The remarkable process of cell division

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 2, 2022

Cell biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Chromosomes are densely packed DNA. The two “sister chromatids” of a chromosome, having been accurately duplicated during prophase and secured by centromeres, are arranged with all the other chromosomes on the spindle axis in metaphase. Soon after they are winched apart in anaphase into daughter cells. This elaborate choreography takes place every time a cell divides. The cell cycle is fascinating to anyone who has witnessed it under a light microscope, as you can see here:
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

Remarkable movies made with super-resolution atomic force microscopy show the parts of cohesin undergoing conformational changes. These hand-over-hand motions operate in the dark without eyes, using ATP for energy. They get it right every time!
Evolution News, “DNA Packing: One of the Supreme Wonders of Nature” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 31, 2022)

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Everything is coming up non-random (PAV)

Comments

Behe:
My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate.
JVL is too stupid to understand that.ET_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

JVL is clearly just an ignorant troll. The 10^20 came from the researcher. I don't know if he is a materialist. The 10^40 follows from the rules of probability. I thought JVL said he understood mathematics. Clearly not. Behe did NOT interpret anything. the 10^20 came from the researcher. JVL doesn't even know the paper Behe is referring to and yet he feels he can comment on it. What a dolt. No one can support unguided evolution unless they are claiming it can produce deformities or genetic diseases. JVL doesn't have any idea if the scientist of the paper Behe referenced supports unguided evolution. Said scientists definitely has never published anything that shows unguided evolution can do anything more than what I have said. And, AGAIN, that is all moot as there isn't any evidence to support unguided evolution's ability to produce universal common descent. JVL is a liar and a fool.ET_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

The idea that the universe had a "beginning" (at least in the ordinary sense of a "beginning") is a theory which has been falsified by relatively recent quantum physics experiments that have disproved both local and non-local realism. The first half of this video presents the evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRMWilliam J Murray_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

JVL, thanks for responding. So, you don't think there is necessarily a supernatural force that created the universe? Even though it had a beginning? And therefore it cannot create itself?zweston_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Behe stated,
“The number I cite, one parasite in every 10^20 for de novo chloroquine resistance, is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is a statistic, a result, a data point.",,, (and also stated) ",,,the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40." - Michael Behe
Yet, JVL falsely claims that, "He (Behe) combined probabilities together incorrectly as was made very, very clear.",, But Behe did not combine probabilities incorrectly. Just as surely as 2+2 equals 4,,, 10^20 x 10^20 certainly does equal 10^40,
Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin’s Achilles Heel – Michael Behe – January 17, 2015 Excerpt: Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events — about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html
JVL then falsely claims that, "He (Behe) assumed the mutations would be independent and had to occur at the same time." Yet Behe assumes nothing,
"I (Behe) assume nothing at all. I am simply looking at the results. The malaria parasite was free to do whatever it could in nature; to evolve resistance, or outcompete its fellow parasites, by whatever evolutionary pathway was available in the wild. Neither I nor anyone else were manipulating the results. What we see when we look at chloroquine-resistant malaria is pristine data — it is the best that random mutation plus selection was able to accomplish in the wild in 10^20 tries." - Michael Behe
Simply put, the empirical evidence is what it is. Moreover, empirical evidence could care less how Darwinists try to manipulate their mathematical models to be in their favor.
"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Feynman
Moreover, despite Darwinists trying to manipulate mathematical models to be in their favor, the fact of the matter is that, in reality, mathematics has never really been kind to the imaginary 'just-so stories'* of Darwinists, For instance, there was a infamous "heated exchange' between mathematicians and evolutionary biologists in 1966
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY - WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
To this day, “There exists no (realistic mathematical) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution."
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
To repeat Dr. Marks's words, “there exists no (mathematical) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” ,, Moreover, the insurmountable 'mathematical problems' for Darwinists have only been greatly exasperated for Darwinists as we have learned more, and our knowledge of the details of molecular biology has increased,
"In light of Doug Axe's number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77 for finding a single functional protein fold), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail should we believe that is the way that life arose?" - Stephen Meyer - 46:19 minute mark - Darwin's Doubt - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0&feature=player_detailpage#t=2778 When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/
One final note, these insurmountable 'mathematical difficulties' that Darwinists face, (when they are confronted with actual real world empirical evidence), should not be all that surprising to learn about. The 'immaterial' world of mathematics is, in principle, simply completely incompatible with the reductive materialistic framework of Darwin's theory.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Shoot, in 1910 Alfred Wallace himself observed that 'immaterial' mathematics is, in principle, completely incompatible with the materialistic framework of Darwin's theory,
"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." - Alfred Russel Wallace - 1910 interview
And as Adam Sedgwick himself scolded Charles Darwin in 1859, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly,,,"
"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly,,," - Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin - 1859
In short, if we really were purely material beings, as Darwinists hold, then it would simply be impossible for us to even do 'immaterial' mathematics in the first place. Quote and Verse:
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, per ENV Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

All discussions about probabilities in a certain limited situation are false because they start the calculation with the elements involved as if those elements themselves are at 100% probability. A true discussion about probabilities with some elements that exist now and here will start with probability of something appearing from nothing then adding all probabilities of all stages till this specific case.Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

ET: Learn how to read. Dr Behe used the probabilistic argument made by another scientist. That scientist used his RESEARCH to come up with his probability. That means it is based on something other than hearsay. From a Dr Behe quote provided by Bornagain77:
The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.
That is NOT an argument made by the researchers who work he interpreted. And they told him how he had misinterpreted their work. He combined probabilities together incorrectly as was made very, very clear. Anyway, he made a unique probabilistic argument based on the work of others but he got it wrong. He assumed the mutations would be independent and had to occur at the same time. Umm, Dr Behe didn’t make any probabilistic argument about binding sites. Durrett and Schmidt did. Which he misinterpreted in a new probabilistic argument which they hadn't made. I told you that it was. Again, learn how to read. So, Dr Behe's probabilistic argument, based on the work of materialist scientists who don't know their head from a hole in the ground (by your standards) and used their work to support unguided evolution was a scientific argument? Is that about right? It's pretty funny: you don't trust the scientists who support unguided evolution but you trust their data. How does that work exactly? Which bits of research do you keep and what do you throw out? It's like the demarcation problem isn't it? Or, like you trying to decide which mutations are guided and which aren't. Something you can't explain how to do; i.e. it's all in some book which we all will have to read because you can't summarise the methodology for us. Meanwhile you ask us to bring all our evidence and arguments to you on a plate.JVL_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Zweston: JVL, so what do you hold then? Do you hold to a creator? Are you a deist? I'm an agnostic as in: I haven't been convinced of the existence of a deity but accept that new data or evidence may arise which could change my mind.JVL_{February 9, 2022
February
02
Feb
9
09
2022
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

JVL, so what do you hold then? Do you hold to a creator? Are you a deist?zweston_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

"The number I cite, one parasite in every 10^20 for de novo chloroquine resistance, is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is a statistic, a result, a data point. (Furthermore, it is not my number, but that of the eminent malariologist Nicholas White.) I do not assume that “adaptation cannot occur one mutation at a time”; I assume nothing at all. I am simply looking at the results. The malaria parasite was free to do whatever it could in nature; to evolve resistance, or outcompete its fellow parasites, by whatever evolutionary pathway was available in the wild. Neither I nor anyone else were manipulating the results. What we see when we look at chloroquine-resistant malaria is pristine data — it is the best that random mutation plus selection was able to accomplish in the wild in 10^20 tries." - Michael Behe Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. Generally, when the results of a simple model disagree with observational data, it is an indication that the model is inadequate.,,, The difficulty with models such as Durrett and Schmidt’s is that their biological relevance is often uncertain, and unknown factors that are quite important to cellular evolution may be unintentionally left out of the model. That is why experimental or observational data on the evolution of microbes such as P. falciparum are invaluable,,, http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 How Many Ways Are There to Win at Sandwalk? - Michael Behe - August 15, 2014 Excerpt: What's more, we can also conclude that the mutations that have already been found are the most effective available of any combination of mutations whose joint probability is greater than 1 in 10^20, since more effective alternatives would already have occurred and been selected if they were available.,,, The bottom line for all of them is that the acquisition of chloroquine resistance is an event of statistical probability 1 in 10^20.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/how_many_ways_a088981.html Dr. Michael Behe, Guest Lecture at YISS - 2015 video (31:00 minute mark: empirical verification of 1 in 10^20 'edge' of evolution) https://vimeo.com/110110918 "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." - Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146
bornagain77_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

The universe is all time, space and matter - all physical reality. Whatever caused the universe to exist cannot be a physical entity, bound by time or space or physical laws. Since it is not physical, it is not determined by physical processes. So,, it causes by free choice, not forced by physics. That which acts by free choice is personal.Silver Asiatic_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

JVL:
I don’t think the inference that the universe having a cause necessitates a personal creator.
True. It does mean it needs a cause.ET_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JVL:
And then Dr Behe made a probabilistic argument. Clearly. Do you think his argument was scientific: yes or no?
Learn how to read. Dr Behe used the probabilistic argument made by another scientist. That scientist used his RESEARCH to come up with his probability. That means it is based on something other than hearsay.
So, Dr Behe’s probabilistic argument about binding sites is NOT scientific because you contend there is no knowledge of how they could have come into being.
Umm, Dr Behe didn't make any probabilistic argument about binding sites. Durrett and Schmidt did.
Was Dr Behe’s argument based on valid scientific research?
I told you that it was. Again, learn how to read. The whole point is that you are LYING, here. There isn't any evidence for macro-evolution. Just blind faith based on the need.ET_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

:) To believe that a kiss could transform a frog into a prince is considered gullibility , to believe a bacteria became a bacteriologist is considered wit. If you put in front the word "science" or "scientific studies" it's like a magic wand that transform a dumb theory( like darwinism ) into a very "respectable" theory. Not only that the second worse thing is that people who believe that dumb theory think that they are smart.Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Zweston: How do you sort out the Kalaam argument? Okay, you made a typo: you meant the KALAM argument. From Wikipedia:
The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. William Lane Craig was principally responsible for giving new life to the argument, due to his The Kal?m Cosmological Argument (1979), among other writings. The kalam cosmological argument's premises surrounding causation and the beginning of the universe were discussed by various philosophers, the philosophical view of causation being a subject of David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and the metaphysical arguments for a beginning of the universe being the subject of Kant's first antinomy. The argument's key underpinning idea is the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities and of a temporally past-infinite universe, traced by Craig to 11th-century Persian Muslim scholastic philosopher Al-Ghazali. This feature distinguishes it from other cosmological arguments, such as that of Thomas Aquinas, which rests on the impossibility of a causally ordered infinite regress, and those of Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, which refer to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Since Craig's original publication, the Kalam cosmological argument has elicited public debate between Craig and Graham Oppy, Adolf Grünbaum, J. L. Mackie and Quentin Smith, and has been used in Christian apologetics. According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well argued in contemporary theological philosophy".

The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:[4] Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe: The universe has a cause. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes: "... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
I don't think the inference that the universe having a cause necessitates a personal creator. That seems to me to be a supposition with no evidence. The notions of thousands of years of theists does not prove the case.JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

ET: He was using the findings of another scientist working on, wait for it, the parasite that causes malaria. It was actual experimental research that led to the probabilities. Behe just cited the research and the findings. And then Dr Behe made a probabilistic argument. Clearly. Do you think his argument was scientific: yes or no? And, AGAIN, the ONLY reason probabilistic arguments are used is because there isn’t any actual evidence. Probability arguments are scientific if there is knowledge of how something could come into being. That means they don’t apply to any bacterial flagellum because no one has any idea how they came into being. Wild guesses based on the need is all you will ever see. So, Dr Behe's probabilistic argument about binding sites is NOT scientific because you contend there is no knowledge of how they could have come into being. Probability arguments based on actual research, would also be scientific. Was Dr Behe's argument based on valid scientific research? If yes then why accept that research and not other research? If not then Dr Behe's argument is not scientific.JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Yes, JVL's position is one of absolute faith. Blind faith, at that. There isn't any evidence to support it. There isn't even a way to test it. Blind faith.ET_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Dr Behe claimed that the probability of getting the right sequence of mutations at the right location was exceedingly small, almost non-existent.
Right. He was using the findings of another scientist working on, wait for it, the parasite that causes malaria. It was actual experimental research that led to the probabilities. Behe just cited the research and the findings. And, AGAIN, the ONLY reason probabilistic arguments are used is because there isn't any actual evidence. Probability arguments are scientific if there is knowledge of how something could come into being. That means they don't apply to any bacterial flagellum because no one has any idea how they came into being. Wild guesses based on the need is all you will ever see. Probability arguments based on actual research, would also be scientific. But the probability of unguided evolution producing eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes, doesn't have that. So, it isn't scientific.ET_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Zweston: JVL- at 85-95%, would you then say your position is one of faith? No. How do you sort out the Kalaam argument? As I am not familiar with it I shall have to look it up and get back to you.JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

JVL- at 85-95%, would you then say your position is one of faith? How do you sort out the Kalaam argument?zweston_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Was that a scientific argument: Yes or no?
In which grade are you now?Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

ET: 1- It wasn’t Behe’s argument Dr Behe claimed that the probability of getting the right sequence of mutations at the right location was exceedingly small, almost non-existent. That's a probabilistic argument. Was that a scientific argument: Yes or no?JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

JVL:
So . . . it’s okay when an ID proponent makes a probabilistic argument? Was Dr Behe’s argument scientific?
1- It wasn't Behe's argument 2- Because there isn't any supporting evidence for unguided evolution, beyond genetic diseases and deformities, probabilistic arguments are all there is. That's how pathetic unguided evolution is.ET_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

"I don’t think there is any evidence against it" Here's a piece of evidence that JVL has trouble with the concept of evidence. Andrewasauber_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

JVL So . . . it’s okay when an ID proponent makes a probabilistic argument? Was Dr Behe’s argument scientific?
So...are we at Comedy Hour? There was no scientific evidence for evolution in THE FIRST PLACE .Lieutenant Commander Data_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

ET: Behe’s argument was probabilistic because there isn’t any experimental evidence to draw upon. So . . . it's okay when an ID proponent makes a probabilistic argument? Was Dr Behe's argument scientific?JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Folks, if it were known c 1860 or 1870 or even 80 that the cell is based on self replicating nanotech using coded strings with algorithms, Darwin would have got nowhere. In the 20's - 40's, the Neo- synthesis was entrenched and when the presence of language and goal directed stepwise processes was identified, such was force fitted into processes that cannot credibly, on observation -- Newton's rules again -- account for it. That is, we have an orthodoxy in unacknowledged crisis that will sooner or later go over the cliff. As for me, I have simply declared independence of the orthodoxy in unacknowledged crisis. There is precisely one credible source of language, complex code and algorithms, intelligently directed configuration. That's actually a no brainer. An intellectual revolution is coming, once a critical mass of people raised on digital tech realise that the Emperor is walking around in underwear and pretending to be in fancy robes. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

JVL:
One of Dr Behe’s arguments was probabilistic so when addressing that argument the responders addressed how his probabilistic argument was incorrect.
Wow. Behe's argument was probabilistic because there isn't any experimental evidence to draw upon. And if the evos had any actual evidence they would have used it to refute him. They don't have the evidence and they messed up their alleged refutation.ET_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

ET: There is a reason why evos tried to refute Behe using a probabilistic argument as opposed to actual experimental evidence. There isn’t any experimental evidence that refutes Behe! One of Dr Behe's arguments was probabilistic so when addressing that argument the responders addressed how his probabilistic argument was incorrect.JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Weston: Your big refutations of intelligent design: Not everyone agrees on who the designer is? And it can’t be predicted or tested….. You asked me why I believed the unguided paradigm was true, which I explained. And I also gave some ideas of why I thought it was a better explanation than ID. That was not an attempt to refute ID; I was merely trying to give you some ideas of why I prefer the one explanation over the other. JVL, have you ever doubted Neo-darwinism? Yes, because of some things I was exposed to here. Do you feel more strongly about it now than you have in the past after being on this site? After having considered all the evidence several times then yes, I do feel more strongly than before that the unguided paradigm is correct. If you could put a percentage on it that you are certain Neo-darwinism is correct over intelligent design saying those are the only two options… how high would you rate Neo-darwinism percentage wise? If I include potential new evidence that could falsify the unguided paradigm (which I absolutely agree could happen) then I'd say I'm something like 85 - 95 % sure. Also, there are lots of questions and issues that haven't yet been adequately explained. But I don't think it's likely that the unguided paradigm will be falsified even though I admit it could be. What would you hold as the best evidences against the Neo-darwinist paradigm? I don't think there is any evidence against it but I think there are ways it could be falsified some of which may be down to the resolutions of problems like: how did the genetic 'code' arise? Or even how did the first basic replicator arise? I think those issues are more likely to dethrone unguided evolution than finding a fossil out of place or some biological structure that is irreducibly complex. But that is just my personal opinion. IF I were trying to falsify unguided evolution I'd be looking at the origin of life and the genetic 'code'.JVL_{February 8, 2022
February
02
Feb
8
08
2022
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply