Replies

Stick to what is actually said in the link you provided. Behe’s probability calculations are based on the necessity of two necessary mutations occurring simultaneously.

Actual laboratory experiments have seen two and even three “necessary” mutations occurring in sequence, with earlier mutations conferring little or no benefit.

But the specific example cited in Behe’s book, that of malaria acquiring resistance to chloroquine is simple factually inaccurate.

All Behe does is propose some structure as being irreducible, and when it is shown to be reducible, he backpedals. Not a strong position.

It’s greatest weakness as a line of argument is that we now have the tools and technology to test it.

As I say, the pregame show is over, Get some popcorn.

The protein I'm working on, for example, has one clear catalytic activity. But then it was discovered that it also binds DNA and serves as a transcriptional activator. Then several weak/rare interactions with other proteins were discovered. Then it was found that three different modification (acetylation, phosphorylaton, nitrosation) at different places alter its DNA-binding specificity, changing which genes it activates and which it supresses.

Swell, research shows how DNA woks-

So we do know a great deal about the “underlying DNA”, and how it exactly changes.

Super!

In laboratory and nature, we have observed all required processes: evolution of new protein interactions, evolution of new signalling pathways, evolution of new catalytic activities.

Here's where the a priori assumptions start- per usual this fella is insinuating that the process of Macroevolution has been observed, when infact it hasn't- The only hting that has been observed is MICROEvolution-

I don't know how I can be more clear about this: we have not found anything in nature that cannot be explained by these processes. Every step is known and seen - all that needs to happen is for these steps to occur one after another, and change is inevitable.

Hooray- We've discovered MICROEvolution.

In other words, according to everything we know about DNA and genetics, unless an organism lives in a pretty much absolutely unchanging environment, it WILL change over time.

Woohoo- more MICROEvolution

These changes will involve creation of novel biochemical systems of the kind Behe simply states cannot be created;

Behe claism NO such hting! This is a blad faced lie- Apparenrtly this is all macroevolutionists have for hteir defense?

Behe’s entire argument used to rest on picking poorly understood biochemical systems, and stating that they are irreducibly complex. This obviously didn't work - over the years, the systems he used were slowly examined, described, and it was found that there is nothing irreducibly complex about them.

LIE! What was discovered was that there ARE Reducible components to IRREDUCIBLE systems- that's it! This in NO way undermines the fact that the IRREDUCIBLE parts can NOT be reduced without malfunctioning and affectign hte species.

So his new approach is to simply fudge the numbers, and directly obfuscate well known facts of biology; a wise choice, given that this approach has served generations of old-style creationists very well.

Ignorant ad hominem attacks that ingore the FACTS. Gee- I didn't see this coming from an 'old school Macroevos' attempting to childishly defend his position with petty broad irrelevent false claims.

Note the differences in our two posts- Mine include actual scientific facts, which support what Behe said and claims, while the ones you posted include deceitful examples of MICROEvolution as though it were some supposed 'refutation' of Behe's book.

Again- le'ts bring soem itnellectually honest discussion to hte table- it's annoying pointing out how intellectually dishonest the supposed refutaitosn against Behe really are. IF you have soem evidnece that is intellectually honest and actually refutes what Behe actually claims, instead of what liars claim he said, then certainly bring it to hte table.

[[Stick to what is actually said in the link you provided. Behe’s probability calculations are based on the necessity of two necessary mutations occurring simultaneously.]]

I’m not goign to spend all day on this as your argument is goign absolutely nowhere-

Yes, Behe’s calculations are based o nthat- this however does NOT undermine his claims- the calculatiosn are indeed VERY small for two simultanious mutaitons to occure simultaniously- However, AGAIN, he NEVER said incremental mutaitons do NOT occure in nature as his critics have falsely claiemd he said- that is just a blatant lie claimign that.

[[Actual laboratory experiments have seen two and even three “necessary” mutations occurring in sequence, with earlier mutations conferring little or no benefit.]]

Swell, Experiments have shown that previous abilities known to exist in the wild can be turned on when exposed to unatural quantities of Citrates- big deal- this again just goes to show that metainfo controls future abilities that all fall squarely within designed species specific paramters- Yawn!

[[All Behe does is propose some structure as being irreducible, and when it is shown to be reducible, he backpedals. Not a strong position.]]

He hasn’t backpeddled on this at all- the IC parts can NOT be reduced- and quite frasnkly, IC exists at far greater amounts than Behe previously htought- You remember, the thread you exitted abotu life’s irreducible structures’?

[[It’s greatest weakness as a line of argument is that we now have the tools and technology to test it.]]

Yup- we sure do, and oyu’d better make another batch of popcorn, because what we are finding is that ‘Hey- IC is more prevelent and necessary than we first thought, and by golly, Nature is simply incapable of producing hte necessary metainfo and the 5 points of heirarchy needed for life ot exist. And we’re findign quite conclusively that it’s impossible to produce info from dirty chemicals in quantities and complexities needed for biological life. So yeah- do grab your popcorn- the show is just beginning cotnrary to your downplaying claims