You are mistaken, but it doesn’t matter since no one else here considers him a reliable source.
You continue to repeat this claim after having it repeatedly demonstrated as false. This is dishonest.
And again, even if we accept your number of ‘new’ interactions, if there should be three that’s not a problem. So without demonstrating the number of ‘new’ interactions needed, you have no point.
And so far, you haven’t demonstrated there should be any new interactions, rather than modified existing interactions.
Gears and motors in nature are part of living creatures, so by using that criteria we should conclude machines are living creatures because they contain gears and motors.
Or it is possible, the one has nothing to do with the other. Living machines, however, are more fun.
Stop quote mining and look at evidence. What are you afraid of?
No, he treats it as binary, as you are doing, ignoring the evidence.
I don’t, because he didn’t bother for evolution of the immune system, malaria, or HIV, three systems that he chose to make a global case with.
So you just made it up on the fly. You have zero basis for ignoring the rapid evolution of protein-protein binding sites, and even enzymes, by the immune system.
Do they have to have dozens? Isn’t the idea that even one protein-protein binding spot is beyond Behe’s edge?
Is this going to be one of those “ah I see three binding spots evolved, but then the edge is four, show me four!” kind of arguments? Have you preemptively moved the goalposts to 15 just to be sure? “Show me 15 new protein-protein binding spots evolving in about a decade or evolution is false”.
By that criteria we would conclude that human’s designed (at least some of) nature, which is absurd.
There IS another possibility here, which is that the assumptions you are making are wrong, or at least not relevant to the question. I know enough about probability and statistics to understand why this argument fails. I suggest you find your own statistician or mathematician and ask them.
its not an assumption but actually base on scientific data.
no. we can conclude design. not a specific designer.
feel free to show where im wrong here. my claim was that if its very rare to get a specific function, then natural selection cant help to get that function. on what point do you disagree?
Texas Sharpshooter! You are implicitly assuming that there are not a large number (millions? billions? trillions? etc, etc) of other rare mutations that might have likewise given a selective advantage. Natural selection does not go looking for a “specific” advantageous mutation – any advantageous mutation will do.
I’d say that the rarity of the function among sequences is not sufficient to come to any conclusion at all. If you think otherwise, then you will need to justify it.
Let’s also remember that most ID-creationists still accept that many species are still related to each other (often but not always under the ‘family’ taxonomic rank). Even within those so-called “created kinds”, you have gene gains and losses. Although, instances of gene gains within these kinds are often re-interpreted as “that gene was originally there in the created ancestor, and every other member of the kind must have lost that particular gene instead”, which is extremely non-parsimonious and this is merely an ad hoc rationalization as it is only invoked as a means to maintain the “no new information can evolve” narrative.
And it is worse for the YEC, since this means that (according to them) gene gain and losses occurred at a much greater frequency than even according to the “evolutionists”.
not in this case, since we are talking about convergent evolution. so we only need to know what is the chance to get a specific function, and then we can know what is the chance to get it again.
here is one instance:
“Extrapolating from our data and from modest sequence constraints on interhelical turns (23, 28–30), we can estimate that if every position in the protein had been randomized, a library of ≈10^24 members would have been needed to obtain AroQ mutases.”
There is evidentiary argument that supports his claim. You may disagree with the finding but to say it is completely made up is not accurate. The number could very well be conservative.
