Kitzmiller, the Universe, and Everything

I’m sure that if that were to be done, nobody would care whether you or I (or anyone else here) were fine with it. But having watched this go on for a while, I think it’s become clear that no such thing will ever happen.

People are altogether too attached to argument – ways of trying to mask the fact that the ID case is basically just one bad argument by analogy. This doesn’t advance anything one iota.

I appreciate, as much as anyone does, that there is an intuitive phase to scientific inquiry: you have to use creative thinking to frame a hypothesis for testing. But ID never gets beyond the attempt to simply use intuition as a substitute for generation of, and testing of, hypotheses. One way one can see this is the incredibly repetitive pattern in ID claims – the arguments today are the same ones that failed to convince anyone decades ago. Unlike fine wines, these things do not improve with age.

But what testable hypothesis could be formed? That’s a puzzler. When all you’re doing is postulating that unseen forces act in the world in mysterious ways, without even a whiff of interest in HOW this supposedly occurs, there’s nothing to test. And the basic misconceptions about how a theory of ID would even function are profound. The notion that one could actually measure “information” in things and infer design from that is so badly wrong it’s hard to know where to start.

1 Like

colewd:

Some have made this claim of a sort of ability to prove a negative. Behe claims that it is a powerful challenge for the Darwinian mechanism which I think is more sensible.

I don’t understand your point there, or Behe’s, but I maintain my statements about there being no proof that natural selection cannot do the job.

2 Likes

Think about it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Exactly. And wheenever anyone claims this sort of thing we should be extremely suspicious. :wink:

1 Like

By it’s effect on fitness. There’s an organism, it has a genome, pieces of this genome are expressed all the time. Some times those pieces gets translated into a protein sequence. If that protein sequence does something that aids the organism survive and reproduce in some way(maybe it increases the ability of the organism to survive in the presence of some antibiotic), then it has the potential to be retained and improved by natural selection.

That’s it. Simple and easy to understand. That’s how proteins evolve de novo by natural selection.

The point is that natural selection is unlikely to solve the irreducible complexity claim based on empirical observation of the complex macro machines in the cell. It’s an empirical observation not a mathematical proof such as Dembski’s CSI hypothesis.

Why is it unlikely to do so?

Because of large steps to advantage.

How do you know there are “large steps” to advantage? That looks like an assumption to me.

It’s an observation where mobility takes 30 proteins or splicing takes 200 or a minimum cell takes 473 or a single protein takes 30K amino acids. If you claim natural selection solves the problem you need to show how or else you are just throwing out a theoretical construct. I am not claiming proof here as I told Joe. Just significant doubt based on what we are observing.

Protein evolution of the type requiring de novo sequences needs more empirical support. This is a curve ball that Darwin did not anticipate.

1 Like

Have you published this in a scholarly journal yet?

1 Like

I find these references to Darwin very strange. Biology is full of “curve balls” which “Darwin did not anticipate.” He did write the Origin in 1859, you know. And nobody is relying upon Darwin’s work for the biochemistry of DNA and proteins. What you have got to cope with is stuff like the fact that genes demonstrably do arise and change through known processes, even if Darwin didn’t know anything about those processes.

And nobody does this in other fields. Nobody in a historical discussion denies that the Holocaust happened, and then, when confronted with the fact that it does, actually, seem to have happened, responds by saying “This is a curve ball that Herodotus did not anticipate.”

Evolutionary biology is not “Darwin.” Darwin’s contributions to it are very important, particularly to its earlier stages of development, but there probably isn’t a single science-friendly person here who could not point out something Darwin got wrong. Evolutionary theory is not a cult of personality, and it’s not a discipline devoted to the study and interpretation of Darwin’s writings.

3 Likes

How many proteins some entity is made of doesn’t tell you it can only evolve by “large steps”. So no, it was just an assumption you made.

If you claim natural selection solves the problem you need to show how or else you are just throwing out a theoretical construct. I am not claiming proof here as I told Joe.

I understand you’re not claiming to have proven it, but you don’t even have evidence for your assumption.

Just significant doubt based on what we are observing.

But it isn’t based on what we are observing(there is nothing about what we are observing that entails or idicates they have to evolve by “large steps”), it’s based on an assumption.

Protein evolution of the type requiring de novo sequences needs more empirical support.

You can always just say that and it’s just something you’re making up on the spot

This is a curve ball that Darwin did not anticipate.

No it’s not like he already wrote extensively on complex adaptations composed of many interacting parts like the eye, or entire organisms. Wait…

Irreducibly complexity indicates large steps. 30 proteins that need to work together to make the protein function. These are large steps. I think we need to base the discussion on empirical observation and not speculation. This is the rule not the exception.

No it doesn’t, completely made up.

That’s an assumption. You are not showing the assumption to be true, nor indicating it, just by re-stating it.

I agree, so stop doing that.

I won’t harbor any ill feelings.

1 Like

We already know how IC biological features form through co-option of function and genetic scaffolding. Once again the ID-Creationists area day late and a dollar short.

3 Likes

Remember that’s from the same guy who claims a disembodied mind used magic to POOF biological features into existence. :rofl:

Tsk tsk. Bill still confuses extant biological functions with their much simpler ancestral precursors of hundreds of millions of years ago. It’s like he just can’t grasp basic concepts like changing genotypes and phenotypes over time. It’s all a one time magic POOF or nothing.

Demonstrably? Well, can you tell us by which known processes the beta chain of ATP synthase demonstrably arose?