I don’t care if Behe beleives in a fairy tail with no scientific evidence to back it up- That is of NO concern to me as I explained in previous post. Behe can ASSUME and GUESS and PRESUME all he likes- it does NOTHING to show Macroevolution- His dogmatic adherence to assumptions, presumptions and guesses is nothign to me- His work on ID IS of interest to me precisely because it DOES have evidence to back it up- not some convoluted assumptions that it ‘could have happened despite the complete lack of evidence and the mathematical impoosibiliteis surrounding it, and despite the fact that Macroevolution ABSOLUTELY violates the second law at EVERY SINLE step of the way- which would include not just one, or two- or even a couple hundred steps of defiance to the law- but TRILLIONS of steps of ever increasing benificial and more complex advances.
[[I suspect you haven’t a clue about either abiogenesis or information. I also suspect you haven’t a clue about probability.]]
Gee- how quaint- And I suspect you will ignore Demski’s upper tolorance limits and insist mutations can still account for the vast variety of changes in species despite hte fact that Behe was being VERY generous in the allowances and still even one mutation couldn’t produce anythign close to the numbers needed for chance random forces to progress even one single system or cell- But please- do keep insinuating we haven’t a clue- Behe ignores the fact also that ENORMOUS societies are needed to advance just one mutation to a progressive state, and not simply an innocous benign state, and yet we have NO scientific evidence of the enormous societies that MUST have been present to accomplish this- pointing to bacteria and showing rapid MICROEVOLUTION in NO WAY is a defense for MACROEVOLUTION nor is it an evidentiary reality for it. I think it’s not ID proponents that are clueless but rather ...
You recommended I read Denton. Have you read Denton’s latest book?
[[I suspect you haven’t a clue about either abiogenesis or information. I also suspect you haven’t a clue about probability.]]
" Gee- how quaint- And I suspect you will ignore Demski’s upper tolorance limits and insist mutations can still account for the vast variety of changes in species despite hte fact that Behe was being VERY generous in the allowances and still even one mutation couldn’t produce anythign close to the numbers needed for chance random forces to progress even one single system or cell- But please- do keep insinuating we haven’t a clue-
This still doesn't tell me you personally understand abiogensis, information or probability. How can you make an informed and critical evaluation of ideas without some basic knowledge?
Are you talking about Dembski's "perturbation probability"? I hope you are aware that he set both the "perturbation tolerance factor", and the "perturbation identity factor" arbitrarily with no real justification for either value.
I also hope you are aware that the application of his perturbation probability to the genome is in no way similar to the application to language. Many proteins have more than one function, many functions can be produced by more than one protein, many alleles are made up of more than one gene, and genes spread themselves among different positions. Language has none of these features. The use of perturbation probability on proteins, or groups of proteins, above a certain size identifies all of them as designed. However, CSI is supposedly not based on size. Dembski's perturbation probability is a failure, it is arbitrary, gives false positives and contradicts specificity.
If your point is not about perturbation probability then please, explain what you are talking about.
"Behe ignores the fact also that ENORMOUS societies are needed to advance just one mutation to a progressive state, and not simply an innocous benign state,
I have no idea where you get this from but doesn't make a lot of sense.
Whether a mutation is considered, or acts, as a positive is based on the environmental selection at work, not the population size. Population size can regulate the speed of a particular mutation fixing, but somehow I doubt that is what you mean.
Are you trying to say that advantageous mutations need an enormous number of opportunities to occur? That may be true if mutations occurred with equal probability and had to wait until a selection pressure already existed but that doesn't happen often. Most often the mutation is neutral, meaning it is invisible to current selection, and becomes either deleterious or beneficial only when the environmental selection changes. Your understanding presupposes that all mutations will be single nucleotide changes which just isn't so. You also seem to be ignoring regulatory sequences and the developmental environment. They all matter.
Obviously, it is harder to develop beneficial mutations in response to selection changes, approximately 99% of all living things have become extinct, but successful strategies are passed on from species to species as well as from generation to generation. Common descent gives us a pretty large population in which to experiment.
" and yet we have NO scientific evidence of the enormous societies that MUST have been present to accomplish this- pointing to bacteria and showing rapid MICROEVOLUTION in NO WAY is a defense for MACROEVOLUTION nor is it an evidentiary reality for it. I think it’s not ID proponents that are clueless but rather ...
Yet it is the 'clueless' evolutionary biologists which do all the research.
Until you can come up with a 'valid' argument against micro evolution becoming macro evolution through multiple iterations; some physical constraint perhaps, your assertion that there is an impediment is just that, an assertion. The valid argument you come up with has to be mathematically valid, logically valid, and biologically valid; it has to account for all current observations, not just a few cherry picked ones. So far all your arguments have failed one or more of those criteria.