut-and-paste quotes were an attempt at this, but they all were based on a lack of knowledge. For example, please provide evidence that life could not have arose in any other solar system in the galaxy (you even used one with an analogy for crying out loud). You don’t have to carry out the experiment, just suggest one. And for the third time:There must be a reason why you are not answering this question.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that, my unworthy opponents, is what IDists have been saying for years. That is what Behe says- organisms have the information already within them to evolve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
The information they have is no different than the information found in a single, inorganic carbon atom.

---

That is pure unsubstantiated crap.

quote:

---

LM:
It is chemical information, not abstract information such as human language or computer code.

---

More assertion. We are finding out it is like a computer code. Even Bill Gates sees this.

quote:

---

LM:
So you are saying that random mutations and selection are all that is necessary as long as DNA of some kind is present.

---

No, I never said that. Is that how you debate? Make something up and accredit it to your opponent? Bad form. [quote]LM:
Great, then you agree with evolutionists that no other kind of intervention is needed.{/quoteI agree with the IDists who say no further intervention is required. Everything a population required was programmed in before that population came to be.

quote:

---

LM:
What you are saying is that all that is needed is atoms. Therefore, for life to arise all we need are atoms. This is what abiogenesis researchers have been saying all along. This is what evolutionists have been saying all along. Nature is all that is needed, no matter the origin of nature.

---

Again you are wrong. However IF this was all that was needed it tells me the scientists involved with the materialistic naturalisms' search for the origins of life are utterly useless. They are clue;ess. Maybe you should give them a hand.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MatNat has to show where that information came from in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
It came from the formation of atoms.

---

That is your assertion anyway. I bet you think the information on your hard drive arrived when the compounds that make the disk were mixed together.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

Ooook!:
Really? Do I have to put my hand in my pocket and shell out cash to the peddlers of pseudoscience to earn the right to criticize the ‘theory’ of ID?

---

What is pseudoscience? Didn't you get the memo:As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question What distinguishes science from nonscience? as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. As Laudan explains, If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’theydo only emotive work for us. As Martin Eger summarized,[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that is a different world." pg. 77 of Darwinism, Design and Public EducationAnd yes before you criticize anything you should take the time to learn about it first.Any specifics on Darwin's Black Box? I would love to hear them. (Endo) symbiosis does not help you.The theory of evolution has gone through your version of scientific method? WHEN?
ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.There are 4 steps for Ooook!, as if it matters.

quote:

---

Ooook!:
This is a blatant assertion, please provide a proposal for a way to test the ID hypothesis.

---

ID would be falsified if it could be shown that life can arise from non-life by nature acting alone. Another falsification would be to show the bacterial flagellum arose by step-by-step processes or any way nature acted alone.

quote:

---

Ooook!:
Which aspects of the 'tree' of evolution do you think can be explained by mutation and natural selection? Start at humans and trace it back. At what point is the magic finger of a creat...sorry designer absolutely required?

---

This proves to me that you don't understand ID OR science. Scientific research should yield the answers you seek.On the apparent "lack of knowledge" fallacy:
Science is NOT done via promissory notes. The future may also bring the knowledge of biological limits as well as the knowledge that only life begets life- oh wait, we already know that one.But please tell us how can one falsify the theory of evolution?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

> More assertion. We are finding out it is like a computer code. Even Bill
> Gates sees this.Please tell me you're kidding. Bill Gates is neither a programmer nor biologist. That's like me saying "Cold fusion is the answer to our energy problems. Even Jerry Falwel sees this."More to point, there is no "code". There are chemical bonds. You can call the chemical bonds "crap" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing more there than chemical bonds. You can try and read a code into the chemical bonds all that you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the only thing physically there is the bonded atoms. [quote]LM:
Great, then you agree with evolutionists that no other kind of intervention is needed.{/quote> I agree with the IDists who say no further intervention is required.
> Everything a population required was programmed in before that
> population came to be.Oh, really? What was God thinking when he programmed in these genes into pigeons:http://EvC Forum: Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?Or do you accept the incredibly well documented fact that new genes constantly form and other genes disappear, during the process of reproduction?> Again you are wrong. However IF this was all that was needed it tells me
> the scientists involved with the materialistic naturalisms' search for the
> origins of life are utterly useless. They are clue;ess. Maybe you should
> give them a hand.How do you come to this conclusion?>That is your assertion anyway. I bet you think the information on your hard
> drive arrived when the compounds that make the disk were mixed
> together.On a new hard drive, yes. A hard drive is a contraption that uses the laws of physics to arrange data in a particular readable pattern. However, if we had set the write head to write wherever it wanted, or simply kept the original state of the drive, you would have the same thing as if you had written to it: a disk of magnetizable components in a particular state. Why is one case information (where we've told it to write, changing the polarizations one wat or another), and the other not (where it is still uninitialized)?If you looked at the bits on the uninitialized drive, they would seem completely meaningless to you; however, so would the bits on the intialized drive. If you consider DNA to be your state information, how can you tell the difference between DNA that was "programmed" and DNA that was randomized? I.e., does "ATCGGAGGGCTTTATCTA" mean anything to you?If your answer is something to the effect of "DNA that was programmed can keep a lifeform alive all the way to reproduction", self-replicating computer code can be randomly generated, too. If the self-replicating code changes in a way that it no longer completes self-replication, it will die off. So, right there, that doesn't work as an argument to declare something as "information" - it only means that it's a stable cycle.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

> ID would be falsified if it could be shown that life can arise from non-life by
> nature acting alone.That would take a body the size of the earth and a billion years. Not going to happen. We have shown how *components* of life arise abotically, but that's not enough for you all, so there's not really any way we can prove this one to you. We've also shown how other forms of "life" can arise in a virtual environment with the advent of self-replicators in randomized computer code, but that's not good enough for you all either.> Another falsification would be to show the bacterial
> flagellum arose by step-by-step processes or any way nature acted alone.No; you will all just go pick on something else. ID theorists keep hiding God in the gaps. You'll just pick another gap. Not that we don't already have a number of possible mechanisms which this case could come into existance through - for example:"We begin with a type III export system, given that several proteins of the flagellum's basal body are homologous to the secretory machinery of this export system (type III systems secrete various proteins to establish symbiotic relationships with eukaryotic cells). Thus, the flagellum began as a protein secretion system. Next, we hypothesize that some protein, that is normally secreted, is mutated such that it can stick to itself and the secretory system. This forms our proto-filament. Filament formation is not difficult, as a single point mutation in the beta globin gene, responsible for sickle cell anemia, converts soluble hemoglobin into a filament. This filament then could serve the function of anchoring the cell to some other substrate. In fact, if we survey living bacteria, we'll find that there are indeed many different forms of nonmotile filaments that provide benefits to the cell (thus allowing us to propose a selective advantage to this step in the flagellum's evolution). Next, we again invoke cooption, as some other membrane protein somehow associates with the type III/filament system and fortuitously causes it to wiggle in some fashion. This slight movement confers motility to the bacteria, which in turn, is selectively advantageous. From there, mutations are selected that improve the motility function and finally, another set of proteins are coopted to confer the switching of rotation and chemotaxis response. Thus, we have a step-by-step account that involves at least three different functional state: protein export system transformed into nonmotile filament transformed into flagellum. Let us refer to this scenario as the Export-Filament-Motility (EFM) Hypothesis."It can also be mentioned that Y. pestis (bubonic plague) has a complex structure with 10 proteins similar to those found in flagella used not for motion, but for injecting toxins into host cells. So, that is another potential source of a flagellum.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."