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.
Yes. An example is a new beta-galactosidase that evolved in a series of experiments run by Barry Hall.
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 ânewâ. What would qualify as ânewâ in your view?
How different must A be from B, before A can be considered ânewâ, as opposed to merely a âmodificationâ or âvariationâ of B?
As stated earlier, a new function in the form of a new beta-galactosidase was identified.
Not important.
Lenski says, âLambdaâs J protein required several well-matched, interacting amino acids to enable infection via the hostâs OmpF receptor. Removing any one of them leaves the virus unable to perform that functionâ
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?
Of course itâs important because if you donât 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 doesnât qualify as what you meant.
If you donât define new, Iâll do it for you and youâll not like my definition.
What I mean is I donât care because if Lenski is correct he has already identified the arrival of a new function without the addition of a new gene.
Why doesnât Behe need to bring any evidence into the picture before his arguments are credible?
What theyâve already and always done: Build models and compare their predictions to observations.
You keep Beheâs 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.
A functioning machine, that is. Not just a string of mutations.
Why doesnât that work in reverse? Our job is small because Beheâs evidence is non-existent.
Why doesnât Behe have to climb a mountain?
Why doesnât Behe have to show how these systems are designed? Do you accept his claims without an ounce of evidence?
Mutations count:
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? Itâs 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?
Youâre 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?
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?
That is a question the ID community needs to answer.
Iâm reading just fine, the problem is your muddied thinking, or perhaps youâre bad at expressing yourself.
I gave Lenski credit.
What does that have to do with anything? You wrote that âyou you have a mountain to climb whereas all Behe has to do is simply to keep throwing rocks. Your job is much harder.â 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 isnât 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 flagellumâs origin, and the experiments done that test any aspects of this flagellum-origin-by-design model.