Replies

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.

Sir,

I am not about to argue with symantics of macro vs. micro evolution, nor am I equipped to discuss every exception to every rule. I will say that your eagerness to stratify objectivists into distinct categories (pro/con macro-evolution) I find to be of questionable intent and utility, but such are merely the egotistical judgements of one Man, and as such, not of any more particular utility;)

As a professional engineer who utilizes objective science (specifically, principles of abstract math and computation, combined with theories about the reproductive effectiveness of particular algorithms (organisms) within particular computational environments), My interest in science and objectivity is entirely and completely functional in nature. I could not care less about the ontological Truth of any given theory, only it’s ability to help me predict, and hence engineer the given domain in which I work.

That said, the biggest problem I have Ever had with ID is simply this- I have yet to find a single situation where an ID theory provides any additional functional predictive benefit above and beyond it’s evolutionary antithesis. To try and clarify- So yes, There are plenty of Scientifically rigorous Intellectual Theories which falsify parts (or all, I don’t claim to know) of macro-evolution by proving the predictions of macro-evolution wrong in specific cases, but is there a single I.D. Theory which, in addition to falsifying some aspect of macro-evolution, also provides verifiable, testable and practical rules of thumb which enable scientists and practical professionals such as my self to better predict, model and affect their world? Could you give me an example of a practical engineering breakthrough brought about by I.D. Theory that would not have been possible with merely macro-evolutionary theoretical modeling?

If there is, then I will admit that perhaps I’ve mis-judged ID.