Of course. But you have to have arguments for the validity of your model. Did you know what Siegfried Scherer wrote about Matzkes model? Regrettably in German, it was discussed in Panda’s Thumb, but I doubt that it was read by the posters.
Just as an aside, that article exists in different versions for different people. That’s not dishonest, but shows that an issue about biochemical details can get an argument for world views.
No. But the question is about mechanisms generating these mutations in specific order.
If you want to delve deeply in history, there was proposed ‘deus ex machina’ (interventionism) and ‘deus in machina’ (constraints, non-interventionistic) versus pure chance, when selection is not an generative issue. You know that Simpson called ‘creative selection’ as a central tenet of the Modern Synthesis. That would be another mechanism.
I think taking the willingness of your interlocutor to make concessions as indicative of anything at all is a fool’s errand. Did Behe ever concede VPU1 evolved in HIV? I’m pretty sure he didn’t.
No, not other mechanisms. Not even Behe claimed that. What Behe was referring to is that the same underlying mechanisms - variation and natural selection - can give rise to indirect trajectories through morphological space.
Even the Biomorphs make that possible, since the selection function can change.
Why is that even a question? There is no mechanism that generates mutations in specific orders. Different mutations occur in lots of different individuals in a population, and are subject to drift and selection to varying degrees depending on the selection coefficients. If they don’t happen to happen in the order required to generate a particular possible novelty or adaptation, then that adaptation failed to evolve in that population at that time. So what?
‘Variation and natural selection’ (RMNS) isn’t a magic wand. There was and is a lot of controversy in theoretical biology about what that mechanism can do and what not.
BTW, You know endosymbiosis. Is engulfing an organism ‘variation’? You know ‘hardening of the synthesis’ or ‘neutral evolution’?
Like I suspect many (most?) here, I was not even aware of the existence of Scherer or his organisation (Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen) until you mentioned him.
This would seem to be likely due to the fact that their claims have been insufficiently novel, influential or prominent to have achieved much notice in Anglophone discussion of creationism (either popular or academic). Even the (15 year old) PT mention is by Matzke himself (evoked by the fact that it was his writings being rebutted), and appears to have engendered no further discussion on the forum:
(It helps to provide links to what you are discussing.)
If you want us to discuss such rebuttals, you need to:
Start a new topic, e.g. one titled German rebuttals of criticism of IC
Provide links to the specific criticisms under discussion.
Provide links to the specific German rebuttals under discussion.
