[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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)