[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>> interbreed, so they could be sub species) just a little different   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)