A below average AA count.
Rather than here, if Behe comes we will start a thread specifically for him, that will be moderated tightly to ensure he is treated with respect.
I’d start the conversation by asking which definitions of Irreducible Complexity are falsified, and which are still viable. Which Irreducible Complexity?
Not to belabor, but just to understand. Do you believe that ID argues that such complexity is impossible? Or do they argue that the wealth of complexity is better explained as intelligently designed vs coming about through natural processes? It seems that the point is important. Does the T-urf13 example (that, admittedly, I do not understand) falsify such claims? Or is it potentially an exception or outlier?
To use a Behe example, is the bacterial flagellum best explained by natural processes or design? If the flagellum were to be explained naturalistically (and I’m aware of attempts in this regard) does it falsify his point, or merely remove a valid example?
Sorry, I’m only trying to follow your thoughts here. Which failing analogy were you referring to? I have many threads with many failing analogies.
Thanks for attempting to explain the issue over the term “complexity”. This is another unfortunate example, then, of a term that will continue to be a potential landmine as long as we (the public) understand complexity in the traditional sense. Which, of course, we will.
IMO this totally avoids the obvious fact that a complex fully functional, gated ion channel formed by essentially shuffling the maize mitochondrial genome. By any measure, this is an increase in what an ID advocate would call functional information.
But as far as the biology, there are a few things to consider. One is that Turf13 is a gated ion channel, they key to which is a toxin produced by a fungus. From the perspective of the fungus, it is very beneficial.
But there is more to consider. Recall that plants have many ways to,approach the matter of sexual reproduction. Some plants (Cannabis) are monoecious - individuals may be male or female. Others are diecious - their flowers are both male and female. Diecious plants may tend to outcross or self-pollinate. Some plants incorporate male sterility into the mix, as a way to further promote outcrossing. (Of course in such populations there will be normal and male sterile individuals.)
Turf13 makes maize plants male sterile. Contrary to what some may claim, this actually increases the reproductive strategies for the plant, and is not a detriment to the plant. Also, male sterility is not an arcane and contrived creation of plant breeders. It happens in the wild as well. Put it all together, then what we have here is an increase, not only in functional information when it comes to proteins, but in reproductive options and interactions with microbes.
All coming about by piecing together some non-coding sequences. Randomly, via unguided processes.
(Please do not try to claim that plant breeders in the 50s and 60s could design this protein from first principles, then create it and get it into the maize mitochondrial genome.)
First I want to say this is an extremely interesting case you have brought forward and deserves a respectful discussion. The formation of a gated ion channel that did not exist before is extremely interesting.
As far as adding functional information to the plant genome this is less clear based on Szotack and Hazens definition they brought forward in 2003.
I am currently neutral whether it does or doesn’t it all depends of what information already existed in the plants genome. Joe Felsenstein UW prof and TSZ contributor would measure added functional information by a net increase in fitness. If you can demonstrate this then I would agree with you that functional information has been increased in this process.
From your paper it appears that the process was built on existing information in the plant genome. Do you agree?
Is genetic recombination a random process? It is clearly part of the reproductive process.
Like most types of variation it is random with some constraints.
End of the day… science fills gaps in our understanding of “natural processes” with randomness. An explanation that involves randomness is not a complete explanation. An explanation of a phenomenon at the biomolecular level does not tell us how the molecules came to be arranged this way. Random self organisation that leads to highly complex systems interacting with each other to give specific results is not a satisfactory answer to me… Even though scientists seem to satisfy themselves with it.
The more I hear all this, the more looks like science has no option other than to peg God’s actions under “chance”.
As scientific knowledge increases, the no: of amazing things that have to have happened by “chance” mutations/errors are also increasing.
The inability to understand and accept stochastic processes is a major reason that many people continue to insist there is a god. Education can cure that.
Do you think the trait is heritable? It might change over time.
Yes, I do think the “God-shaped hole” in the human mind is genetically sustained. It could change over time, if:
- you can wait long enough;
- if being religious interfered with reproductive success. Every indication is that religious behaviors consolidate, rather than interfere with, reproductive success.
Religious behaviors comfort the great bulk of humanity, even while extremely agitating the victims of the former group.
Darwinism and it’s avatars is naturalism disguised as science
Scientists also let go of Darwinism a long time ago. Can you let go of ID-creationism?
“Scientists let go of Darwinism a long time ago. Can you let go of ID-creationism?”
Wow… that’s an excellent sentence!
The academia rejects a priori and dogmatically the idea that purpose, foresight, intelligence may have been involved in the history of life for it is committed to a faith based position, i.e. naturalism. In this context, what can it offer for explaining life except random mutations coupled to natural selection? If it has something else, I will be happy to know.
No it doesn’t. Academia merely says since there is not one tiny bit of positive evidence for the involvement of purpose, foresight, and intelligence involved in the history of life the concept is not considered.
Come back when you have more than your religiously motivated personal beliefs.
As @Timothy_Horton mentions, this simply isn’t the case.
Let’s look at this from a slightly different vantage point. The Discovery Institute and other institutions like Liberty University or other private Christian institutions are obviously not against the idea of purpose, foresight, and intelligence being involved in the history of life. So what scientific research are they doing on these topics? From what I can see, none. They only seem able to make (poor) arguments against evolution, but can’t seem to marshal any positive evidence from scientific research for Intelligent Design or Creationism.
What it comes down to is that there isn’t any scientific evidence or research supporting ID/creationism that needs to be rejected.
It can offer neutral drift, which is non-Darwinian. It can also offer speciation, punctuated equilibrium, and many other processes. What mechanisms can ID/creationism offer, with accompanying observations and evidence?