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.
I don’t think you understand what you are arguing against. None of these are conditions of the ID argument.
Yes they are Bill. Every last “it’s too improbable to evolve, must be Designed!!” ID probability calculation makes the same two basic errors. Every. Last. One. Just like you they always “accidentally” completely omit the feedback from iterative rounds of selection.
Let the sealioning begin.
You need to support this claim.
Show us an ID “it’s too improbable” calculation which correctly models the actual evolutionary processes involving many iterative rounds of selection feedback.
If you can’t then you agree my assessment is correct.
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.
I can support the claim. Just not now.
If that’s the case, then they don’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 Behe’s arguments without error? These arguments have been refined over many years. Most of the opponents I see misrepresent them.
I’m not talking about Behe and Meyer. Try pay attention to what is being discussed.
So how is this coming, BIll?
Just follow the discussion with Art and Salvador.
A perfect example is gpuccio’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.
I don’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.
You don’t understand his argument.
Such a statement should be followed by an explanation of how I have misunderstood the argument.
I have been. You seem to be failing.