Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman
Carroll cites several instances where multiple changes do accumulate gradually in proteins. (So do I. I discuss gradual evolution of antifreeze resistance, resistance to some insecticides by “tiny, incremental steps — amino acid by amino acid — leading from one biological level to another”, hemoglobin C-Harlem, and other examples, in order to make the critically important distinction between beneficial intermediate mutations and detrimental intermediate ones.)
In fact, if one takes the trouble to look up the references Carroll cites, one sees that a short amino acid motif is not enough for function in a cell. For example, Budovskaya et el (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci USA 102, 13933-8, 2005) show that the majority of proteins in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae containing a motif recognized by a particular protein kinase were not phosphorylated by the enzyme. What does that mean? It just means that the simple motifs, while necessary for binding, are not sufficient. Other features of the proteins are necessary, too, features which Sean Carroll ignores.
In his enthusiasm Carroll seems not to have noticed that, as I discuss at great length in my book, no protein binding sites — neither short linear peptide motifs nor any other — developed in a hundred billion billion (1020) malarial cells. Or in HIV. Or E. coli. Or in human defenses against malaria, save that of sickle hemoglobin. Like Coyne, Carroll simply overlooks observational evidence that goes against Darwinian views. In fact, Carroll seems unable to separate Darwinian theory from data. He writes that “what [Behe] alleges to be beyond the limits of Darwinian evolution falls well within its demonstrated [my emphasis] powers”, and “Indeed, it has been demonstrated [my emphasis] that new protein interactions (10) and protein networks (11) can evolve fairly rapidly and are thus well within the limits of evolution.”
Yet if one looks up the papers he cites, one finds no “demonstration” at all. Those papers show, respectively, that: A) different species have different protein binding sites (but, although the authors assume Darwinian processes, they demonstrate nothing about how the sites arose); or B) different species have different protein networks (but, again, the authors demonstrate nothing about how the networks arose). Like Jerry Coyne, Sean Carroll simply begs the question. Like Coyne, Carroll assumes whatever exists in biology arose by Darwinian processes.
There’s a phrase I heard first in discussions of superstring theory that is curiously well adapted to discussions of young earth creationism: “Not Even Wrong”.
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.
And I do not equate Christianity with Islam, I merely point out (correctly) that if we were to replace scientific education with religious instruction (of any kind) we would be joining the company of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Uhhh no that’s not correct and not even close and quite dishonest actually, as science flourished in this country pre-NEA, not to mention private and home-schoolers do better academically when it comes to science and lo and behold we didn’t become a theocracy either.
You should get that looked into!
When one lacks an argument, one often is forced to resort to ad hominem attacks.
tpanther, I'm not telling you what you must believe or not believe. You are free to worship as you choose, and to teach your own children as you see fit. That is the wonderful thing about America. What you are not free to do, however, is to require public schools to instruct children in your own religious beliefs or to prevent public schools from teaching science that conflicts with your own religious beliefs. That's why the theory is evolution and modern astronomy should be taught in public schools, and why creationis/ID and astrology should not.
The post above contains several typos as a result of accidentally hitting the ‘post’ button before intended. I apologize for the sloppiness.
You never presented an argument Flimsy. ALL you’ve offered are the same tired failed NEA talking points.
No one appointed you or your ilk to decide for all of society that your ideology be the standard, neutral objective one.
You can dishonestly bring up Islam and religious beliefs injected into science class everytime your cult is challenged, but just know it’s invalid.
> 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.
Does he still have any structures that he claims are “irreducible” that haven’t been shown not to be?
The blood clotting cascade is toast. What’s left?
tpanther, you still haven’t answered my question: how can you justify teaching creationism/ID as a “science” in public schools while simultaneously rejecting astrology as a “science?”
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.
only1percent, You and I are of aligned mind on the subject at hand. I will fully admit that I am perhaps overly sensitive to Creationism and ID in conservative thought, largely because I work in a field (computational security) in which the large-scale principles of evolution (macro-evolution- the self replication of successful patterns of information in a computational environment) is beyond proven- and is in fact a fundamental assumption and staple of my day-to-day professional problem solving. The entire notion of creationism - that the way things are, are because they were made that way, runs as antithesis to my professional requirements day to day, where I must evaluate why things are they way they are, understand the forces which allowed them to be that way, and put in place practices and procedures those organisms which I Shepard ("White-List Software") to prevail over those organisms which would take advantage of them ("Black-List Software").
Before you play "gotcha" on me, yes I understand that the computational environment I work in was quite explicitly "created" by human means. No I take absolutely no stand on the abiogenesis of the computational environment in which I exist or live (Reality, Truth, The Universe, etc), whether it be created or evolved. Those questions are simply not relevant to my professional needs, and I have not the ego to assert my personal cosmology above any other, aside to say that I am very thankful for a very strong personal relationship to a Subjective figure in my life whom I know as Jesus Christ.
But I digress, the remainder is directly directly towards tpanther (with the utmost respect and admiration for your passion for The Conservative Cause, sir)
There’s ... millions of reasons to think science has to somehow remain pure only when it’s godless.
With all due respect, there is only one reason to think that science "remains pure only when it's godless," and that is nothing less than it's fundamental academic definition:
Science is a pattern of recursively built objective observations which allows me, the objective professional, to do my job. The Almighty God is a subjective observation which allows me to find my ultimate place in his universe, and shape my macro-level behavior towards that which is beneficial to my soul and my fellow man.
Cosmology is the intellectual conclusion of existence, Science is a pile of Objective Observations which hint to us what the First Cause Question was. If it is an uncertainty and a question, it is science, if it is a Conclusion, it is cosmology. ID is a conclusion, it is a Cosmology, not a science. They are Antithetical to one another.
Or, at least in order for me to both put food on my table AND live a spiritually fulfilled life, professional intellectuals such as myself NEED them to be antithetical to one another
When you go and make assertions about "Evo-cult" or tell me that I cannot believe both the Objective practice that feeds my family and the Subjective practice that feeds my soul, you put me into a fundamental crisis of faith... which should I do? Let my children starve by not utilizing the objective observations of evolution which let me do my job, or give up on my soul and dedicate my life to continuing to put food on the table for my family? That's a horrid choice to have anyone make, is it not?
The Academic line between Cosmology and Science is the very thing that allows Men like myself to be both successful engineers (predictors of objective reality) and Faithful Children of the Lord. It is what allows us to compartmentalize between what we can observe as true, and what we Know As True.
Why you think I’m concerned about the liberal kool-aid drinkers spreading their endless lies is way beyond me though!
I fully understand that you are not concerned with this liberal cool-aid drinkers' lies, and hence, you see absolutely no problem with feeding them with further ammunition to make me question my beliefs. They tell me that I cannot both feed my family and be accepted by Our Lord. In My Heart, Jesus Tells me this isn't true, but then you agree with them. You eagerly place value judgments on the very beliefs I require to sustain this life. Your lack of concern on this matter leaves you open to be exploited by the Godless to drive His Children Away from Him. Please sir, I beg of you - consider this when you make your assertions in the future.
That is all I have to say, sorry for the rant. Good day and God Bless!
[[The blood clotting cascade is toast. What’s left?]]
actually it and other exampels are not toast- the ONLY thing- once again, that was demonstrated in response ot his claism was that YES, IC systems can contain reducible parts- BUT the IC parts can NOT be reduced-
> actually it and other exampels are not toast- the ONLY
> thing- once again, that was demonstrated in response ot
> his claism was that YES, IC systems can contain reducible
> parts- BUT the IC parts can NOT be reduced-
What, in your opinion, are the “IC” parts of the blood clotting cascade?
Actually the blood clotting cascade is rattling around zombie-like at the Discovery Institute. They recently made some claims that could easily have been avoided by a literature search. Another necessary component that isn't.
And nobody is talking about replacing science education with religious instruction.
Polls that I have posted links to, indicate that the majority of the population wished to have creation and ID addressed in schools along with, not in place of evolution. Even textbook providers like ABeka and Bob Jones teach both, something that the public schools don’t do, and the consistent academic results are the private school education and home education provide superior results, even with creation being taught.
For all the controversy, the best solution would be to eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools. There’s plenty of biology that can be studied without ever getting anywhere near the topic. The vast majority of students that are required to take Bio will not be using it in the career field of their choice. Even if they go into science, evolution is only a concern in some biological fields.
Anyone who has that great of a need to learn about the ToE for their chosen profession, can learn in at the college level, and in all likelihood, learn it from far more competent teachers than your average education major.
The whole crux of this issue is control over the public school system between the parents who want one thing, and the liberals and self-appointed elite who think that they know better what is good for everyone else, whether they like it or not and try to force it on the unwilling unwashed masses.
No TRUE IC part can be reduced. ;^)
[[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
Whatever.
[[You and I are of aligned mind on the subject at hand. I will fully admit that I am perhaps overly sensitive to Creationism and ID in conservative thought, largely because I work in a field (computational security) in which the large-scale principles of evolution (macro-evolution- the self replication of successful patterns of information in a computational environment) is beyond proven-]]
Yes, simple patterns do exist and can ‘evolve’, as in vortexes, and other natural phenomena, however, they in no way correleate to extremely complex biological realities- it is impossible to create the metainfo seen in species via simplistic patterning of genetic ifnromation.
[[Before you play “gotcha” on me, yes I understand that the computational environment I work in was quite explicitly “created” by human means.]]
Big Big difference between ID computer systems and natural life I’m afraid- Again, what you are workign with is a simplistic form of DESIGNED metainfo, and controlled outcomes that protect the ‘random’ happenings that hte software is designed to protect. However, you can’t argue that because we design metainfo that nature is capable of creatign metainfo without a designer. The metainfo in life species is far more compelx and designed than what you work with, and if anythign, this should indicate that a designer really is behind life’s metainfo and complexities
[[What, in your opinion, are the “IC” parts of the blood clotting cascade?]]
Behe described them in his rebuttal to Miller’s deceitful slight-of-hand deconstruction of hte reducible aspects of hte IC systems- you’ll find his rebuttal on his site ‘arn.org’ I beleive it is
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.