Yes, josh should have to do this in ten minutes…
This is one of the big advantages ID proponents have in these things.
They can just say Design! Ooga booga!
The evolutionary biologist has to go over numerous papers. In 10 minutes…
2 Likes
ID pitches to the “big tent” of Creationist beliefs. Even if Behe himself accepts human-chimp common ancestry he won’t admit it in public for fear of alienating the “I ain’t related to no ape!” crowd.
ID-Creation isn’t about science, never has been. Behe has to keep the donors happy and the cash flow coming.
2 Likes
Sorry I don’t buy that for one second. The exact words on Behe’s slide which he read were
“The Bacterial Flagellum: More than 20 years after Darwin’s Black Box there has not been even an attempt to explain it in Darwinian terms. It remains at utter mystery”
That is a flat out lie, no two ways about it. Beside the well known Nic Matzke paper in Nature From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella there have been around 600 published papers on the evolution of all parts of the flagellum.
Here is an overview of a 2018 paper
Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors
Like human-made motors, these nanoscale machines have distinct ‘stator’ and ‘rotor’ components that spin against each other. The structure of these motors determines their power and the bacteria’s swimming ability.
Previously, Imperial College researcher Morgan Beeby and co-authors looked at these motors and discovered a key factor that determined how strongly bacteria could swim.
They found that the more stator structures the bacterial motor possessed, the larger its turning force, and the stronger the bacterium swam.
Despite these differences, DNA sequence analysis shows that the core motors are ancestrally related. This led the team to question how structure and swimming diversity evolved from the same core design.
Now, in new research published in the journal Scientific Reports , Dr. Beeby’s team was able to build a ‘family tree’ of bacterial motors by combining 3D imaging with DNA analysis.
This allowed them to understand what ancestral motors may have looked like, and how they could have evolved into the sophisticated motors seen today.
The scientists found a clear difference between the motors of primitive and sophisticated bacterial species. While many primitive species had around 12 stators, more sophisticated species had around 17 stators. This, together with DNA analysis, suggested that ancient motors may also have only had 12 stators.
“This clear separation between primitive and sophisticated species represents a ‘quantum leap’ in evolution,” the authors said.
“Our study reveals that the increase in motor power capacity is likely the result of existing structures fusing. This forms a structural scaffold to incorporate more stators, which combine to drive rotation with higher force.”
When Behe barfed up that lie I would have loved to see Dr. S drop a big pile of science journals with flagellar evolution research in front of Behe just like happened to him at Dover. 
4 Likes
Dr. Swamidass didn’t bring up Neutral Theory. Behe did in one of his later slides.
2 Likes
Perhaps we could put together a list of Top Questions to ask Behe. Considering how much time we spend here trying to anticipate what Behe’s position would be, we advanced hardly at all in getting the key questions answered!
I brought up NT as evidence for common descent, and Behe agrees. I’m not sure what he was disputing.
1 Like
Thanks for coming @cwhenderson and @AllenWitmerMiller!
3 Likes
You brought up neutral theory while the slide about the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism was up which reads:
"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
You said that when you learned more science you realized “everyone actually agrees with this”, and started talking about Kimura and neutral theory. The audio of this video is hard to hear but you very clearly said that Kimura showed that “while natural…positive selection driven change could not account for molecular machines, could not account for changes in DNA and that neutral mechanisms could.”
You went on to mention molecular machines again. I remember this part of the debate very clearly because I immediately almost jumped out of my seat. Did you misspeak?
Right about 1:45 of this video.
Now for those who say this wasn’t a debate, the event details describe it as both a “spirited discussion” and a “debate” quite clearly here. Click on “view details”. This is what every single attendee saw during the process of getting their ticket, including me.
Do you understand “Darwinism” hasn’t been the scientific consensus for close to 70 years and the DI’s “Dissent from Darwinism” is just worthless political propaganda?
1 Like
I would agree with that statement, and I accept the theory of evolution. I think there are more evolutionary mechanisms than just random mutation and natural selection, and those are included in the modern theory of evolution. I also agree that we should carefully examine every single theory in science, since that is what science is all about.
Do you see the problem? Scientists can agree with that statement and not reject evolution, and it certainly doesn’t indicate an acceptance of intelligent design.
4 Likes
No, I did not misspeak. It is well known that positive selection alone cannot account for molecular machines. You also need constructive neutral evolution: Constructive Neutral Evolution. If I recall correctly, I said “Neutral Theory as described by Kimura” does not explain new functions, which is entirely accurate, but Constructive Neutral Evolution does, as do many other mechanism.
Don’t forget: X-Men Constructive Neutral Evolution.
Exactly.
3 Likes
So your claim is that the bacterial flagellum can be explained by Constructive Neutral Evolution?
I’d love to hear this.
Try reading what I wrote and comparing it with what you wrote. If you can’t paraphrase such a simple statement without adding additional superfluous claims, I can’t help you.
2 Likes
Behe brings up the flagellum, as expected.
You say you agree that Darwinian evolution cannot account for it, then you say neutral evolution can.
Now you are claiming you never claimed that. Do you have an alternative explanation for the flagellum or not?
Wow, really? That is not what I said. Please reread what I wrote, perhaps several times.
4 Likes
It doesn’t matter if we have an explanation or not. You can’t jump from “I don’t know” to “God did it”. There is no logic that gets you from one to the other. If Behe can’t show us how God made the flagellum, can we use that as evidence for the evolution of the system?
1 Like
Do you have an explanation for the bacterial flagellum or not?
Please show me where I claimed to have an explanation for the bacterial flagellum at the detail required to satisfy Behe or you? Please show me where I even claimed to have any explanation for the bacterial flagellum?
Why would you make stuff up like this @BenKissling?
1 Like
Unbelievable.
This is supposed to be where you explain stuff in further detail. But you won’t even answer a simple question.