Rather that you seem to have already decided that ID is correct and seem to lend much more weight to arguments that agree with this conclusion than those against it.
Yeah, there are a lot of evolution websites where I believe I can debate the information and I believe I can even tear them apart. Of course they can't debate me unless we are on a forum. I think a lot of these perspectives are seen from particular paradigms. Also ther are Darwinists who tend to make rehtorical statements that lack substance. For example, when they say something like, "Remember you must keep in mind that these biological systems weren't really designed but rather were made through Darwinian processes." I believe this thinking is based on the "assumption" that Darwin can and will eventually explain everything.
As for Mike Behe, the gaps for him to fit ID into in his conception of life's history are getting almost infinitesimally small. He is uncharacteristic of the ID crowd in his acceptance of an awful lot of mainstream evolutionary biology.
I wouldn't describe the cilium with its 200 parts and the 10,000 protein binding sites in cells as "infinitesimally small gaps" unless you know something that I don't know. Obviously you do know more than me.
If it wasn't for his belief that he can detect ID no one would think he was anything other than an invisible hand sort of theistic evolutionist, the sort of person who thinks that god interferes at an unobservable quantum level to influence mutation in such a way as to direct evolution at a level not detectable scientifically.
Kenneth Miller apparently believes this.
Its certainly complex, I have no idea why you assume it is irreducibly so. If I showed that you could entirely remove one proton transport protein and an organism still survived would that mean you were wrong?
I would have to say that there was some assumption from my part in that statement. Considering the sheer number of protein binding sites in a cell and those factors contributing to whether it all fits together correctly, I think this would probably strengthen my case.
What evidence would you consider sufficient to discount IC, short of a step by step evolutionary history of every ancestral genome for the past 2 billion years?
Good question. I would agree with Behe that parts from other biological systems could be used in a IC system. I have seen a site that argues that the flagellum isn't really IC because some 38 of its 40 protein parts are found in other places in bacteria. I don't agree with that. I would think if this was true then that evidence should be able to be used as clues to retrace the evolutionary steps of the flagellum. I found no place in that site where it demonstated this. Two billion years is a long time but there have been a lot of organisms that have remained pretty much unchanged for millions of years that are more complex than bacteria.
I think that for Darwin's mechanisms to work, (and for it to remain Darwinism) every step must be preserved with natural selection other than the belief in neutral mutations. However, I would think the mechanisms inside the cell would tend to sweep some of these neutral mutations away over time based on a Michael Behe's quote on E. coli.
E. coli has been grown continuously in flasks for thirty thousand generations. What has evolution wrought? Mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have chnaged, during that thirty thousand generations, the bacterium has repeatedly thrown away chunks of it genetic patrimony, including the ability to make some of the building blocks of RNA. The lesson of E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things that make things. - The Edge of Evolution
On the other hand I don't think organisms like E. coli are going to devolve out of existence because the mechanisms described by Darwin will help preserve this species. I'm not totally anti-Darwin.
I really think that if you took some time to actually understand evolutionary theory and look at the wealth of published research you would appreciate that we aren't just making stuff up for ideological reason there simply isn't any compelling argument against evolution and there is a wealth of data from multiple disciplines which are consilient with it.
For the most part, that statement sounds like good science although scientists seem to follow an invisible rule that says everything "must" be explained through natural causes and any possible explanation involving intelligent causes "must not" be considered.
I believe design does have utility. I suspect cures for various diseases are based on an "irreducibly complex" mixture of nutrients and complimentary emotional stress related treatments. In other words, one specific substance or treatment may not work without the others.
I rather not reveal my identity but I did brain storm a new hypothesis thinking from design and it has been posted on the net. It had to do with phenotypic plasticity.
I don't think I will ever totally buy into totally natural causes for organisms. Maybe I will be convinced if some scientist can prove organisms evolved by the interaction of engergies from a higher order beyond the electromagnetic spectrum at it came from the fourth of fifth dimensions and it had nothing to do with design.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
