Atheism Just Blown Out of the Water

[james03]

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

And it broke down.

I reviewed the trap article.  There's a problem with what he calls the 4-part trap (and it only gets worse as he reduces parts).  He has to angle the hold down bar, which is a modification to a protein, and the spring "tail" also has to be modified as he admits in the article (it would have to be filed), but you'd also have to adjust the length and bend of the spring "tail", which is a modification to the protein.  Proteins fold in a specific shape to make the machine part.  And now the cheese is hanging off the side of the base, so the hammer will miss the mouse.

Essentially he has moved the catch to the spring to make a combo protein.  So to get to a 5 part trap, he has to modify the spring, the hold down bar, and add the catch.  Three concurrent mutations.

[james03]

An actual electric nano-tech motor in bacteria.  It has a rotor, stator, and what appears to be bearings.

[Stanley]

They would both be subject to selection forces and evolve together.

You've just conceded Behe's point.

If so, then his point is trivial and says nothing against evolution.

Do you think the mammal ear bones are "irreducibly complex"?

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Here's the rest of that Darwin quote:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.

An actual electric nano-tech motor in bacteria.  It has a rotor, stator, and what appears to be bearings.

So?

Do you have any evidence the flagellum didn't come about by natural processes, or just an assertion without evidence? If you can't grasp how it could have come about, it does not follow that it didn't.

Hint: the flagellum has a lot in common with a type-3 secretory system. They most likely have a common ancestor. That includes the possibility that one developed from the other.

[james03]

If so, then his point is trivial and says nothing against evolution.

There is one person who found it fatal to evolution.  That's Dr. John McDonald, who spent time attempting to refute a throw-away example Behe created for the layman.  He failed in his rebuttal, but he understands the seriousness of the argument, so much so he wrote his article and made his drawings.

Here's the rest of that Darwin quote:

Thanks for providing it.  It does absolutely nothing to change this:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

but it does prove my point:

But I can find out no such case.

I completely agree with him. Back then:

1. The cell was considered a very simple structure with perhaps 4-5 parts.  This was due to the crude microscopes they had.  Certainly they didn't have x-ray diffraction or biological markers.

2. They operated under the "bio-chemistry" mindset and could not even fathom that bio-nanotech even existed.

So?

I could have written "I don't believe in evolution because I don't believe in the tooth fairy." but I think a pictorial presentation does a better job.  You can ignore it.

Do you have any evidence the flagellum didn't come about by natural processes, or just an assertion without evidence?

Look up "proving a negative".  When you have to demand that, you're losing the debate.  Where's your evidence God didn't provide the information and use successive creationism?

What we have is Darwinian theory, which is a failure.  You yourself conceded that you would need at least two contemporaneous "mutations", which wouldn't work anyway, but you are already abandoning Darwin.  Behe showed that Darwinian evolution is a failure, and you conceded the point.

But science has shown it is far, far worse.  We'll stick with the simple mousetrap, which itself has problems (what about the staples holding down that parts? These would be secondary functions on the protein used for binding.)  Arguendo, we'll ignore that and we'll ignore the modifications McDonald had to make, and we'll assume that the 4-part trap actually would kill a mouse, all assumed.  So now we want to go to the 5-part trap by adding a catch.

So we need to mutate the DNA.  Big problem.  I can't add information to the existing DNA as I would decrease entropy.  So first I have to grow the length of the DNA.  And a reasonable estimate for the catch protein will be 300 amino acids.  So I have to now add 300 codeons to this enlarged DNA.  So you see simple ideas about "mutations" can already be discarded (good bye Darwin).  So with massive assumptions and at the beginning of the process, I've left Darwin in the dust.  But it gets worse.

So now I have this DNA with 300 base pairs giving us the information to build the catch.  Does me no good.  I need more information.  I need a protein with the information required to unzip the DNA at the point of the catch instructions.  Where this protein came from, and how it got its information?  Don't know.  And we'll need to modify the golgi complex area that was used to assemble the 4 part trap to now include the catch.  And likely we'll need to update the cell signaling chain because the signaling proteins have been modified, and we have added a new one for the catch (and one is an oversimplification, there are many involved as the video showed).

THIS is what Darwin didn't know about.  And reading my description it should be obvious that Darwian evolution fails.

I propose successive creationism where God makes the changes (the idea of simple mutations is ludicrous) over time, supplying the information needed.

[Stanley]

That's Dr. John McDonald, who spent time attempting to refute a throw-away example Behe created for the layman.

I'm glad you agree Behe's example is throw-away garbage, per McDonald. That's some progress.

Do you have any evidence the flagellum didn't come about by natural processes, or just an assertion without evidence?

Look up "proving a negative".  When you have to demand that, you're losing the debate.  Where's your evidence God didn't provide the information and use successive creationism?

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked if you had any evidence.

So I guess you have no evidence.

You yourself conceded that you would need at least two contemporaneous "mutations", which wouldn't work anyway, but you are already abandoning Darwin.  Behe showed that Darwinian evolution is a failure, and you conceded the point.

Nope. First, multiple "contemporaneous" mutations have been directly observed. So it most certainly could "work".

Second, if by "Darwin" you mean specifically theories from 150 years ago, so what? Evolutionary theory has advanced a bit in 150 years, including things (like epigenetics) that were not part of "Darwin's" theory. That's not a problem.

So we need to mutate the DNA.  Big problem.  I can't add information to the existing DNA as I would decrease entropy.  So first I have to grow the length of the DNA.  And a reasonable estimate for the catch protein will be 300 amino acids.  So I have to now add 300 codeons to this enlarged DNA.  So you see simple ideas about "mutations" can already be discarded (good bye Darwin).  So with massive assumptions and at the beginning of the process, I've left Darwin in the dust.  But it gets worse.

DNA is often duplicated. A part that codes for something ends up with multiple, redundant copies. They acquire mutations and code for something else. That's not a rare event.

Is that "add[ing] information"?

[james03]

I'm glad you agree Behe's example is throw-away garbage, per McDonald. That's some progress.

You're projecting.  And McDonald took it seriously.

Behe is still saying the same things about "irreducible complexity" - even using the mousetrap explanation - without any attempt to address well-known critiques.

The mousetrap example is for the layman to understand the concept, not to prove the point. ...
Behe's response pointing out that the anti-mousetrap argument is midwit logic: ....
First off the mouse trap was an illustration for the laymen as Behe said in the quote I provided. ...
That's Dr. John McDonald, who spent time attempting to refute a throw-away example Behe created for the layman.

I've been consistent.  It is you who now understands bringing up the mousetrap example was in error.

[james03]

Nope. First, multiple "contemporaneous" mutations have been directly observed. So it most certainly could "work".

I put "mutations" in quotes for a reason.  The idea of "mutations" causing evolution is outdated by 40 years.  In short, you have to provide new information for a whole lot of amino acids in the protein, set up your transcription mechanism, alter the golgi complex for assembling the new protein, set up the signaling chain to control the new sub assembly, and yes get your epigenetics set up so you can have cell differentiation at a minimum.  This idea of gradual "mutations" causing this is absurd.  Which is Behe's point.

Second, if by "Darwin" you mean specifically theories from 150 years ago, so what?

Behe's book was entitled "Darwin's Black Box" in which he shows Darwin's theory is a failure.

Evolutionary theory has advanced a bit in 150 years, including things (like epigenetics) that were not part of "Darwin's" theory. That's not a problem.Evolutionary theory has advanced a bit in 150 years, including things (like epigenetics) that were not part of "Darwin's" theory. That's not a problem.

Epigenetics is another thing they have to scramble to explain.  As Meyers points out in the video, Creationists predicted epigenetics.  It is another piece that "mutations" can't explain, because we aren't dealing with "bio chemistry" anymore, which is outdated, we are dealing with bio nano mechanics.  And it all has to be present to function.

DNA is often duplicated. A part that codes for something ends up with multiple, redundant copies. They acquire mutations and code for something else. That's not a rare event.

Is that "add[ing] information"?

No.  See above.  And post a link discussing an example.



 

[Stanley]

DNA is often duplicated. A part that codes for something ends up with multiple, redundant copies. They acquire mutations and code for something else. That's not a rare event.
Is that "add[ing] information"?

No.  See above.  And post a link discussing an example.

If that's not adding information, then the claim that evolution needs to add information is false.

I've been consistent.  It is you who now understands bringing up the mousetrap example was in error.

Is Behe still using the moustrap as an analogy? Yes. Is it an abysmal failure as an analogy? Yes. Has Behe changed how he presents it to make it any less of a failure? No.

Behe's book was entitled "Darwin's Black Box" in which he shows Darwin's theory is a failure.

What he actually does is deceptive. His arguments against "Darwinism" are frequently specific to the 150-year old theory rather than modern evolutionary theory. But he doesn't make that distinction very clear to lay readers.

[james03]

Post your link.  I want to see what the claim is.

If you "mutate" then you are destroying the previous information and replacing it.  The information content stays the same.  If I have a temperature, and change the temperature by adding micro states, the information content stays the same even though the temperature changed.

[james03]

Is Behe still using the moustrap as an analogy? Yes. Is it an abysmal failure as an analogy? Yes. Has Behe changed how he presents it to make it any less of a failure? No.

When you lose a point in a debate, acknowlege it and move on.  You're hurting your credibility.

The analogy was excellent and suited its purpose.  And evidently it wasn't simple enough because you and McDonald don't get it.

If I remove the catch, will the mousetrap work?  No it won't.  That's it.  You have to start from that point.

His arguments against "Darwinism" are frequently specific to the 150-year old theory rather than modern evolutionary theory. But he doesn't make that distinction very clear to lay readers.

"Modern" evolutionary theory is just epicycles patched on to a failed theory.  The original theory was based on biochemistry and an extremely simplistic understanding of proteins.  The modern epicycle theory proposes "mutations" to DNA.

And modern evolutionary theory still requires gradual change over time as there is no mechanism for drastic changes.

A quick point, the problem with evolution is not natural selection.  It is a simplistic mindset on "mutations".  This was the breakthrough that Behe made.  What Behe shows is we have to think about the systems, because the cell is a mechanistic system of nano-tech. 

So an example of epicycle theory.  A cosmic ray hits a DNA and causes a mutation to a base pair.  100,000 times this results in degeneration.  But one time it causes the protein to be altered slightly that is advantageous.  We got a billion years to work with, so over time natural selection gives us improvements.  That's the modern epicycle theory of evolution.

It doesn't work.  I've written about all (well probably not all) the changes that would have to happen cocurrently to achieve new functionality.  The epicycle theory can't explain it because it is impossible to do by mutating some base pairs on a DNA.

[Santantonio]

What he actually does is deceptive. His arguments against "Darwinism" are frequently specific to the 150-year old theory rather than modern evolutionary theory. But he doesn't make that distinction very clear to lay readers.

Behe has written two books since Black Box, which is somewhat outdated, though a classic. William Dembski has also contributed to the irreducible complexity argument. As has Stephen Meyer. 

[Stanley]

If I remove the catch, will the mousetrap work?  No it won't.  That's it.  You have to start from that point.

NO, you DON'T need to "start" from that point.

1. If a system genuinely were "irreducibly complex" to removal of a part, you seem to think that means there's no way to "get there" by gradual evolution. But that's simply not the case.
a) The system could "get there" by removal from a bigger system, not addition to a smaller system. For example, parts that were redundant can get removed through natural selection, leaving a more optimized system
b) Parts can be adapted to new functions and lose old functions
c) Parts can co-evolve through gradual changes to each part. This is compatible with extremely gradual changes.

2. If you bend part of a mousetrap you don't need a catch, so it seems it's not even "irreducibly complex" to removal. Likewise, how can you be certain any other system is truly irreducibly complex?

"Modern" evolutionary theory is just epicycles patched on to a failed theory.

Evolutionary theory has made numerous correct predictions in biology and paleontology, and it has been successfully applied in medicine and genetic engineering. It seems to work an awful lot.

As Inigo Montoya might say: you keep using that word, "failed". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[james03]

1. If a system genuinely were "irreducibly complex" to removal of a part, you seem to think that means there's no way to "get there" by gradual evolution. But that's simply not the case.

You can't even do it with Behe's simplistic mousetrap example.  MacDonald failed.  To illustrate this point, MacDonald did three modifications, bending the bar, extending the spring, and reshaping the spring end, effectively recreating the catch.  So he was forced to give up on gradual evolution because it fails.

But I have a better four part trap.  Don't do any of MacDonald's changes.  Instead, put a spring loaded dart gun on the tip of the hold down bar triggered by moving the cheese.  And to really increase the lethality, make the dart poisoned.  The advantage is that adding the catch now requires me to LOSE functionality, which satisfies thermodynamic principles with regards to information entropy.  My solution is equivalent to MacDonald's, because mine also can not work using the failed evolution epicycle theory.

If you remove the catch, the trap doesn't work.  That's the starting point.  The hold down bar is not bent, the spring is not lengthened, and the spring end is not modified, or you don't have a spring loaded dart gun or poisoned dart.  What you have is a trap that doesn't work.

But Darwin's theory is a bigger failure than what Behe knew at the time of his brilliant insight.  Far worse.  Here's one problem: kinsases.  Cell regulation and control are REQUIRED.  Serious people don't believe in magic.  Here's some of the kinases involved in a cell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinase#/media/File:Signal_transduction_pathways.png

Note "Gene Regulation".  You want your mousetrap to have a catch on it?  Then you need the kinases required to produce that trap.  And you need epigenetics, because you want the mousetrap to only be in your stomach, in case you swallow a live mouse.  You don't want it in your brain, or growing out of the side of your leg.

[james03]

As I discussed evolution is a failed theory because of the crude instruments at the time of Darwin.  The cell was a simple thing with a few organelles in them.  The mindset was on biochemistry where by natural processes there were some substituted atoms over time.  Most were failures, but you got a few that improved things and by natural selection change progressed over a billion years.  Laughable today, but that's what they had to work with.

Then microscopes got better and they saw cell division, even chromosomes dividing.  This would be due to chemical reactions, perhaps based on charge differentials.  Biochemistry.  Supercomputers to solve protein folding, x-ray diffraction, and electron microscopes weren't around.

Things started to change in 1984, and really started getting solved by the mid aughts.  They discovered motor proteins.  Robots with walking legs.  Here's a short video.  This is not science fiction or some artistic conceptual presentation, this is what is actually happening.  I call this video: God has a sense of humor:

[james03]

Motor proteins are used in cell division.  The evolutionists saw the division of the chromosones, but didn't understand how insanely complex this mechanical nano-tech process was.  Here's a longer video showing the process:



Cool sound effects.  Anyhow, in order to have evolution, you need SYSTEMS like these in order to replicate.  Obviously if you can't replicate there's no natural selection.  This is one of many dead lock problems with the epicycle theory.  Cell division HAD to be part of the most ancient first cell.  And it doesn't happen by fairy dust, it must have complicated robotics and control.

In high school you may have been told about an immortal monkey that will type out a flawless Shakespeare play if given a typewritter (word processor for today's crowd), since he'll have an infinite time to randomly do it.  My reply: monkies don't have type writers or word processors.