I just posted you an explanation.
Not surprised with this opinion
The three hypotheses.
Behe: Irreducibly systems (flagellum) create a strong challenge to the RMNS mechanism. A purposeful arrangement of parts is best explained by a mind.
-Tested by knock out experiments to the flagellum and idaho state.
Meyer: ID is based on the evidence that what we observe in the cell (DNA and Protein sequences) are best explained by a mind as a cause.
-Test Axe
-Test gpuccio
-Test Durston
Test Dawkins with weasel program. RMNS plus a mind generated sequence as a target allows a complex sequence to form.
Ewert: The gene patterns we observe in lifeās diversity best follow a dependency chart vs a tree.
Test: Dependency chart he generated and tested against itself and a tree.
Those arenāt hypotheses, Bill.
āIdaho stateā?
Can you help formulate a hypothesis?
Help me to understand thisābecause it sounds like a typical ID rebuttal argument which goes something like this (with only a little bit of exaggeration to emphasize my point):
Evolutionary biologist: āEvolutionary processes producing more efficient solutions and structures without involving an intelligent agent can be illustrated by evolutionary algorithms.ā
ID advocate: āNo. EAs actually illustrate intelligent design because it took an intelligent agent to write the software and build-in the target goal the programmer wanted. I challenge you to use an illustration where a human mind isnāt involved!ā
Beheās initial formulation of āIrreducible Complexityā was in the form of a valid hypothesis: He hypothesized that there could be no arrangement of some, but not all, of the components of the flagellum that would continue to perform a function.
And when his hypothesis was falsified, he did what any good scientist would do: Admitted that his hypothesis was wrong, thanked the scientists who had shown this, and no longer claimed his hypothesis was correct.
Oh, wait. Thatās not what he did at all, was it?
Itās the 3rd Law of Creationism:
The Dover Trial transcript, especially the Behe cross-ex, is very much worth reading. It is easy to find online.
Oh, Iāve read it.
The key here is that a mind can make a sequence. This is a very reliable tool for the job. The only reliable algorithmic sequence generator I have seen requires the sequence that is generated by a mind.
@colewd, have you read it? If yes, I would be very interested in your reaction to what happenedāespecially where Behe admitted that he hadnāt bothered to look for the peer-reviewed articles in major journals which completely undermined his claims. If I recall correctly, when asked why he didnāt investigate, he basically said that he wasnāt that interested in those details. (If I misunderstood him, by all means do correct me.)
As someone who has written his share of evolutionary algorithms (though in my day we called them genetic algorithms), I would encourage you to investigate more examples. The most interesting EAs produce amazing solutions which the programmer could not possibly have imagined.
When I taught analysis of algorithms, EAs (GAs) were some of the most interesting to express mathematicallyābut I found that even many of my upper-level undergrad majors lacked enough solid mathematics background to really grasp omicro-notation (O-notation) in terms of function growth.
I agree.
The big challenge though is generating a sequence.
Why? I donāt follow.
Respectfully, I think you are wrong. This is giving tacit approval to an ID hypothesis that doesnāt exist. Your points 1 and 2 are correct IF there is some alternative explanation for how functional proteins are designed rather than evolved, but that is never the case.
There are so many ways to arrange it. That number is calculated by N^L where N is the number of possible characters and L is the length of the sequence. For example your 10 digit telephone number has 10^10 or 10 billion possible arrangements. You can play with them here. You will see if the character count gets high enough its tough to find the sequence even with the target in the algorithm. This issue is a major source or my skepticism.
I will check it out. (Did you check out the Behe cross-ex in the Dover Trial?)
In my experience this is characterizing the most amateurish of ID advocates and not the āprofessionalsāābut I agree that those worst arguments have influenced a lot of people. I vaguely recall a Moody Science film of long ago (which was promoted in a lot of churches and Christian schools by ācreation scienceā advocates long before ID came on the scene) which featured the famous actor Hal Holbrook making a somewhat analogous argument. It was all about probabilities using simple math illustrations and convincing the audience that the universe, even over billions of years, could never get the pattern right in countless tries. So it was guilty of #1 but not #2. [And, no, Iām not at all headed towards the easy laugh here.]