# The Problem with the ID Argument

The problem with the ID argument is that it assumes 1) this is the only functional protein in the entire universe, and 2) it must be obtained on the first try. It is astonishing that, for over twenty years, educated adults have been making this error, over and over again.

9 Likes

I donâ€™t think you understand what you are arguing against. None of these are conditions of the ID argument.

Yes they are Bill. Every last â€śitâ€™s too improbable to evolve, must be Designed!!â€ť ID probability calculation makes the same two basic errors. Every. Last. One. Just like you they always â€śaccidentallyâ€ť completely omit the feedback from iterative rounds of selection.

Let the sealioning begin.

2 Likes

You need to support this claim.

Show us an ID â€śitâ€™s too improbableâ€ť calculation which correctly models the actual evolutionary processes involving many iterative rounds of selection feedback.

If you canâ€™t then you agree my assessment is correct.

3 Likes

If you think your assessment is ok you need to study the ID arguments more closely. Exactly what does Meyer claim. Exactly what does Behe claim. Until you answer this accurately you are essentially arguing against yourself.

Thank you for admitting you can provide no ID probability calculations which model actual evolutionary processes with selection feedback.

Thank you for confirming my assessment is correct.

3 Likes

I can support the claim. Just not now.

If thatâ€™s the case, then they donâ€™t know how to use math to support their argument.

I was not referring to every single argument ID creationists make. I was referring to a specific argument. That help?

Can you articulate Meyers and Beheâ€™s arguments without error? These arguments have been refined over many years. Most of the opponents I see misrepresent them.

Iâ€™m not talking about Behe and Meyer. Try pay attention to what is being discussed.

My apologies.

So how is this coming, BIll?

A perfect example is gpuccioâ€™s argument involving ubiquitin. gpuccio never demonstrates that ubiquitin is the only possible protein that can function in a system that clears misfolded proteins, nor does he show that proteins similar to ubiquitin lack function.

2 Likes

I donâ€™t think this is required to make his point. You are committing the any function will do fallacy

It is required, as explained in the opening post.

1 Like

You donâ€™t understand his argument.

Such a statement should be followed by an explanation of how I have misunderstood the argument.

1 Like

I have been. You seem to be failing.

1 Like