Bacteria evolve...
-
Like I said: Irreducible complexity is worthless pseudo-intellectual trash. Even Behe admits it: In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[2] "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73) "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74) "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75) "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76) "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not su
-
You really *are* incapable of sustained rational thought -- and logical consistency -- aren't you?
Ilíon wrote:
You really *are* incapable of sustained rational thought -- and logical consistency -- aren't you?
Thank you for admitting defeat. We can move on now.
-
I know what it means and you should too - you do it all the time. Anyways, I'm not arguing against the man, I'm stating facts about him. There's no argumentation involved.
-
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Well, no. The Dip's post is a tribute to his apparent inability to think. But, look on the bright side: perhaps I'm wrong? Perhaps he simply *chooses* to not think.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You really *are* incapable of sustained rational thought -- and logical consistency -- aren't you?
Thank you for admitting defeat. We can move on now.
-
I know what it means and you should too - you do it all the time. Anyways, I'm not arguing against the man, I'm stating facts about him. There's no argumentation involved.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Oh, poor thing! Can't even tell when his behavior is being mocked.
Not going to refute anything in my post, huh? Like I said, victory is mine and all too easy. :^)
-
Just as you are smugly pleased with yours.
-
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Waiting for a "science" worshipper to remind Ravel that "science never proves anything" . . . Oh! Silly me! I'm glad I wasn't also holding my breath!
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Waiting for a "science" worshipper to remind Ravel that "science never proves anything" . . . Oh! Silly me! I'm glad I wasn't also holding my breath!
But I assume that you wouldn't be using scientific method to prove itself wrong. Otherwise it would give the wrong answer. You would use YOUR methods, of course, which I guess involve assuming that you're always right about everything. Actually, that's probably all there is to it. :doh:
-
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Huh?
We need a sarcasm icon.
-
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?
Of course I know that! ;) It was a joke geared towards those people who know how vehemently I've been arguing in favour of science lately. In reality I'm a huge science nerd (as dubbed by many a snotty peer).
-
We need a sarcasm icon.
Ah, it was the "Baha" that was confusing me...
-
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?
-
Of course I know that! ;) It was a joke geared towards those people who know how vehemently I've been arguing in favour of science lately. In reality I'm a huge science nerd (as dubbed by many a snotty peer).
:doh: Should have spotted that one!
-
MRSA? Oh, I did some work at a sugar refinery in London and scientists came to sample yeasts there because they had evolved to survive better in such a specialised enviornment.
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?
Why don't you explain this the The Dip?
Ilíon wrote:
Why don't you explain this the The Dip?
Ha HA! Like preserving an insect in amber. ;)
-
Ilíon wrote:
Oh, poor thing! Can't even tell when his behavior is being mocked.
Not going to refute anything in my post, huh? Like I said, victory is mine and all too easy. :^)
-
Michael Behe (on his Amazon Blog) discusses this: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli[^]
... I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active. So random mutation much more easily breaks genes than builds them, even when it helps an organism to survive. That’s a very important point. A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell. In his new paper Lenski reports that, after 30,000 generations, one of his lines of cells has developed the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. (E. coli in the wild can’t do that.) Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a “citrate permease” which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.) ... [Ilíon: bolding mine]
The Edge of Evolution is Behe's recently published book in which he sets out to determine just *what* "evolut
Ilíon wrote:
A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell.
Same old simple minded creationist garbage. Mutations alone do not cause positive change in an organism. Natural selection is what causes increased complexity and positive changes, random mutations give natural selection something to work with. While it is highly unlikely that an organism will develop a positive random change, if it's odds of survival and reproduction are increased, then that positive mutation will be passed on to future generations while negative ones will be removed from the gene pool over time.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion