[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>> Probably not.  The Reason to Believe creationists want to   
   >>>>>>>> exclude descent with modification.  In it's place they claim   
   >>>>>>>> that their designer is recreating new species (some of them can   
   >>>>>>>> still 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)