This makes about as much sense as disagreeing over the temperature at which water boils.
Per Behe’s original IC criteria, it’s both possible to have designed objects that don’t exhibit IC and vise-versa it’s possible to have evolution produce IC biological structures.
Therefore IC cannot be an indication of whether something is designed or not.
Sure
How do you know ?
How so?
Behe has admitted as much.
If you haven’t seen it, I recommend watching the interview that Dan Cardinale did with Behe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsErbfaq5mc
Dan gets Behe to list out his criteria for IC step-by-step to try to pin down what would constitute IC. Then when Behe does so, Dan brings up evolutionary counter-examples that meet those criteria.
Among other ways, you can try it for yourself:
In this case I mean a gene that theoretically evolved from a gene duplication. One that is close enough to do a sequence comparison.
They are both differences that I found which are deleterious in humans.
I understand the genetic code and how it translates to amino acids in proteins.
Instead of tossing more word salad, how about simply answering my yes/no question? It is written in simple English, bolded, and italicized above.
That makes no sense.
No, you are exaggerating. Both variants are listed as “Variant of uncertain significance.”
Do you not understand the meaning of “individually”? Why, when I specified INDIVIDUALLY, would you start with two instead of one?
You have provided zero indication that you do.
Well, now, some monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys. In the cladistic sense of the terms, that is.
I know that, but Gil specified the “ape clade,” not any “monkey clade.”
I suppose that was the wrong term. You made them hallmarks of design by simply asserting that they were. But in fact there are evolutionary routes to IC, and many designed (manufactured) objects do not show IC. As I see @AnEvolvedPrimate has already pointed out.
Yes, that was puzzling.
How do you define “fixed in the human population”? What entity is fixed? There are 4805 known variants!
Please list the NOTCH2 alleles that you have determined to be fixed and the criterion/criteria by which you did so. Are you even aware that alleles, not genes, are what we are referring to with respect to fixation?
Aren’t most of the 4805 known human variants functional?
Do you see how, even in what may be a good-faith effort on your part, you are ignoring/avoiding most of the evidence in front of you?
You’re right. I was confused.
The fossil record isn’t great, but evolutionary developmental genetics may have something to say:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01349-0
All the variants are functional to some degree or we would not have the sequence in the data base.
No. That would only be appropriate if your statement was a subjective opinion, rather than a ridiculous falsehood you can’t be bothered to justify.
What evidence do you believe shows that they appeared “abruptly”? You should realize the fossil record cannot demonstrate this. So what else?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe Behe, himself, ever suggested IC was a “hallmark of design.” He only thought it was something evolutionary processes could not produce. That is not quite the same thing as saying it is a “hallmark of design.” Many things designed by humans continue to function after one or more of its components are missing or malfunctioning. I mean, how many planes would be crashing if that wasn’t the case? In that instance, redundancy of function is a hallmark of good design. IC would be a sign of incompetence.
Completely false, because humans are diploid organisms. Unbelievable.
How so ?
That’s how I see it too. Also, almost every designed object can be used even if bits of it are missing, especially modern items with lots of functions and unnecessary features, even those that don’t have redundant backup systems.
Aeroplanes are not IC because they continue to be viable even when the lemon-scented paper napkins are absent.