Rich Lenski takes down Michael Behe and his ID creationism: Part IV

[Mung]

@Edgar_Tamarian

if a person writes 3 books, why he obligated to carry all information in the previous two books into the third one?

Well, the truth of the argument in his new book depends upon the truth of the arguments in his previous books. It follows that he is obligated to repeat himself.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Lenski claims that Behe wants to see a new gene identified before we can admit a new function. Can such a thing occur? A new gene erupt from one of these kinds of experiments?

Yes. An example is a new beta-galactosidase that evolved in a series of experiments run by Barry Hall.

Reference.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

series of experiments run by Barry Hal

Lots there. I will read in the future. Sum it for me. Was a new function identified?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

Lots there. I will read in the future. Sum it for me. Was a new function identified?

First you must define what you mean by “new”. What would qualify as “new” in your view?

How different must A be from B, before A can be considered “new”, as opposed to merely a “modification” or “variation” of B?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Lots there. I will read in the future. Sum it for me. Was a new function identified?

As stated earlier, a new function in the form of a new beta-galactosidase was identified.

[r_speir]

@Rumraket

What would qualify as “new

Not important.

Lenski says, “Lambda’s J protein required several well-matched, interacting amino acids to enable infection via the host’s OmpF receptor. Removing any one of them leaves the virus unable to perform that function”

In this, and other ways, he seems to have gained ground over Behe. But to defeat Behe is not sufficient is it. What must evolutionists do now to bring these preliminary evidences into a picture that becomes credible for their argument?

Did Lenski actually witness an irreducibly complex system? Yes, you say? Ok, Now what?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

Not important.

Of course it’s important because if you don’t first define what you mean by that word, you can just weasel out of conceding that a new function evolved in the beta-galactosidase study you were referenced because it doesn’t qualify as what you meant.

If you don’t define new, I’ll do it for you and you’ll not like my definition.

[r_speir]

@Rumraket

If you don’t define new

What I mean is I don’t care because if Lenski is correct he has already identified the arrival of a new function without the addition of a new gene.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

In this, and other ways, he seems to have gained ground over Behe. But to defeat Behe is not sufficient is it. What must evolutionists do now to bring these preliminary evidences into a picture that becomes credible for their argument?

Why doesn’t Behe need to bring any evidence into the picture before his arguments are credible?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

What must evolutionists do now to bring these preliminary evidences into a picture that becomes credible for their argument?

What they’ve already and always done: Build models and compare their predictions to observations.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Why doesn’t Behe need to bring any evidence

You keep Behe’s job small because your evidences are small. Now, indeed, you have seemed to prove some pretty surprising things that seem to support your argument. But you have a mountain to climb whereas all Behe has to do is simply to keep throwing rocks. Your job is much harder. You now have to move forward in this thing and show us how the sum of parts can produce a whole when it comes to irreducible complexity.

[r_speir]

@r_speir

sum of parts can produce a whole

A functioning machine, that is. Not just a string of mutations.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

You keep Behe’s job small because your evidences are small.

Why doesn’t that work in reverse? Our job is small because Behe’s evidence is non-existent.

@r_speir

But you have a mountain to climb whereas all Behe has to do is simply to keep throwing rocks.

Why doesn’t Behe have to climb a mountain?

@r_speir

You now have to move forward in this thing and show us how the sum of parts can produce a whole when it comes to irreducible complexity.

Why doesn’t Behe have to show how these systems are designed? Do you accept his claims without an ounce of evidence?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

A functioning machine, that is. Not just a string of mutations.

Mutations count:

“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary‐but‐unselected mutations) (Behe 2000).”

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

You keep Behe’s job small because your evidences are small. Now, indeed, you have seemed to prove some pretty surprising things that seem to support your argument. But you have a mountain to climb whereas all Behe has to do is simply to keep throwing rocks. Your job is much harder. You now have to move forward in this thing and show us how the sum of parts can produce a whole when it comes to irreducible complexity.

So Behe has to basically just point to a handful of degenerative mutations, and that is enough for you to believe that this suffices to show that the totality of evolution will always amount to a history of degeneration?

But scientists now need to do what? It’s not even clear what you would consider to refute Behe. How many constructive mutations are enough? What are the relevant proportions, have you even thought about that?

[r_speir]

@Rumraket

evolution will always amount to a history of degeneration?

@Rumraket

It’s not even clear what you would consider to refute Behe.

You’re not reading. I gave Lenski credit.

But here is what you lack. The lambda virus is the prototype of the mutated lambda virus. Lenski demonstrated that.

So what is the prototype of this?

Is your science able to extrapolate backwards and demonstrate from where this functioning machine may have arisen?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

So what is the prototype of this?

You tell us. What did the bacteria have just before they acquired their flagella?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

You tell us. What did the bacteria have just before they acquired their flagella?

Did bacteria without flagella acquire flagella or did those bacteria always have flagella?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Did bacteria without flagella acquire flagella or did those bacteria always have flagella?

That is a question the ID community needs to answer.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

You’re not reading.

I’m reading just fine, the problem is your muddied thinking, or perhaps you’re bad at expressing yourself.

I gave Lenski credit.

What does that have to do with anything? You wrote that “you you have a mountain to climb whereas all Behe has to do is simply to keep throwing rocks. Your job is much harder.” and I pointed out the double standard at work here.

But here is what you lack. The lambda virus is the prototype of the mutated lambda virus. Lenski demonstrated that.

There really isn’t such a thing as a prototype. There was a wild-type lambda virus that was the ancestor of the now extant lambda virus, and the ancestor of the lambda virus used in the lenski experiment.

So what is the prototype of this?

Do you mean ancestor?

Is your science able to extrapolate backwards and demonstrate from where this functioning machine may have arisen?

So you want a hypothesis for the origin of the flagellum based on molecular biology and evolutionary theory, right? Yes in fact it is.

Is yours? Give me an equally detailed hypothesis for the origin of the flagellum by IDcreationism please. Show me the key predictions of the ID model for the flagellum’s origin, and the experiments done that test any aspects of this flagellum-origin-by-design model.