Information: The Foundation of Life - M. Behe

[Cisco Qid]

The operative words are foresight and forethought of Intelligence as opposed to the narrow blind search of natural selection.

 

[rossum]

The operative words are foresight and forethought of Intelligence as opposed to the narrow blind search of natural selection.

Two problems and an error.

Your first problem is that a living intelligence cannot explain the origin of life. Only a non-living intelligence can do that.

Your second problem is to explain the origin of that non-living intelligence. A tornado in a junkyard of alien computer parts perhaps?

And your error is that natural selection is not blind chance. Mutations are blind chance, but natural selection is not chance.

 

[Temujin]

It's good to see that Behe is sticking to his primary skill of making propaganda videos, rather than pretending to be a biologist.

 

[The Pixie]

The operative words are foresight and forethought of Intelligence as opposed to the narrow blind search of natural selection.

I think that is an excellent point.

Evolution by it nature operates on a day-to-day approach in which each and every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last - the species has to survive.

An intelligently designed system is quite different. Think about building a house - the first thing you do is dig foundations. A bunch of foundations are no use at all in themselves, it is only the knowledge that we will use them later that makes digging them worthwhile.

Of course, not all designed systems have to be that way, but no evolved system can be. If a system passed through a stage that was no use for the present, but was useful of later, seems to me it must have been designed, rather than evolved.

What we have here is a way to detect design. Something IDists have been craving for decades. It will be interesting to see what - if anything - they do with it.

Of course, just declaring it needed foresight is not going to cut it...

 

[Cisco Qid]

I think that is an excellent point.

Evolution by it nature operates on a day-to-day approach in which each and every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last - the species has to survive.

An intelligently designed system is quite different. Think about building a house - the first thing you do is dig foundations. A bunch of foundations are no use at all in themselves, it is only the knowledge that we will use them later that makes digging them worthwhile.

Of course, not all designed systems have to be that way, but no evolved system can be. If a system passed through a stage that was no use for the present, but was useful of later, seems to me it must have been designed, rather than evolved.

What we have here is a way to detect design. Something IDists have been craving for decades. It will be interesting to see what - if anything - they do with it.

Of course, just declaring it needed foresight is not going to cut it...

Phrases like,"every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last", are not normally used in the other fields of science outside evolution. The normal flow is tendency towards disorder, entropy, degradation, and the need for reparation. The species has to survive is also thrown around rather willy-nilly. My interpretation would rather be a species survives because it was designed to survive.

And talking about foundations, the bone structure serves as the perfect foundation for the human body (one example). It is a system of levers and pulleys that outlines the framework for the rest of the integrated body with muscles, blood vessels, nervous system, air paths, and organs. Integration is quite a feat for a environmental force such as NS that has not even demonstrated an ability to generate one single gene.

The case for Intelligent Design has already been clearly made as an avenue, it just remains for the secularists to get off their religious viewpoint and on to the evidence regardless of where it leads.

 

[rossum]

the bone structure serves as the perfect foundation for the human body

No, it is an imperfect foundation. Spines are excellent foundations for carrying weight when horizontal, they are much less effective for carrying weight when vertical. There are advantages to standing on two legs, but our spine has yet to catch up with the change.

Evolution is responsible for a lot of cludges and clumsy 'design', which can be seen in living organisms.

 

[Cisco Qid]

It's good to see that Behe is sticking to his primary skill of making propaganda videos, rather than pretending to be a biologist.

The chad.

 

[The Pixie]

Phrases like,"every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last", are not normally used in the other fields of science outside evolution.

Why would they? It is a statement specifically about biological evolution.

The normal flow is tendency towards disorder, entropy, degradation, and the need for reparation. The species has to survive is also thrown around rather willy-nilly. My interpretation would rather be a species survives because it was designed to survive.

How is that helpful in this context? I am pointing out a fundamental - and potentially observable - difference between evolution and design. Are you saying that that difference does not exist? Or are you agreeing that it does?

And talking about foundations, the bone structure serves as the perfect foundation for the human body (one example). It is a system of levers and pulleys that outlines the framework for the rest of the integrated body with muscles, blood vessels, nervous system, air paths, and organs. Integration is quite a feat for a environmental force such as NS that has not even demonstrated an ability to generate one single gene.

So what? Evolution can explain all that - in greater detail than the design hypothesis anyway.

The case for Intelligent Design has already been clearly made as an avenue, it just remains for the secularists to get off their religious viewpoint and on to the evidence regardless of where it leads.

Again so what? Are you saying that I am wrong about this difference between evolution and design?

Or that you are just not interested in real discussion?

 

[Cisco Qid]

Why would they? It is a statement specifically about biological evolution.


How is that helpful in this context? I am pointing out a fundamental - and potentially observable - difference between evolution and design. Are you saying that that difference does not exist? Or are you agreeing that it does?

Evolution does not get a reprieve from the fundamental sciences of physics and chemistry and it is still subject to the laws of nature.Your premises are statements posing as fundamental laws without observational merit. Clearly there have been species that have not survived.

So what? Evolution can explain all that - in greater detail than the design hypothesis anyway.

Evolution can't explain a single gene or how it got here. It can't produce a gene or explain how beneficial mutations haphazardly line up to produce function to integrate with other genes. And the integration of living organisms is fairy land.

Again so what? Are you saying that I am wrong about this difference between evolution and design?

Or that you are just not interested in real discussion?

Am I saying that you are wrong? Yes, in a bury your head-in-the-sand type of way.

 

[CrowCross]

No, it is an imperfect foundation. Spines are excellent foundations for carrying weight when horizontal, they are much less effective for carrying weight when vertical. There are advantages to standing on two legs, but our spine has yet to catch up with the change.

Evolution is responsible for a lot of cludges and clumsy 'design', which can be seen in living organisms.

Reference please.

 

[rossum]

Evolution does not get a reprieve from the fundamental sciences of physics and chemistry and it is still subject to the laws of nature.

Correct. Living organisms need energy input, sunlight or food, to counteract the effects of entropy. When that energy input fails the organism dies.

Evolution can't explain a single gene or how it got here. It can't produce a gene or explain how beneficial mutations haphazardly line up to produce function to integrate with other genes. And the integration of living organisms is fairy land.

Evolution can explain many genes. Chemistry can explain how the building blocks of those genes originated.

Am I saying that you are wrong? Yes, in a bury your head-in-the-sand type of way.

Your sources are lying to you. ID cannot even show its proposed designer making an amino acid. Science has been able to do that since the 1950s; ID is 70 years behind the times as far as science is concerned.

 

[rossum]

Reference please.

Certainly: Modern Medical Consequences of the Ancient Evolution of a Long, Flexible Lumbar Spine. Specifically see the section: "Modern Clinical Consequences of a Long, Flexible Spine". There are plenty of references for you to look read at the end of that article which deal with the evolution of the human spine.

 

[CrowCross]

Certainly: Modern Medical Consequences of the Ancient Evolution of a Long, Flexible Lumbar Spine. Specifically see the section: "Modern Clinical Consequences of a Long, Flexible Spine". There are plenty of references for you to look read at the end of that article which deal with the evolution of the human spine.

Your article seems to rely on people with flatback syndrome and Harrington rods for scoliosis. In other words a form of de-evolution or harmful mutations that began to occur when Adam fell and drove the spine into a degenerate form.

 

[The Pixie]

Evolution does not get a reprieve from the fundamental sciences of physics and chemistry and it is still subject to the laws of nature.Your premises are statements posing as fundamental laws without observational merit. Clearly there have been species that have not survived.

I have no idea what your point is.

Of course evolution is subject to the laws of nature. What part of "Evolution by it nature operates on a day-to-day approach in which each and every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last - the species has to survive" suggests otherwise?

What part of "Evolution by it nature operates on a day-to-day approach in which each and every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last - the species has to survive" is contradicted by species going exist? Of course they do. Those species failed to evolve.

Evolution can't explain a single gene or how it got here.

Name a gene, and we will see how evolution stacks up against ID with regards to explanation. I suspect it will do better.

It can't produce a gene or explain how beneficial mutations haphazardly line up to produce function to integrate with other genes.

An assertion ID consistently fails to support.

And the integration of living organisms is fairy land.

What is "the integration of living organisms"?

Am I saying that you are wrong? Yes, in a bury your head-in-the-sand type of way.

Not sure what that means either.

 

[Cisco Qid]

I have no idea what your point is.

Of course evolution is subject to the laws of nature. What part of "Evolution by it nature operates on a day-to-day approach in which each and every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last - the species has to survive" suggests otherwise?

What part of "Evolution by it nature operates on a day-to-day approach in which each and every increment has to be roughly as good as, if not better than, the last - the species has to survive" is contradicted by species going exist? Of course they do. Those species failed to evolve.

Since evolution hasn't produced any new genes during any observed evolution event, (e.q. woollier sheep, resistance to pesticides, etc), the evidence shows that evolution for a species will occur only if the genes for the change are already in the genome of some members. With out this in-house information there is no evolution. This makes the statement, 'the species has to survive', flawed and explains why some species didn't evolve.

Name a gene, and we will see how evolution stacks up against ID with regards to explanation. I suspect it will do better.

Since evolution can't produce any genes, this point remains moot..

An assertion ID consistently fails to support.

This is the kink in your scientific method. The scientific process proceeds as: 1. Observation, 2. hypothesis, 3. predictions, 4. experimentation/observation, 5. accumulated evidence in favor or falsification.

Integration between genes is observable and is a characteristic trait of designed objects such as autos, batteries, TV, etc. What you want to do is rather than you provide positive evidence for steps 4 and 5, is rather have us provide evidence to the contrary. The normal process is for the people that advocate produce their own evidence and verification rather than have the rest of the world prove them wrong.

What is "the integration of living organisms"?


Not sure what that means either.

Muscles working in unison with bones, blood vessels, lungs, air paths, nervous system.

 

[Tiburon]

Since evolution hasn't produced any new genes during any observed evolution event, (e.q. woollier sheep, resistance to pesticides, etc), the evidence shows that evolution for a species will occur only if the genes for the change are already in the genome of some members. With out this in-house information there is no evolution.

So all species that are currently alive, have always been alive in one form or another?
Were tigers once trilobites only with different gene expression?

 

[Cisco Qid]

So all species that are currently alive, have always been alive in one form or another?
Were tigers once trilobites only with different gene expression?

You can jump to this conclusion only if you restrict yourself to a bottom to top materialistic perspective rather than the top to bottom interjected design of some unknown intelligent agent.

 

[The Pixie]

Since evolution hasn't produced any new genes during any observed evolution event, (e.q. woollier sheep, resistance to pesticides, etc), the evidence shows that evolution for a species will occur only if the genes for the change are already in the genome of some members. With out this in-house information there is no evolution. This makes the statement, 'the species has to survive', flawed and explains why some species didn't evolve.

Actually a new gene has been observed evolving.

Gene Genesis: Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving from Mutated Copies

Researchers have observed in an experiment the exact steps bacterial genes take to evolve a new ability, unexpectedly adding a new twist on an old model

www.scientificamerican.com

Since evolution can't produce any genes, this point remains moot..

As that has been observed, your argument collapses.

This is the kink in your scientific method. The scientific process proceeds as: 1. Observation, 2. hypothesis, 3. predictions, 4. experimentation/observation, 5. accumulated evidence in favor or falsification.

This is why evolution is science. It provides bold predictions - such as the nested hierarchy - that are confirmed by experiment/observation.

And this is why ID is not science. It gives no bold predictions.

To be clear, a bold prediction is a necessary consequence of the the theory that we would not expect to see otherwise, and that can be confirmed or refuted by experimentation/observation.

Integration between genes is observable and is a characteristic trait of designed objects such as autos, batteries, TV, etc.

Is not clear what you mean by that. Autos, batteries and TVs do not have integration between genes - or even anything analogous to genes in them - so what exactly is the observed trait here?

What you want to do is rather than you provide positive evidence for steps 4 and 5, is rather have us provide evidence to the contrary. The normal process is for the people that advocate produce their own evidence and verification rather than have the rest of the world prove them wrong.

Er, no. Evolution is real science. It has all the steps from 1 to 5. This is why it is accepted by 99% of biologists.

What you describe here sounds more like ID! Perhaps you need to look in the mirror?

Muscles working in unison with bones, blood vessels, lungs, air paths, nervous system.

Okay, so why is that fairy land? Evolution predicts these things will work together because they evolved together. A organism that integrates them will survive better than one that does not!

Worth noting that not all these are necessary. Bony fish get along fine without lungs, sharks without lungs or bones.

 

[rossum]

Since evolution hasn't produced any new genes during any observed evolution event, (e.q. woollier sheep, resistance to pesticides, etc), the evidence shows that evolution for a species will occur only if the genes for the change are already in the genome of some members

False. Offspring have mutations, that is they have DNA sequences that are not present in the parent(s). Evolution is constantly producing new DNA sequences through mutations. Some of those mutations duplicate whole genes, allowing the two copies to specialise. The human globin genes, and pseudogenes, are a good example of such duplication and specialisation.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Actually a new gene has been observed evolving.

Gene Genesis: Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving from Mutated Copies

Researchers have observed in an experiment the exact steps bacterial genes take to evolve a new ability, unexpectedly adding a new twist on an old model

www.scientificamerican.com

This article has been debunked in chapter 9 of the of "Heretic:

The most impressive evolutionary experiment to my knowledge so far reported was carried out by an international team using Salmonella enterica. On October 22, 2012 a report claimed that this was the first time a group demonstrated the origin of a new gene. In reality a gene with a weak side-activity was duplicated and the side-activity was strengthened. Intriguing, but nothing more — and nothing new. Yet what follows is how the work was described in the popular press (emphasis added to show where intelligent engineering was introduced into the experimental environment):
“Researchers engineered a gene that governed the synthesis of the amino acid histidine, and also made some minor contributions to synthesizing another amino acid, tryptophan. They then placed multiple copies of the gene in Salmonella bacteria that did not have the normal gene for creating tryptophan. The Salmonella kept copying the beneficial effects of the gene making tryptophan and over the course of 3,000 generations, the two functions diverged into two entirely different genes, marking the first time that researchers have directly observed the creation of an entirely new gene in a controlled laboratory setting.”
There has been another interesting evolution experiment carried out using E. coli. The theoretical background to the experiment is as follows. It is generally assumed that a multi-step mutational evolutionary path is possible if all the intermediary steps are functional and can each be reached by a single mutation. The activity produced in this way may, however, be so weak that the cell must over-express the hypothetical newly formed enzyme — in other words, produce too much of the enzyme, causing a huge strain on the cell because it has to use extra synthetic capacity for this. Therefore it is likely that the cell would shed such a weak side-activity. The modest benefit wouldn’t be worth the strain caused by the overproduction.
Ann Gauger and her colleagues studied what happened in such a case under laboratory conditions. They introduced a mutation that partially interfered with a bacterial cell’s gene for the synthesis of the amino acid tryptophan. Then they introduced a second mutation into the gene that completely abolished the ability to synthesize tryptophan. Cells with the double mutant could, theoretically, regain weak tryptophan-synthesizing ability with only one back-mutation. Given more time, cells with the one back-mutation might then undergo one more back-mutation to regain full tryptophan-synthesizing ability. This might demonstrate how a cell could gain a new function with just two mutations. But this did not happen. Instead, cells consistently acquired mutations that reduced expression of the doubly mutated gene. The experiment suggests that even if the cell could acquire a weak new activity by gene mutation, it would get rid of it because weakly performing functions of this sort exact too heavy an energy burden.
So, while the described experiments are often promoted as evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, they either (a) are intelligently designed and do not accurately reflect what happens in nature, or (b) underscore the narrow limits of neo-Darwinian evolutionary change.

As that has been observed, your argument collapses.

Not on my watch.

This is why evolution is science. It provides bold predictions - such as the nested hierarchy - that are confirmed by experiment/observation.

And this is why ID is not science. It gives no bold predictions.

To be clear, a bold prediction is a necessary consequence of the the theory that we would not expect to see otherwise, and that can be confirmed or refuted by experimentation/observation.

This is simply posturing as when ENCODE demonstrated functionality of junk DNA while Darwinists were making the claim that junk DNA falsified ID and at the same time others claimed that ID was unfalsifiable.

Is not clear what you mean by that. Autos, batteries and TVs do not have integration between genes - or even anything analogous to genes in them - so what exactly is the observed trait here?


Er, no. Evolution is real science. It has all the steps from 1 to 5. This is why it is accepted by 99% of biologists.

At least our predictions work.

What you describe here sounds more like ID! Perhaps you need to look in the mirror?


Okay, so why is that fairy land? Evolution predicts these things will work together because they evolved together. A organism that integrates them will survive better than one that does not!

Worth noting that not all these are necessary. Bony fish get along fine without lungs, sharks without lungs or bones.