[[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.
all of Behe and Demskis arguments have failed? How so? You’ve doen nothign to show that macroevolution is even remotely possible, and htey’ve given some VERY serious probability limits that put the kaboshes to the idea totally- As well, the mathematical improbabilities calculated by the Wistar scientists make the idea of Macroevolution an impossiblity- Simply insinuating htat it isn’t entirely impossible, that a slight chance so miniscule as to be almost nill means the trillions of positive mutaitons needed for Macroevolution simply isn’t a rational feasbility.
[[The math is probably accurate depending on the size of the genes being calculated but it has nothing to do with reality or biology. It is based on irrelevant assumptions.]]
Irrelevent assumptions? please do explain. The fact is that these calculations are not just based on the necessity of one or several or even a few hundred positive mutations being produced, it’s based on the fact that the myriad of system changes that number in the trillions would neeed just as many positive and ever increasingly complex mutations in order for Macro to be aeven a slgiht possibility. The fact is that in al lthe years of study, practically every mutation seen has been either deleterious or neutral with only a VERY few having a benign unintended immediate positive effect, but the mutations htemselves are still deleteriosu and add to increased deaths. If we’re goign to talk about irrelevent assumptions, then we’re goign to have to include the assumptions that the process of Macroevolution solely rely on because wwe have nothign but assumptions to go on
[[Mutation varies, selection directs.]]
Selection directs MICROEvolution- there is no proof that it directed Macroevolution- none- there are only assumptions that it must have
[[No genes were produced by random chance. No evolutionary biologist claims they were. This by itself debunks this ‘proof’.]
That doesn’t disprove their calculations at all- of course the genes had to be produced by random chance- A mutation is a random mistake regardless of the selective pressures.
[[If evolution had to start with E. coli, and could not rely on the determinism of chemistry, the guidance of selection, and the tendency of simple processes passed through multiple iterations to result in complex structures, then he might have a point. However, that isn’t the case, life began from much simpler molecules and through the process of imperfect replication (just as happens now in DNA/RNA) filtered through selection (just as happens today) and through multiple iterations of those two, has developed complexity.]
Order from chaos does nothign to explain the intense complexities of even the ‘simplest’ life forms- the only examples of order from chaos given are VERY simplistic examples, and to suggest that the immense intelligently designed features of the myriad of species we have today came from ordered chaos of the most simplistic means is askign that we suspend knowledge and rely solely on faith that something that had only a 10 to the 300’th or so power chance of ever happening just once is beyond a reasonable request.
[[Don’t be impressed with big numbers (or extremely tiny ones either) without first understanding the relevance of those numbers to observations.]
The relevence is backed up by the complete lack of both scientific evidence and fossil records, not to mention current and past test investigations- so I thank you kindly, but I’ll stick with the much more reasonable ‘big numbers’ and leave faith out of the discussion.
[[Now, could you please tell me where to find this number 10350 you just threw out.]
You’re right- I did throw it out as anythign above 10 to a much lower power is really irrelevent anyways- The societies needed to sustain such chance occurences and continue on in an ever progressingly complex upward Macroevoltion are completely absent from the fossil records, and as the scientists showed, it would have meant that the first colnies had to be inches deep- coverign hte whole earth and needing billions of years just to advance to the next step IF Macroevolution were even a possibility-
We can shaow all the simpler ‘orders from chaos’ examples we like- but these examples do nothign to shore up the complexities and intellgiently designed compelxities we see in actual biology.