Professor [Behe]: Design not creationism [Evolution trial, 18 October]

The York Dispatch ^ | 18 October 2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

[MEGoody]

All Natural Selection needs is heritable variation.

Which supposedly occurs after a series of random mutations.

Whether that comes from recombination or point mutation, is irrelevant.

Interesting that something that would cause people with common sense to look askance at the theory of evolution is declared 'irrelevant'.

That only means that the mutations or recombination are random.

Glad we agree.

Now you agree that ID DOES try to explain the origin of life.

::::Sigh::::One would think that someone is a minimum of intelligence would be clear on what I was saying by now. With ID the 'origin' is the designer. What is the 'origin' with the theory of evolution? That first single celled life form? (Yes, of course that is the 'origin' for evolution. Can't have evolution if you don't first have some life form to evolve.) If ID must prove the designer and who designed the designer, then evolution must prove how the first single-celled organism came about.

Your question is not a very honest one either. You know that we don't know all of the steps yet.

It is as honest a question as 'who designed the designer.'

Not all the 'steps are known' yet? Then it behooves all evolutionists to take a step back and say, "Gee, maybe our theory isn't all we have tried to claim it is, and we should stop trying to force everyone to believe as we do and stop trying to suppress other ideas."

[MEGoody]

There is no concept of "correct" or "incorrect" feature.

If you had read my post carefully, you'd understand that 'correct feature' refers to some 'feature' of a life form that would be 'naturally selected' through greater survival rates of those life forms bearing that feature.

If the concept I was imparting is still unclear to you, let me know.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your concept is clear; but not correct. There is no "would be." There is only feature generation and selection. There's no teleology. It's a subtle, but important point.

[MEGoody]

There is no "would be."

Playing games with semantics or attempting to make some sort of point which is, as yet, unclear?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Which supposedly occurs after a series of random mutations."

Heritable variation is not in the least in dispute in genetics. It is the basis of animal and plant breeding programs. Do you have a problem with heritable variation?

"Interesting that something that would cause people with common sense to look askance at the theory of evolution is declared 'irrelevant'."

Sorry if it makes some people confused; it is doubtful how much common sense they have though. Calculus makes a lot of people confused too but I am not worried about the soundness of its foundations.


"What is the 'origin' with the theory of evolution?"

The ToE doesn't DEAL with origins of life. Are you just being intentionally dense? Why should a theory dealing with the frequency of alleles in a population have to explain the origin of life? Why not ask Germ Theory to have to deal with the origin of germs? We don't ask Newtonian Mechanics to explain the origin of matter.

"If ID must prove the designer and who designed the designer, then evolution must prove how the first single-celled organism came about."

No. Evolution doesn't pretend to explain the origins of life. ID does. ID has no mechanism. It says, "Some thing/entity designed life in ways we can't possibly explain and OH BTW, we can't ever know anything about this designer. We have no explanation at all how this *designer* acts, thinks, what it's capabilities or limitations are. So you're just gonna have to trust us on this one."

Riiiiiiight.

"Not all the 'steps are known' yet? Then it behooves all evolutionists to take a step back and say, "Gee, maybe our theory isn't all we have tried to claim it is, and we should stop trying to force everyone to believe as we do and stop trying to suppress other ideas."

Evolutionists don't need to concede anything; the origin of life is outside their research domain. Abiogenesis researchers DO say that their work is tentative, but unlike ID proponents whose arrogance knows no bounds, they don't just give up and say that we can never know something just because we don't understand it now. ID is the most gutless choice you can make. Don't know how something was made because it appears too *complex*? Say the *Designer* did it and give up. What if the structure seems poorly designed? Well, "We don't know the mind of the *Designer*..." At it's base is a fatalistic denial of our ability to work out problems using our reason. That's not how science moves forward.

[MEGoody]

Heritable variation is not in the least in dispute in genetics.

Not at all. The issue being discussed is the series of random mutation that must occur before a heritable variation is available to be inherited.

The ToE doesn't DEAL with origins of life. Are you just being intentionally dense?

If you've paid attention, you've seen I've stated in previous posts that it does not. But it seems that evols want to hold ID to a higher standard than that to which they are willing to hold their own theory. Perhaps you haven't read my previous posts to know that this has been the crux of the debate. Or are you just being intentionally dense?

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain the origins of life. ID does.

In like form, ID doesn't try to explain the origins of life. It simply says that life forms are governed by design, not random chance.

We have no explanation at all how this *designer* acts, thinks, what it's capabilities or limitations are. So you're just gonna have to trust us on this one."

And evolution asks us to just 'trust us on this one' that all life evolved from a single celled life form. Each theory has it's areas it does not address, and each requires some faith to believe.

"Evolutionists don't need to concede anything; the origin of life is outside their research domain."

And 'who designed the designer' it outside the domain of ID.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The issue being discussed is the series of random mutation that must occur before a heritable variation is available to be inherited."

There is no issue about that either. Most mutations are neutral, a small percentage are bad which almost always results in a death during development, and some are beneficial. Recombination also adds to genetic variation. It doesn't matter if the genetic variation is random or directed, natural selection is non-random. If there is insufficient variation in the population to meet the demands of the environment, the population will die off. There is no guaranty that evolution (the change in gene frequencies) will be enough.

"If you've paid attention, you've seen I've stated in previous posts that it does not. But it seems that evols want to hold ID to a higher standard than that to which they are willing to hold their own theory."

But ID backers have SAID it can explain the origins of life. If ID proponents make such a claim, they have to put up or shut up. The burden is on them to come up with some kind of physical explanation of how the *designer* did the designing. Evolutionists aren't as arrogant; they know the limits of their theory and have stuck to it.

"In like form, ID doesn't try to explain the origins of life. It simply says that life forms are governed by design, not random chance."

They have to explain how this design happened. At least make an attempt at any rate. And no you're wrong, ID specifically claims to be able to say how life originated. They say *The designer did it* and then go back to watching Survivor and munching Cheeto's.

"And evolution asks us to just 'trust us on this one' that all life evolved from a single celled life form. Each theory has it's areas it does not address, and each requires some faith to believe."

No, Evolutionists aren't concerned with how life started. I know that is tough for you to accept, too bad.

" And 'who designed the designer' it outside the domain of ID."

Everything is outside the domain of ID; it explains nothing except the willful ignorance of those who support it.

[MHalblaub]

"And 'who designed the designer' it outside the domain of ID."

If the designer is not an higher being then it must have been evolved.
--- First designer <-> first life ---


"In like form, ID doesn't try to explain the origins of life. It simply says that life forms are governed by design, not random chance."

That's all. ID "simply says" and can't proof anything because any version of IC can't deduce any need for an ID.

[MEGoody]

If the designer is not an higher being then it must have been evolved.

Believe whatever you wish about the designer. ID does not address who or what the designer is.

ID "simply says"

Yes, and evolution 'simply says.'

[MHalblaub]

"Believe whatever you wish about the designer. ID does not address who or what the designer is."

That is just plain nonsense. My thoughts about the designer got nothing in common with believes. I just checked the options. - The designer or designers are supernatural or not. If they there not supernatural then the first designers must have evolved. - That has nothing to do with believes.

And ID does address something about the designers. They like to create something.


"Yes, and evolution 'simply says.'"

Again plain nonsense.
There is more evidence for the evolution theory than you can read in your lifetime. There is no evidence for ID. IC is no valid evidence for ID because IC is not linked with design. Give me your definition of IC and I show you why.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506740/posts?page=405#405
And that for your gaps:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1500340/posts?page=167#167

[RogueIsland]

Calculus makes a lot of people confused too but I am not worried about the soundness of its foundations.

Any 'rithmetic what uses them big fancy squiggly S shaped things ain't right, I tell you what. Looks like French 'rithmetic or something, you ask me.

[MEGoody]

The designer or designers are supernatural or not. If they there not supernatural then the first designers must have evolved. - That has nothing to do with believes.

Of course it does.

And ID does address something about the designers. They like to create something.

::::Sigh::::: One more time. The theory of ID simply says that life was designed rather than a result of random mutation.

There is more evidence for the evolution theory than you can read in your lifetime.

Then go and read some of it. And don't be afraid to question the conclusions of those who have written the documents you are refering to.

[MHalblaub]

"And don't be afraid to question the conclusions of those who have written the documents you are refering to."

Very good idea. Did you do that also to your documents you are not referring to but always got in mind?


"Of course it does."
"One more time. The theory of ID simply says that life was designed..."

Nothing more to argue?

Can you show me that random mutation and selection is not a design process?

[MEGoody]

Did you do that also to your documents you are not referring to but always got in mind?

Absolutely.

"Can you show me that random mutation and selection is not a design process?"

I never said selection wasn't a design process. Randomness, by very definition, is not.

[MHalblaub]

"I never said selection wasn't a design process. Randomness, by very definition, is not."

So the process of evolution is a design process.

[MEGoody]

So the process of evolution is a design process.

Some believe that design was accomplished through evolution, some don't. That is one of the things being studied.

[MHalblaub]

"Some believe that design was accomplished through evolution, some don't. That is one of the things being studied."

But do you believe design was accomplished through evolution? You mentioned at #394 that you "never said selection wasn't a design process."

Is selection a design process for you or not?

[MEGoody]

Is selection a design process for you or not?

It seems clear to me that 'selection' has played a role in bringing about some change within the 'primary branches of life' e.g. human, ape, dog, cat. I do not believe that selection was the mechanism used to bring about those 'primary branches of life' in the first place, nor is it the mechanism by which all varieties of life have been achieved.

What are your views on the issue?

[MHalblaub]

You "do not believe that selection was the mechanism".

I know chance and selection is a great power to solve problems. I use this mechanism in so called Monte-Carlo-simulations. You won't get the best results but in an appropriate time a good result. So I know that it is working and don't need to believe.

So for me the "varieties of life" is in the range of chance and selection.

[MEGoody]

So I know that it is working and don't need to believe.

You know it works sometimes for Monte Carlo.

So for me the "varieties of life" is in the range of chance and selection.

You have the right to believe that, and I appreciate your civility in this discussion. Too often, these things get ugly.