Reviewing Behe's "Darwin Devolves"

You are confusing code with precision execution. If the computer can run precisely on 10% of the code who cares. You are missing the boat here.

So your theory is based on a phantom system that you speculate existed?

This is such a silly claim. The evolutionary path we are observing are pretty close to what could happen. These systems are interdependent.

Yes I am modifying it to it is exceeding unlikely it evolved,

Please provide the scientific research which supports this remarkable claim. You seem to be engaged in Bill Cole fantasy wishful thinking again.

How exceedingly unlikely, and how did you determine the actual probabilities involved?

1 Like

Before there was I.D… there was just God-the-Designer… with no silly political aspirations.

To Christian Evolutionists… God as Designer is the default position… not based on proof but based on Faith.

We dont have to worry about I.D. let the Lobbyists worry about I.D.

It’s simple Tim. Proteins don’t work in a vacuum they are interdependent meaning they must bind with each other. If a sequence evolves is transcribed, translated, folds and does not bind with anything currently in the cell it is non functional. Once molecular evolution starts it becomes directional by definition.

Nice argument Tim :slight_smile:

Not an argument, just an empirical observation.

So that falsifies your claim that it was required for multicellularity, because the evidence is that it was already there.

And what I know as an actual biologist is that “controls” is not synonymous with “is required for.” You just made it up.

Also, as an actual biologist, I have no idea what you mean by “embryo pathways.” That’s something else that you just made up.

This is absurd, Bill. Proteins are insanely sticky.

They stick to themselves, they stick to each other. When purifying them, one must be extremely careful to dilute protein solutions so that they DON’T precipitate (bind to each other).

Name 5 soluble proteins if you disagree.

And true. I’d add that you’re clueless about biochemistry and developmental biology, too, but you still pretend that you know more than the experts in both.

Falsifies the claim? That would say the systems are identical which they are not…not even close.

And I know as someone who has researched this for several years there are embryo pathways. WNT/ Sonic hedgehog are examples. There are thousands of papers on pubmed where you can learn about embryo pathways.

You claim to be an expert and don’t understand embryo pathways like WNT? Are you an expert John?

What function does the same protein binding with itself have?

Where “researched” means read the DI’s anti-science propaganda site Evolution Spews & Snooze, AIG, and Chick tracts.

That doesn’t say the systems are identical. It falsifies your fabricated claim.

No, that is a SIGNALING pathway. You would use the correct term if you had “researched for several years.” No, you just made it up.

If you are correct, why do I get this response when I search PubMed for “embryo pathway” or “embryo pathways”:

Quoted phrase not found.

Because you just made it up.

And, you just gave your shallow approach away. You find abstracts on PubMed. How many times have you gone beyond the abstract and read the paper, Bill?

Why don’t you check? Don’t look now, but you just revealed your inability to use PubMed.

Usually, none. It’s what they do, though, so binding is not nearly as difficult as the ID touts make it out to be. If you understood the most basic biochemistry you’d understand why.

Do you not know of any cases of a protein binding to itself? Perhaps you should use your formidable PubMed-Fu and look up “homodimer,” “homotrimer,” “homotetramer,” and so on. Do you not know the meaning of such terms?

They’re certainly infinitely more common in the scientific literature that your term “embryo pathway”!

So get hung up to the use of the word embryo pathways. We could call it a development pathway or cancer pathway or signal pathway. This is not the point. You are trying to argue from authority.

I will yield to you having superior knowledge of biochemistry.

The real point of course is once again you got burned by regurgitating a term you picked up somewhere but didn’t know what it meant, then tried to bluff your way through. Then you act surprised when you get called on the nonsense.

The word? It’s two words. It’s called a signalING pathway. Or signalLING pathway if you’re British/Indian/Australian. :wink: Or signal transduction. I’m pretty sure that you’re only going to find “signal pathway” being used by nonnative English authors. Is “Bill Cole” a pseudonym?

The point is that your claim of doing so much “research” is a fabrication. You’re constantly bluffing. Your understanding of biology and evolution is clearly inferior to that of a mediocre high-school student.

And I’m not arguing from authority at all. I’m amply supporting what I write with evidence. You’re the one making ex cathedra pronouncements about subjects in which you are obviously ignorant.

That’s mighty big of you, given that you didn’t even know that proteins are inherently sticky and you’ve clearly never heard of a homodimer.

But in which fields are you claiming that your knowledge is superior to mine?

John
This is an argument from ignorance. You don’t know what I know at this point. I have admitted that I do not have your knowledge of biochemistry. Whither I know less about how eukaryotic cells operate is not clear yet. You are quibbling over trivial issues like calling a signaling pathway that is active in embryo development an embryo pathway.

Again John you are making assumptions that you have no idea about.