[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> involved breaking genes to revert back to the phenotype.  He claimed   
   >>>> that selection for these broken genes would be what would be   
   >>>> expected by Darwinian evolution.  Unfortunately for Behe the broken   
   >>>> genes are not all that had to happen during the evolution back to an   
   >>>> aquatic lifestyle.  The new structures that needed to form like   
   >>>> Baleen in the place of teeth had to also evolve.  It wasn't just   
   >>>> losing things like teeth and hair.  The whale's tail had to bend and   
   >>>> horizontal fluke's had to evolve where nothing existed before.  Behe   
   >>>> can't demonstrate that these new structures did not evolve by   
   >>>> Darwinian mechanisms because he notes that Darwinian mechanisms were   
   >>>> obviously working to select for the broken genes.   
   >>>   
   >>> I tend to agree. Whether one considers whales to be designed or   
   >>> evolved, they are clearly highly suited to their environment such   
   >>> that progressive functional subtractions from an aquatic anscestor as   
   >>> a primary source of adpaptations is surely inadequate.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The nature and measurement of information seems slippery. As you   
   >>>>> mention, is it Kolmogorov complexity or Darwkin's "incomplete   
   >>>>> record of the historical environment", or something else?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No matter how the ID perps have tried to measure information,   
   >>>> nothing has panned out for them.  At one time Dembski admitted that   
   >>>> natural selection could be the designer.  None of them have been   
   >>>> able to demonstrate that any of their examples of information could   
   >>>> not have evolved by descent with modification.  They aren't even   
   >>>> dealing with the information that they need to deal with when they   
   >>>> lie about the genetic code.  The information required for life is   
   >>>> not in the genetic code, but in the 3 dimensional structures created   
   >>>> by the string of amino acids produced using that code, and as the ID   
   >>>> perps themselves admit life has only had to explore a very small   
   >>>> portion of possible protein space in order to evolve the diversity   
   >>>> that it has. It is just a fact that only a very small bit of protein   
   >>>> space has had to be tested in order to do everything that needs to   
   >>>> be done.  This seems to be due to the fact that the vast majority of   
   >>>> protein genes have evolved from existing protein genes, and that   
   >>>> sequence has only had to be changed a little in order to create the   
   >>>> new function.  Your adaptive immune system would not work by   
   >>>> mutation and selection if this was not the case.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>   
   >>> "Dembski admitted that natural selection could be the designer" - do   
   >>> you have reference for that?   
   >>   
   >> It was after the bait and switch had started to go down and like   
   >> Dembski's claim that space aliens were the most scientific option for   
   >> an intelligent designer Dembski was trying to note that the ID perps   
   >> were not designating what the designer was (they were not claiming   
   >> that it had to be a supernatural god-like being), and he was just   
   >> pointing out that natural selection could result in functional   
   >> designs.  My guess is that it is a stupid enough admission of reality   
   >> that it likely has made it into one of the Wiki's on the subject.  It   
   >> might even be in Dembski's wiki.  He was making the point to claim   
   >> that ID was science because they were lying about who their designer   
   >> was, and it did not have to be a god.  All the ID perps would   
   >> eventually admit that their designer was the Biblical god, but they   
   >> were and are still lying about what ID is to them in order to keep   
   >> using it as bait to fool the rubes.  They are only fooling   
   >> creationists like yourself that want to be lied to.   
   >   
   > Hang on, this is a big claim - cites please, not more bluster.   
      
   It isn't bluster.  Dembski really made the admission.  It is just the   
   same as when Behe admitted that some IC systems could have evolved by   
   natural means at the turn of the century.  Behe had to admit that   
   irreducible complexity did not mean could not have evolved.  He had to   
   start claiming that his type of IC could not have evolved and he started   
   making claims about the number of parts and "well matched", but he has   
   never been able to define well matched so that he could say that his   
   systems had enough of it for them to be his type of IC, and he never   
   could determine how many parts were enough to make a system his type of   
   IC.  He gave up and started his waiting time and 3 neutral mutation   
   shtick.  Both ID perps were only admitting that some of what they were   
   calling design was possible for biological evolution.  Dembski resorted   
   to his notion of high specified complexity to differentiate low level   
   specified complexity (that could evolve) from his systems that had more   
   specified complexity that could not evolve.  There is no doubt that   
   natural selection can select sequence changes that occur in an existing   
   gene for new functions that can develop.  Multiple examples exist, and   
   like your new gene paper nearly all the new genes had evolved from   
   existing genes.  This type of specified complexity is obviously possible   
   by natural mechanisms.  It is the specification of the entire gene that   
   Dembski has issues with and not the new genes that evolved from   
   preexisting genes.  Behe admits the same thing when he acknowledges that   
   2 neutral mutations occurring before natural selection could act are   
   possible for creating new functions but 3 are too many.  Behe   
   understands that there is no limit for the number of mutations occurring   
   that each can be selected for in terms of specification of the design.   
   The limit is for what can't be selected for.   
      
   Just look at Demski's examples of complex specified information.  His   
   claims are that it is improbable to evolve all the steps in his   
   examples, but it is obviously possible to evolve systems with less steps   
   even by Dembski's tornado through a junkyard probability estimates.  The   
   fact is systems with a larger number of parts just seem to be several   
   systems with fewer parts getting together.  That is always why the   
   tornado through a junkyard stupidity has always failed creationists.   
      
   Just like your sequence space stupidity falls apart because life has   
   never had to search very much of sequence space to accomplish what it   
   has accomplished.  Random sequence can account for what Dembski calls   
   specification.   
      
   This is a quote from Google:   
   William Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design (ID),   
   acknowledges that natural selection is a real process that can produce   
   micro-evolutionary changes or adaptations within species. However, he   
   argues it cannot explain the origin of complex biological systems or the   
   diversity of life (macro-evolution), which he attributes to an   
   intelligent designer.   
   END QUOTE:   
      
   Macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution.  We just had a   
   discussion as to whether Neanderthals were a different species.  There   
   are physical differences, but it is a matter of opinion as to how much   
   is enough to make that claim.  Most of their DNA split off from modern   
   humans 800,000 years ago.  They were more closely related to modern   
   humans than that because some Homo left Africa around 500,000 years ago   
   and got absorbed by the Neanderthals, so it makes Neanderthals more   
   closely related to modern humans than are Denisovans.  When has enough   
   micro evolution occurred in order to call it macro evolution?   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)