[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> from the existing species.   They want to claim de novo creation   
   >>>>>> is involved and not descent with modification.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You should have seen Behe's claims about whale "devolution".  He   
   >>>>>> claimed that a lot of the evolution back to an aquatic lifestyle   
   >>>>>> 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:   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)