Creation Myths with Dr. Michael Behe on "The Edge of Evolution"

[Michael_Okoko]

@Giltil

Okay. Let’s me reformulate more precisely:
if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

So you went from “IC system” to “complex IC system”. Keep on proving why ID is unfalsifiable. Like Behe, you keep changing the goal posts.

I am curious though, what is the level of complexity that must be achieved in a laboratory experiment before ID can be falsified? And how do you measure this complexity?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

The logic of ID is as follow:

• first premise: unguided, blind natural processes cannot explain certain biological features such as IC or high FI.

We’ve established that @gpuccio’s FI does not measure functional information, as it says that actin has more functional information than myosin. It’s just arbitrary, not a “certain biological feature.”

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

In my mind a single event cannot falsify either ID, common descent or Darwinian/non Darwinian processes generically.

Then you don’t have a testable hypothesis. Maybe you should formulate one?

@colewd

Each can be the appropriate conclusion depending on how the data analysis turns out.

To be useful, your hypothesis has to be sufficiently specified and mechanistic to predict the empirical observations themselves, not how you or anyone else will analyze them. IOW, the interpretation should be built into the hypothesis before testing.

Science is a method for overcoming the intuitions that lead to false conclusions. You’ve just stated that you reject the scientific method itself, Bill.

[CrisprCAS9]

@Giltil

if a complex IC system

Since there is still no clearly demonstrated definition of ‘irreducibly complex’ (for reasons explained elsewhere in this thread), you would be better off replacing ‘IC’ with an actual definition you believe to be valid.

@Giltil

in the course of some evolutionary experiment

Remember when you said:

@Giltil

the sole fact of observing something directly doesn’t tell you anything about how the thing came to be.

So observing something in an evolutionary experiment wouldn’t satisfy you, by your own statements.

This formulation is insufficient on at least two counts, try again.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Okay. Let’s me reformulate more precisely:
if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

Right, 'cuz there’s a big difference between something that is Irreducibly Complex, and something that is Complexly Irreducibly Complex.

You think?

[dsterncardinale]

@Giltil

if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

Is there a difference between “IC” and “complex IC”? Behe does not quantitatively describe such a distinction, but he does, I think, employ it qualitatively.

The Cit+ trait is IC, and this should not be up for debate. It checks all of Behe’s boxes. But of course that can’t falsify the idea, because…well then the idea would be falsified! And we can’t have that.

So the question is, given this novel trait involving multiple interrelated components that are all required for the novel function, for which we have a documented, step by step, directly observed evolutionary history characterized at the molecular level…why doesn’t this example falsify the IC hypothesis?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@dsterncardinale

The Cit+ trait is IC, and this should not be up for debate. It checks all of Behe’s boxes. But of course that can’t falsify the idea, because…well then the idea would be falsified! And we can’t have that.

So the question is, given this novel trait involving multiple interrelated components that are all required for the novel function, for which we have a documented, step by step, directly observed evolutionary history characterized at the molecular level…why doesn’t this example falsify the IC hypothesis?

Um… because then the idea would be falsified! And we can’t have that.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Then you don’t have a testable hypothesis. Maybe you should formulate one?

None of the three are testable hypothesis in themselves. They contain potential attributes to help formulate specific alternative hypotheses and may be an identified cause to a specific hypothesis.

Examples of how the three could be concluded to be a cause identified in a hypothesis.

-the cause of citrate consumption in the Lenski experiment is most likely gene duplication

-the cause of interbreeding of dogs and coyotes is most likely common descent.

-The cause of the ion channel with the case @Art brought forward is most likely genetic recombination.

-The cause of the pattern in Sal’s flower is most likely common design or separate origin.

-the cause of the placenta inside the African lizard is X. It could be 1 or a combination of the 3 causes.

[scd]

@Giltil

For example, you can imagine that the information for building the placenta was already in place.

@CrisprCAS9

Then it should be in other lizards too. Is it? How would you know if it was or wasn’t?

by the fact that this supposedly happened 115 times in squamate reptiles alone. which should tell us something:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.20272

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

The egg came first.

not everyone agree:

Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof"

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

None of the three are testable hypothesis in themselves. They contain potential attributes to help formulate specific alternative hypotheses and may be an identified cause to a specific hypothesis.

Examples of how the three could be concluded to be a cause identified in a hypothesis.

-the cause of citrate consumption in the Lenski experiment is most likely gene duplication

-the cause of interbreeding of dogs and coyotes is most likely common descent.

-The cause of the ion channel with the case @Art brought forward is most likely genetic recombination.

-The cause of the pattern in Sal’s flower is most likely common design or separate origin.

-the cause of the placenta inside the African lizard is X. It could be 1 or a combination of the 3 causes.

This is how creationists think science is done.

Honestly, it breaks one’s heart.

[CrisprCAS9]

@scd

by the fact that this supposedly happened 115 times in squamate reptiles alone.

Firstly, you need to work on reading for comprehension. Viviparity has happened 115 times in squamates, but viviparity is not placentation. In any event, that still wouldn’t be evidence that everything is already in the genomes of all of the other lineages.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

None of the three are testable hypothesis in themselves. They contain potential attributes to help formulate specific alternative hypotheses and may be an identified cause to a specific hypothesis.

That’s word salad. Only two of your examples are even slightly mechanistic.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Faizal_Ali

Right, 'cuz there’s a big difference between something that is Irreducibly Complex, and something that is Complexly Irreducibly Complex.

The coffee which shot from my nose upon reading that has formed a spray pattern on an assortment of documents which, I have concluded, is too complexly irreducibly complex to have formed through any natural process. Indeed, I think it might be a complexly irreducibly complex pattern of a complex nature, complexly constituted. I’ve never seen anything like it.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@CrisprCAS9

In any event, that still wouldn’t be evidence that everything is already in the genomes of all of the other lineages.

At the very least, it would count as a clue pointing to the plausibility if the hypothesis