The origin of life: Cell membranes.

[Cisco Qid]

Sure. but that is not ID. IDists are adamant that theist evolution is just as wrong as non-theist evolution.

See for example:

Theistic Evolution | Discovery Institute Store

Theists argue that there can be no evidence of design.. For example Francis Collens believes that bringing in theology into science cheapens faith and that the two should remain separate. While ID advocates believe that there is evidence for design in creation and that there should be a distinction between things that are designed and those the occur naturally.

Every ID argument is really an anti-evolution argument. I have pointed this out before - there are no arguments that are pro-ID. ID is, at its heart, anti-evolution, and that includes anti-theistic-evolution.

The concept of IC started off as a anti-evolutionary stance when MIchael Behe discovered that there was no explanation for blood clotting while he was still very much a pro evolutionary advocate. He had assumed (like many of his peers) that the problems of blood clotting had been solved by previous research papers. But when he did the research into these papers, he discovered that they had not. He then decided that this contradicted evolution since such a system could not be achieved by slow successive and gradual steps using Charles Darwin's own words that if such a system were discovered, it would falsify evolution. It has since become a pro -ID argument because such a system can only be achieved by intelligence with foresight because the the system is not functional until all the pieces are in place which is beyond the grasp of natural selection. This may be contradictory evidence for evolution but it is also positive evidence for ID. The same goes for CSI and ASC which are only known to proceed from intelligence.

Call it what you like, the dividing line between evolutionists, whether theistic or not, and ID/creationism is whether you accept common descent.


Can you back that up?

An article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated:

[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied . . . an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.

article here

This article is about a fairly small family, but says: "Variation among these taxa increased with their hierarchical position, from comparisons within local populations to those among different genera." exactly as evolution predicts. Looking at the figures, I would guess the rate of change is too great for wider families, and the noise drowns out the signal.

How does ID explain the pattern in cytochrome-b?

Oh, right. In cannot. Or cytochrome-c either.

How does evolution explain the pattern in any protein since it has already been established that they don't know how proteins originated in the first place. At least our theory has an explanation. They are fully functional and intricate proteins that exhibit evidence of design..

Wrong. Evolution predicts there will be a tree. It is a necessary consequence of evolution.

It does not, however, predict a specific tree. Biologists study the data to determine which is the right tree.

Evolution predicted separate branches but now you have branches feeding into other branches. Another evolution prediction down the tube.

Okay. So why do all vertebrates have the same eye, but all cephalopds have a different eye? And trilobites a different eye again?

Fish, squid and trilobites all live (or lived) in the sea, so all have the same design requirements, but have three different types of eyes. Which is best for seeing underwater? Why did the design not give that design to all of them?

IOW, why would a the Designer do it that way and not give them the same eye design? This is the same theological argument used for "junk DNA" back when "junk DNA" was cool for evolutionists, "Why would a designer make so much useless DNA". There very well may be an answer but for now it suffices to say, "I don't know" .

Like what? it is hard to explain a fossil when I do not know what it is!

They all follow the same pattern.

 

[rossum]

While ID advocates believe that there is evidence for design in creation and that there should be a distinction between things that are designed and those the occur naturally.

Then what things occur naturally and are not designed? What things were not made by the Abrahamic God? A bit of a theological problem for ID there, and also a problem for testing any design detector.

It has since become a pro -ID argument because such a system can only be achieved by intelligence with foresight because the the system is not functional until all the pieces are in place which is beyond the grasp of natural selection.

It is not a pro-ID argument, it is at most an anti-evolution argument. In science the default is "we don't know". ID needs to provide positive evidence to move science away from that default. In effect you are assuming that there are only two possible explanations: evolution and ID. In science that is an error; there is always the third position: "we don't know".

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Exactly none of the evo stuff is proven and it is a guess or an approximation.

Good catch, Topic is cell membrane and they can't explain where the 30+ enzymes drifted in from to build the cell membrane. How were the enzymes built? Transported?

 

[evoguy313]

Video

Just got this in my e-mail today. I figured I would pass it on. It explains how the seemingly simple membrane is not all that simple and none of the laboratory produced membranes do it justice.

Argument via video. So convincing.

 

[evoguy313]

Which misses the point. You don't have and endless supply of time for a functioning membrane. Besides that pretense of a functioning theory for the origin of life.

What is your functioning, evidence-based theory of the origin of life do you have?

 

[evoguy313]

Have y'all read Stephen Meyers, "The Signature in the Cell" and the follow-up "Darwin's Doubt"?

Read enough to know that he is basically a propagandist.

 

[evoguy313]

I often think of the LOGOS--the rational reason for all things done rationally.
He is not wasteful and I get a real kick out of how DNA is subtly different across species, yet with big differences in result.
No waste. Clean and beautiful.

No waste.
Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'
"The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing - equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals' organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes. The results are reported in this week's Nature2."

 

[evoguy313]

This is above my pay grade. Perhaps the Lord has big plans for the misunderstood mighty onion.

Perhaps.
Odd then that you had no problem making earlier proclamations on the topic.

 

[evoguy313]

I have read Signature and DD and watched many debates online...thanks for the suggestions.

Wasn't that content mostly above your pay grade?

 

[evoguy313]

So there is a correlation between length and quantity of needed information

Not in the case of your loooong winded rants.

How does your Yacht Club function without you as president...

 

[evoguy313]

And since the cell membrane decides what passes through and what does not, it would have taken billions if not trillions of years before the cell membrane knew what to let pass and what not to let pass.

Wow, REALLY?

Surely you can show us your work on this.

Or it surely would not have happened by chance on just so many tries.

Maybe your deity poofed it into existence all at once from dust.

 

[evoguy313]

Some german atheeist here said we evolved from fishies because we all have salt water in us.

Surely you can link to this?

 

[evoguy313]

I have posted many threads by Dr Tour. he uses one word. Caramelize. The contents of a cell require protection.

If you dehydrate a cell all the interactones are lost. Gotta have a cell membrane from the start.

Jimmy 'Screaming Skull' Tour had his hat handed to him by a youtuber without a doctorate. Your is just another grifter spewing nonsense to prop up his religious beliefs.

 

[rossum]

What is your functioning, evidence-based theory of the origin of life do you have?

He claims that life has always existed, even before the Big Bang, so there can be no "origin" of life.

 

[The Pixie]

Theists argue that there can be no evidence of design..

Right. Evolution makes firm predictions as to what patterns we will see in biology. ID predicts that we may - or may not - see evidence of design. One of those is real science.

For example Francis Collens believes that bringing in theology into science cheapens faith and that the two should remain separate. While ID advocates believe that there is evidence for design in creation and that there should be a distinction between things that are designed and those the occur naturally.

Agreed.

The concept of IC started off as a anti-evolutionary stance when MIchael Behe discovered that there was no explanation for blood clotting while he was still very much a pro evolutionary advocate. He had assumed (like many of his peers) that the problems of blood clotting had been solved by previous research papers. But when he did the research into these papers, he discovered that they had not. He then decided that this contradicted evolution since such a system could not be achieved by slow successive and gradual steps using Charles Darwin's own words that if such a system were discovered, it would falsify evolution.

What real science then did was to do the research. By the time of the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case there were a lot of research papers.

I think this is after that then, but it talks about jawless fish; they are missing five components of this supposedly IC system. How can the system be IC if living species are missing a bunch of the components?

Genomic Evidence for a Simpler Clotting Scheme in Jawless Vertebrates | Request PDF

Request PDF | Genomic Evidence for a Simpler Clotting Scheme in Jawless Vertebrates | Mammalian blood clotting involves numerous components, most of which are the result of gene duplications that occurred early in vertebrate... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

When Behe was presented with a pile of papers that showed how the blood clotting cascade could evolve, he pretty much just hand-waved them away.

"Yes, I did. I went through many of the papers that Professor Miller cited, as many as I could, and simply, as a shorthand way of trying to indicate or trying to convey why I don't regard any of them as persuasive, I simply did a search for the phrases, random mutation, which is abbreviated here in this column, RM, and the phrase, natural selection.​

Random mutation, of course, and natural selection are the two elements of the Darwinian mechanism. That is what is at issue here. And so this is, you know, this is, of course, a crude and perhaps shorthand way, but nonetheless, I think this illustrates why I do not find any of these papers persuasive.​

When I go through the papers that Professor Miller cited on the blood clotting cascade, Semba, et al, Robinson, et al, Jiang and Doolittle, there are no references to those phrases, random mutation and natural selection."​

He could not find the phrases "random mutation" or "natural selection", so assumed they were not relevant!

It has since become a pro -ID argument because such a system can only be achieved by intelligence with foresight because the the system is not functional until all the pieces are in place which is beyond the grasp of natural selection. This may be contradictory evidence for evolution but it is also positive evidence for ID. The same goes for CSI and ASC which are only known to proceed from intelligence.

I am curious how IDists have proved that no non-intelligent process, whether we have thought of it yet or not, could produce an IC system.

I find this argument especially ironic since Behe was specifically looking exclusively at papers that mention "random mutation" or "natural selection"! It seems to me that the argument is:

• IC has not been explained in any science paper that mentions "random mutation" or "natural selection"
• Therefore no non-intelligent process can produce an IC system
• Etc.

That seems quite a leap to me.

An article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated:

[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied . . . an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.

article here

I cannot read the article without paying $36.

The abstract certainly is not saying the tree of life does not exist:

The mechanical perfection of organisms represents compelling evidence for evolution by natural selection but can simultaneously confound attempts to infer evolutionary relationships. Functional interdependence of morphological traits can cause similar sets of traits to appear in unrelated lineages – the convergent adaptations of flying, swimming and endothermic vertebrates being striking examples. Similarly, developmental integration can result in the repeated evolution of complex character suites. These phenomena are particularly problematic for systematists because the resultant homoplastic traits are not just numerous, but also misleading in the same way. Unless the correlated characters in such functional and developmental complexes are identified and treated appropriately, the wrong tree might well be reconstructed​

Have you actually read it? Or just quoted it from a creationist web site? I see an ellipsis after "implied" - what has been edited out there? What is the conclusion of the paper? I apologise if this sounds overly sceptical, but having looked in depth at the papers quoted by those videos you post, I feel a high degree of sceptism is called for. Quote-mining is endemic in creationism, as much today as it ever is, and, to be frank, I wonder if your quote here is another example.

I did find these papers, both of which suggest cytochrome b results are actually very good.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cytochrome-b

Mitochondrial cytochrome b is among the most extensively sequenced genes to date across the vertebrates. Johns and Avise (1998) employed approximately 2000 cytochrome b gene sequences from GenBank to calculate and compare levels of genetic distance between sister species, congeneric species, and confamilial genera within and across the major vertebrate taxonomic classes. The results of these analyses parallel and reinforce some of the principal trends in genetic distance estimates derived from multilocus allozymes. In particular, surveyed avian taxa on average show significantly less genetic divergence than do same-rank taxa surveyed in other vertebrate groups, notably amphibians and reptiles.​

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014156

The phylogeny and taxonomy of mammalian species were originally based upon shared or derived morphological characteristics. However, genetic analyses have more recently played an increasingly important role in confirming existing or establishing often radically different mammalian groupings and phylogenies. The two most commonly used genetic loci in species identification are the cytochrome oxidase I gene (COI) and the cytochrome b gene (cyt b). For the first time this study provides a detailed comparison of the effectiveness of these two loci in reconstructing the phylogeny of mammals at different levels of the taxonomic hierarchy in order to provide a basis for standardizing methodologies in the future. Interspecific and intraspecific variation is assessed and for the first time, to our knowledge, statistical confidence is applied to sequence comparisons. Comparison of the DNA sequences of 217 mammalian species reveals that cyt b more accurately reconstructs their phylogeny and known relationships between species based on other molecular and morphological analyses at Super Order, Order, Family and generic levels. Cyt b correctly assigned 95.85% of mammal species to Super Order, 94.31% to Order and 98.16% to Family compared to 78.34%, 93.36% and 96.93% respectively for COI. Cyt b also gives better resolution when separating species based on sequence data. Using a Kimura 2-parameter p-distance (x100) threshold of 1.5–2.5, cyt b gives a better resolution for separating species with a lower false positive rate and higher positive predictive value than those of COI.​

 

[The Pixie]

... continued

How does evolution explain the pattern in any protein since it has already been established that they don't know how proteins originated in the first place.

You do not need to know that to predict the pattern.

At least our theory has an explanation. They are fully functional and intricate proteins that exhibit evidence of design..

The ID explanation of how proteins originated in the first place is "God did it." Evolution can match that, no problem. "Nature did it." Equally vacuous, of course.

Evolution predicted separate branches but now you have branches feeding into other branches. Another evolution prediction down the tube.

What are you referring to? Is this about HGT again?

IOW, why would a the Designer do it that way and not give them the same eye design? This is the same theological argument used for "junk DNA" back when "junk DNA" was cool for evolutionists, "Why would a designer make so much useless DNA". There very well may be an answer but for now it suffices to say, "I don't know" .

In contrast, evolution explains it very easily. All vertebrates have a common ancestor with invertebrate eyes, all cephalopods have a common ancestor with cephalopod eyes. Indeed, evolution predicts this sort of pattern.

Until ID can do likewise, it has no hope of replacing evolution.

They all follow the same pattern.

I have no idea how this relates to what we were talking about.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Right. Evolution makes firm predictions as to what patterns we will see in biology. ID predicts that we may - or may not - see evidence of design. One of those is real science.


Agreed.


What real science then did was to do the research. By the time of the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case there were a lot of research papers.

I think this is after that then, but it talks about jawless fish; they are missing five components of this supposedly IC system. How can the system be IC if living species are missing a bunch of the components?

Genomic Evidence for a Simpler Clotting Scheme in Jawless Vertebrates | Request PDF

Request PDF | Genomic Evidence for a Simpler Clotting Scheme in Jawless Vertebrates | Mammalian blood clotting involves numerous components, most of which are the result of gene duplications that occurred early in vertebrate... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

When Behe was presented with a pile of papers that showed how the blood clotting cascade could evolve, he pretty much just hand-waved them away.

"Yes, I did. I went through many of the papers that Professor Miller cited, as many as I could, and simply, as a shorthand way of trying to indicate or trying to convey why I don't regard any of them as persuasive, I simply did a search for the phrases, random mutation, which is abbreviated here in this column, RM, and the phrase, natural selection.​

Random mutation, of course, and natural selection are the two elements of the Darwinian mechanism. That is what is at issue here. And so this is, you know, this is, of course, a crude and perhaps shorthand way, but nonetheless, I think this illustrates why I do not find any of these papers persuasive.​

When I go through the papers that Professor Miller cited on the blood clotting cascade, Semba, et al, Robinson, et al, Jiang and Doolittle, there are no references to those phrases, random mutation and natural selection."​

He could not find the phrases "random mutation" or "natural selection", so assumed they were not relevant!


I am curious how IDists have proved that no non-intelligent process, whether we have thought of it yet or not, could produce an IC system.

I find this argument especially ironic since Behe was specifically looking exclusively at papers that mention "random mutation" or "natural selection"! It seems to me that the argument is:

• IC has not been explained in any science paper that mentions "random mutation" or "natural selection"
• Therefore no non-intelligent process can produce an IC system
• Etc.

That seems quite a leap to me.


I cannot read the article without paying $36.

The abstract certainly is not saying the tree of life does not exist:

The mechanical perfection of organisms represents compelling evidence for evolution by natural selection but can simultaneously confound attempts to infer evolutionary relationships. Functional interdependence of morphological traits can cause similar sets of traits to appear in unrelated lineages – the convergent adaptations of flying, swimming and endothermic vertebrates being striking examples. Similarly, developmental integration can result in the repeated evolution of complex character suites. These phenomena are particularly problematic for systematists because the resultant homoplastic traits are not just numerous, but also misleading in the same way. Unless the correlated characters in such functional and developmental complexes are identified and treated appropriately, the wrong tree might well be reconstructed​

Have you actually read it? Or just quoted it from a creationist web site? I see an ellipsis after "implied" - what has been edited out there? What is the conclusion of the paper? I apologise if this sounds overly sceptical, but having looked in depth at the papers quoted by those videos you post, I feel a high degree of sceptism is called for. Quote-mining is endemic in creationism, as much today as it ever is, and, to be frank, I wonder if your quote here is another example.

I did find these papers, both of which suggest cytochrome b results are actually very good.

The fact that it is very good is not good for your cytochrome c argument since it contradicts it

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cytochrome-b

Mitochondrial cytochrome b is among the most extensively sequenced genes to date across the vertebrates. Johns and Avise (1998) employed approximately 2000 cytochrome b gene sequences from GenBank to calculate and compare levels of genetic distance between sister species, congeneric species, and confamilial genera within and across the major vertebrate taxonomic classes. The results of these analyses parallel and reinforce some of the principal trends in genetic distance estimates derived from multilocus allozymes. In particular, surveyed avian taxa on average show significantly less genetic divergence than do same-rank taxa surveyed in other vertebrate groups, notably amphibians and reptiles.​

Cytochrome b shows that there's less genetic divergence between birds than lizards. Very good you get a cookie.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014156

The phylogeny and taxonomy of mammalian species were originally based upon shared or derived morphological characteristics. However, genetic analyses have more recently played an increasingly important role in confirming existing or establishing often radically different mammalian groupings and phylogenies. The two most commonly used genetic loci in species identification are the cytochrome oxidase I gene (COI) and the cytochrome b gene (cyt b). For the first time this study provides a detailed comparison of the effectiveness of these two loci in reconstructing the phylogeny of mammals at different levels of the taxonomic hierarchy in order to provide a basis for standardizing methodologies in the future. Interspecific and intraspecific variation is assessed and for the first time, to our knowledge, statistical confidence is applied to sequence comparisons. Comparison of the DNA sequences of 217 mammalian species reveals that cyt b more accurately reconstructs their phylogeny and known relationships between species based on other molecular and morphological analyses at Super Order, Order, Family and generic levels. Cyt b correctly assigned 95.85% of mammal species to Super Order, 94.31% to Order and 98.16% to Family compared to 78.34%, 93.36% and 96.93% respectively for COI. Cyt b also gives better resolution when separating species based on sequence data. Using a Kimura 2-parameter p-distance (x100) threshold of 1.5–2.5, cyt b gives a better resolution for separating species with a lower false positive rate and higher positive predictive value than those of COI.​

Again cytochrome b is a good genetic indicator but still no real comparison of the diverse species.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Right. Evolution makes firm predictions as to what patterns we will see in biology. ID predicts that we may - or may not - see evidence of design. One of those is real science.


Agreed.


What real science then did was to do the research. By the time of the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case there were a lot of research papers.

I think this is after that then, but it talks about jawless fish; they are missing five components of this supposedly IC system. How can the system be IC if living species are missing a bunch of the components?

Genomic Evidence for a Simpler Clotting Scheme in Jawless Vertebrates | Request PDF

Request PDF | Genomic Evidence for a Simpler Clotting Scheme in Jawless Vertebrates | Mammalian blood clotting involves numerous components, most of which are the result of gene duplications that occurred early in vertebrate... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

When Behe was presented with a pile of papers that showed how the blood clotting cascade could evolve, he pretty much just hand-waved them away.

"Yes, I did. I went through many of the papers that Professor Miller cited, as many as I could, and simply, as a shorthand way of trying to indicate or trying to convey why I don't regard any of them as persuasive, I simply did a search for the phrases, random mutation, which is abbreviated here in this column, RM, and the phrase, natural selection.​

Random mutation, of course, and natural selection are the two elements of the Darwinian mechanism. That is what is at issue here. And so this is, you know, this is, of course, a crude and perhaps shorthand way, but nonetheless, I think this illustrates why I do not find any of these papers persuasive.​

When I go through the papers that Professor Miller cited on the blood clotting cascade, Semba, et al, Robinson, et al, Jiang and Doolittle, there are no references to those phrases, random mutation and natural selection."​

He could not find the phrases "random mutation" or "natural selection", so assumed they were not relevant!

Behe did his research quite well I might add. And it is still included in the list of items that ID considers IC.
's
At the trial:

"The relative importance of the two [initiation] pathways in living organisms is still rather murky. Many experiments on blood clotting are hard to do. And I go on to explain why they must be murky. And then I continue on the next slide. Because of that uncertainty, I said, let’s, leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well-known, the blood clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. And I noted that the components of the system beyond the fork in the pathway are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. So I was focusing on a particular part of the pathway, as I tried to make clear in Darwin’s Black Box. If we could go to the next slide. Those components that I was focusing on are down here at the lower parts of the pathway. And I also circled here, for illustration, the extrinsic pathway. It turns out that the pathway can be activated by either one of two directions. And so I concentrated on the parts that were close to the common point after the fork. So if you could, I think, advance one slide. If you concentrate on those components, a number of those components are ones which have been experimentally knocked out such as fibrinogen, prothrombin, and tissue factor. And if we go to the next slide, I have red arrows pointing to those components. And you see that they all fall in the area of the blood clotting cascade that I was specifically restricting my arguments to. And if you knock out those components, in fact, the blood clotting cascade is broken. So my discussion of irreducible complexity was, I tried to be precise, and my argument, my argument is experimentally supported."

The evidence provided by Miller addresses the blood clotting before the fork while Behe's argument is after the fork.

I am curious how IDists have proved that no non-intelligent process, whether we have thought of it yet or not, could produce an IC system.

That is not how science works. The normal process is to compare two opposing theories for the same event and provide evidence for one over the other and vice versa. A third non existing theory is never thrown into the mix until that theory is established which can then be tested.

I find this argument especially ironic since Behe was specifically looking exclusively at papers that mention "random mutation" or "natural selection"! It seems to me that the argument is:

• IC has not been explained in any science paper that mentions "random mutation" or "natural selection"
• Therefore no non-intelligent process can produce an IC system
• Etc.

That seems quite a leap to me.

The error in this logic has been pointed out to your before but you just keep repeating the same error.

Is is not:

A can not produce c therefore B is correct. This would be a fallacious argument.

But it is rather:

A can not produce c but B is known to produce c therefore B is the better explanation for c.

 

[The Pixie]

The fact that it is very good is not good for your cytochrome c argument since it contradicts it

So you assert, but I see nothing to support that claim - besides that quote that you seem unable to confirm. Be honest, you just copy-and-pasted it from a creationist web site.

Cytochrome b shows that there's less genetic divergence between birds than lizards. Very good you get a cookie.

So the rate of change can vary between clades.

How does ID explain this observation? Oh, right. It cannot. Evolution may not be a perfect model, but it is far better than ID.

Again cytochrome b is a good genetic indicator but still no real comparison of the diverse species.

Again, an assertion with nothing to support it. It is like you are not even trying now, Cisco!

Behe did his research quite well I might add.

So you think he already knew of all those papers that were presented in court? That is not the impression I get!

And it is still included in the list of items that ID considers IC.

Of course it is! ID/creationism is founded on the belief that creationists are scientifically illiterate, and so they will never actually check to see if their claims are true.

Remember those videos you posted? If you had actually bothered to check the facts, you would have realised they were all based on quote-mining real science. You just assume these people post in good faith. Perhaps they do, but they just blindly trust their own creationist sources.

The simple fact is that ID/creationism is still pushing a lot of claims that have been proven wrong, and this is just one.

At the trial:

"The relative importance of the two [initiation] pathways in living organisms is still rather murky. Many experiments on blood clotting are hard to do. And I go on to explain why they must be murky. And then I continue on the next slide. Because of that uncertainty, I said, let’s, leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where some details are less well-known, the blood clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. And I noted that the components of the system beyond the fork in the pathway are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. So I was focusing on a particular part of the pathway, as I tried to make clear in Darwin’s Black Box. If we could go to the next slide. Those components that I was focusing on are down here at the lower parts of the pathway. And I also circled here, for illustration, the extrinsic pathway. It turns out that the pathway can be activated by either one of two directions. And so I concentrated on the parts that were close to the common point after the fork. So if you could, I think, advance one slide. If you concentrate on those components, a number of those components are ones which have been experimentally knocked out such as fibrinogen, prothrombin, and tissue factor. And if we go to the next slide, I have red arrows pointing to those components. And you see that they all fall in the area of the blood clotting cascade that I was specifically restricting my arguments to. And if you knock out those components, in fact, the blood clotting cascade is broken. So my discussion of irreducible complexity was, I tried to be precise, and my argument, my argument is experimentally supported."

The evidence provided by Miller addresses the blood clotting before the fork while Behe's argument is after the fork.

The jawless fish nevertheless destroys his argument. In the lamprey, for example, we have an organism that survives perfectly well despite missing five components of his supposedly IC system. And as you freely admit, IDists are still pushing this nonsense.

How well did Behe research this exactly?

That is not how science works. The normal process is to compare two opposing theories for the same event and provide evidence for one over the other and vice versa. A third non existing theory is never thrown into the mix until that theory is established which can then be tested.

We are talking about ID, not science, Cisco!

ID is claiming there is no way a non-intelligent process can produce an IC system - which is not how science works, so your argument fails right there. How can we be sure that that is true? You tell me?

Do not say evolution cannot do it because (besides the fact it can) you also need to exclude any other non-intelligent processes for the claim to be true.

The error in this logic has been pointed out to your before but you just keep repeating the same error.
Is is not:

A can not produce c therefore B is correct. This would be a fallacious argument.

But it is rather:

A can not produce c but B is known to produce c therefore B is the better explanation for c.

So you are not claiming c is evidence for B? You seemed to be before; if you have abandoned that position, then fair enough.

The way science works is that a hypothesis makes predictions. Where are ID's predictions? Until you can present testable necessary consequences of ID, you claim "That is not how science works" rings hollow.

 

[Five Solas]

The way science works is that a hypothesis makes predictions.

Let's try one. Fill in the variables as predicted by your hypothesis: based on the average rate of mutation X, in the genome of species Y, the speciation event Z is predicted at S.