He uses the word interchangeably. If we can define a reason for the function then it is correct to say it has a purpose like mobility in the case of the flagellum.
Then show us specific differences between proteins where this was the case.
B cells go through lots of selection. First, any antibodies binding to self antigens are killed. Second, any random peptides that bind to foreign antigens are strongly selected for.
2 Likes
Then I will use it interchangeably with evolution. Therefore, a flagellum is a evolved arrangement of parts.
1 Like
Are you sure? How do you know? Do you think scientists spend all their time trying to make creationist numpties look foolish by finding their errors? Creationist numpties can look ridiculous all by themselves. Behe spoke of one virus in his, and an undergrad was able to find an example for that one virus in a few minutes, that was sitting right out there in the plain sight. How many others are also sitting out there, in organisms that Behe has not even looked at?
This is a matter of simple logic, not even science specifically. That one guy could not find something does not mean it does not exist.
No. But it does because of drift. In the absence of choloroquine there is no longer any selective pressures preventing the CR strains from declining in prevalance, so this is what happens in accordance with genetic drift. Basic stuff.
Thanks, Nigel.
2 Likes
Thatâs hilariously false, as you have been repeatedly told. New binding is trivial. Itâs also unnecessary that any of the binding be ânewâ, when it could merely be exaptation.
This represents a rather fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. They arenât necessarily intermediate towards the end product. What we would expect, instead, are reasonably well-functioning systems composed of partial sets of homologous proteins. And that is exactly what we see for these âirreducibleâ systems.
4 Likes
Nope, because your definition of Design allows this, as we have just demonstrated. If anyone could show examples of evolution that cannot also be claimed as Design, then there would be a distinction between the two. This would require testable claims about Design or the Designer, which isnât allowed.
Note: Ewertâs Dependency Graph, which I am fond of citing, makes a testable claim about how design could differ from evolution. This breaks the ID rule about inferences to the Designerâs actions. Ewertâs claim is a scientific hypothesis, for which I commend him. Heâs a braver man than anyone else in ID.
1 Like
What does this mean?
I define an evolved arrangement of parts as a system with multiple parts that has a function.
2 Likes
Evolution is defined as a blind and unguided process. A purposeful arrangement of parts is the opposite claim.
I agree with you that Ewert is doing hypothesis testing and that is unique.
IMO you need to look at Beheâs work more carefully. It goes hand in hand with Ewerts claims but covers a much broader reach as it is offering a method which can be used in different hypothesis.
They are an evolved arrangement of parts as I already defined them, so they fit perfectly.
2 Likes
How you personally choose to define evolution is not relevant. Definitions matter.
IMO if Behe had anything useful he would be testing his own hypothesis and publishing.
7 Likes
Does this mean you are claiming that they are the product of blind and unguided processes?
More carefully than we have in this discussion?
1 Like
And if Beheâs acolytes truly believed that he had anything useful theyâd be lining up to fund it or to help with their very own hands.
2 Likes
Are you claiming evolution is not a blind and unguided process?
1 Like
I am stating that your definition is incorrect. Definitions matter.
1 Like
They have multiple parts and perform a function. That is what I am claiming. This makes them an evolved arrangement of parts, by definition.
2 Likes
In which of those papers is Behe testing his own hypothesis, Bill?
1 Like
It is, but not by definition.
If it were the case that gravity works thru the actions of undetectable angels following Gods direct commands, it would not change the definition of gravity nor the equations we use to describe it.
2 Likes
I attached a article from 2012 from Jerry Coyne. This is the argument which supports about 30% of the US that believes that evolution by blind and unguided natural processes is true and refutes theistic evolution. Are you supporting theistic evolution? Clarity of ones position matters.
So you are defining evolved as a definition. What exactly does evolved mean to you. Do you agree with Jerry Coyne that the process is blind and unguided?