Irreducible complexity is a FACT.

[Otangelo Grasso]

Irreducible complexity

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-irreducible-complexity#2133

Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place. The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form. All this requires specific information. The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established. Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?

[RonO]

Go to the Discovery Institute and get them to demonstrate that Behe's
type of IC exists in nature. Go for it.

Don't just make the stupid claims, but get anyone to verify Behe's type
of IC. It is simple, so why can't you do it? Why couldn't you do it
for photosynthesis?

Here is Behe and the some other ID perps admitting that they did not
have the science of ID worked out, and it was a year after the bait and
switch started to go down. It is obvious why no one ever got the
promised ID science. They only claim to be working on it.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY/R4EdsCaCCAAJ

Berlinski and the others knew that they were still working on the junk
at that time. What happened several years later in Dover? Working on
something is not accomplishing what you claim. The IDiots never even
got to the point where they could test their junk. All they ever did
was make their stupid claims. Has Behe or Minnich ever done the
verification test for IC that both of them claimed could be done? It
has been more than 10 years since Behe and Minnich made those claims in
court, but where is the evidence that any testing was ever done?

There are systems in nature that are a type of irreducibly complex. A
tree branch falling between two rocks makes such an irreducibly complex
system. Multiple interacting parts and if you take away one part it
doesn't do what it does. It is called a lever and fulcrum. That is not
Behe's type of IC. Use Behe's definition and what he claimed about it
to his critics and demonstrate what you claim above. Where has anyone
ever demonstrated that any parts are well matched enough for Behe? The
tree branch and rocks are not well matched enough, or something else is
wrong with the system like it doesn't have enough unselected steps. All
it takes is a tree branch to fall between two rocks. So what is well
matched enough and how can you tell? What unselected steps and their
arrangement has any IDiot ever produced for any of Behe's IC systems?

Back in 2003 Behe understood that IC was not scientific fact. Read the
linked thread. No IDiots contested what the ID perps were admitting to.
They all knew that they did not have the ID science back in 2003.
They all knew why the bait and switch had to go down the year before,
and why it had to continue going down.

Why don't you know it?

Just consider this one fact. If IC were a scientific fact, why can't
the IDiots do anything with it? What has anyone done to further
scientific knowledge with Behe's type of IC? What does it tell you
about intelligent design? Really, put up what IC tells you about
intelligent design.

The sad fact is that IC hasn't gotten that far. The ID perps made it up
in order to claim that their junk was scientific, but they forgot to do
any science. All you have is that "IF" Behe's type of IC exists in
nature, that it may tell you something about intelligent design, but
they don't know what that is at this time because they haven't figured
out a way to apply IC to their alternative that would tell them anything
of value about their alternative. What have the IDiots learned by using IC?

The only thing that has come out of it is that some IDiots are still
stupid enough to fall for the ID scam.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

>...stupid
>
>...perps...bait and switch

>...junk...
>...IDiots...junk...stupid
>
>...IDiot...
>
>...IDiots...perps...the bait and switch

>...IDiots...
>
>...perps...junk...IDiots...
>
>...IDiots...stupid...scam...
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[Otangelo Grasso]

> Don't just make the stupid claims, but get anyone to verify Behe's type
> of IC. It is simple, so why can't you do it?

The best way to refute Judge Jones / Barbara Forrest's claim is to let the reader see the testimony of Scott Minnich. Minnich is a pro-ID microbiologist who testified as follows on the next-to-last-day of the trial about his own research and experimentation into the irreducibly complex nature of the bacterial flagellum:




Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?
A. I do.
Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.
[...]
A. Sure. All right. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can't. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that's involved in function of the flagellum, they can't swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques.
[...]
So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.
[...]
We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
(Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)


During this testimony, Scott Minnich showed slides in the courtroom documenting his own research experiments, which performed knockout experiments upon the flagellum, and found that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Minnich produced relevant experimental data which confirmed a prediction made by intelligent design, and he used this research to support intelligent design in the courtroom. Yet Dr. Forrest completely ignored this testimony, as did Judge Jones, who did not even mention it in the Kitzmiller ruling. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research."


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7002560.html

[Bill Rogers]

I must admit, that's pretty much how it comes across to me, too.

[Rolf]

"Otangelo Grasso" <audiov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4df2d4f9-85d3-4aa3...@googlegroups.com...

So many words to proclaim IC as a fact. IC is in fact a twin of ID.

Why at all would ...?
What says they had a need, they just did it to make you wonder. Seems they
succeded.

Stacking superlatives high like " It demands the most complex molecular

machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated ,

regulated and controlled manner" makes no difference. Not very beautiful.

Besides, it doesn't do your case any good to blend the question of OOL with
the fact of evolution. Are you confused?

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 07:37:29 -0700 (PDT), Otangelo Grasso
<audiov...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Don't just make the stupid claims, but get anyone to verify Behe's type
>> of IC. It is simple, so why can't you do it?
>
>The best way to refute Judge Jones / Barbara Forrest's claim is to let the reader see the testimony of Scott Minnich. Minnich is a pro-ID microbiologist who testified as follows on the next-to-last-day of the trial about his own research and experimentation into the irreducibly complex nature of the bacterial flagellum:

There are two aspects to Behe's IC. The first aspect is its
definition, that if one removes the separable parts of a system one at
a time, and the system ceases to function each time, the system is IC.
This is the part Minnich tested in his lab, and is the part to which
he testified in the trial.

The second aspect of Behe's IC is his conclusion, that the first part
shows the system could not have arisen by evolution, and therefore its
existence required the intervention of intelligence. This is the part
Minnich neither tested in his lab nor testified about in the trial.

Since it's the second aspect which is relevant to the veracity of
Behe's IC specifically, and to ID generally, it's no surprise the
judge didn't mention Minnich's lack of testimony about it.

IMO the only memorable remark by Minnich came at the very beginning of
his testimony. He was the last expert witness in the trial, and the
other expert witnesses had pretty much beaten the bacterial flagellum
to death. So when he announced that he had some slide about the
bacterial flagellum, the judge commented, "We've seen that". To which
Minnich replied, "I kind of feel like Zsa Zsa's fifth husband, you
know? As the old adage goes, you know, I know what to do but I just
can't make it exciting."

>Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?
>A. I do.
>Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.
>[...]
>A. Sure. All right. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can't. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that's involved in function of the flagellum, they can't swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques.
>[...]
>So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.
>[...]
>We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
>(Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)
>
>
>During this testimony, Scott Minnich showed slides in the courtroom documenting his own research experiments, which performed knockout experiments upon the flagellum, and found that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Minnich produced relevant experimental data which confirmed a prediction made by intelligent design, and he used this research to support intelligent design in the courtroom. Yet Dr. Forrest completely ignored this testimony, as did Judge Jones, who did not even mention it in the Kitzmiller ruling. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research."
>
>
>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7002560.html

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RonO]

Poor Kalk has to run in denial of reality again.

Let's see how many times he can keep it up this time.

Repost what Kalk can't deal with.

END REPOST:

[RonO]

This is not Behe's type of IC. All Minnich demonstrated is that the
flagellum has interacting parts. The same thing has been demonstrated
for many other systems that Behe does not call IC. The technique that
Minnich used was one developed in the 1930's to study biochemical
pathways. Knock out one gene and you don't get a certain amino acid
made. Make many knock outs involving that amino acid and you get more
of the proteins involved in the biochemical pathway.

Interacting parts does not by itself make a system IC, nor does loss of
function of the system with one part is removed. What are you left
with. It is obvious that systems that Behe does not think are IC behave
the same way that the flagellum behaves in Minnich's study. Demonstrate
otherwise. Look up Beadle and Tatum. They got the Nobel prize for
thinking up the technique that Minnich used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_gene-one_enzyme_hypothesis

Really, Minnich didn't do much more than geneticists have been doing for
over half a century. He just used transposons as his mutator so that he
could identify the genes that the transposons inserted into. What
happened when he studied those genes? He found that they had evolved by
gene duplication over millions of years and that research ended. He
never determined that the flagellum was IC, but he did demonstrate how
the flagellar tail proteins evolved over a long period of time. Did you
see that thread?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ

Did Minnich demonstrate that he could quantitate "well matched?" Behe
claimed that well matched was essential to his definition, but he has
never demonstrated that he can quantify well matched to any significant
degree. What about the unselected steps that Behe claims is important
for his type of IC?

What did you remove about my claims about Minnich's testimony? Minnich
claimed that there was a test for IC, but he admitted that he had never
attempted the testing, and likely still hasn't.

How can you verify something is IC if you can't test and verify it? How
can you verify something if you never even try to verify it when there
is a way that you claim that you could test it?

You can't demonstrate that Behe's type of IC has ever been demonstrated
to exist in nature because no one has even tried to verify it.

No one cares about your version of the Dover trial because the bait and
switch will keep going down. The ID perps will never let another public
school make the same mistake the Dover IDiots made. Anyone that
believes them about the science of intelligent design has had the bait
and switch run on them. All they get is a switch scam that doesn't
mention that ID ever existed.

Demonstrate otherwise. No one gets the ID science when the need it
because it never existed and the ID perps understood that years before
they failed to run the bait and switch on the Dover IDiots. The only
reason they failed is because the Dover IDiots had already obtained
their "free" legal service, and refused to take the switch scam from the
ID perps.

Respond to what I wrote.

Repost:

Go to the Discovery Institute and get them to demonstrate that Behe's
type of IC exists in nature. Go for it.

Don't just make the stupid claims, but get anyone to verify Behe's type

END REPOST:

[Burkhard]

Yup. At least the posts on that topic. As soon as he writes simply about
science, his posts are interesting and informative.

[Steady Eddie]

Ahh, actually, those two criteria - precision interacting parts and loss of function with ANY one part
removed - seem to me to qualify the flagellum as IC.

> What are you left
> with. It is obvious that systems that Behe does not think are IC behave
> the same way that the flagellum behaves in Minnich's study. Demonstrate
> otherwise. Look up Beadle and Tatum. They got the Nobel prize for
> thinking up the technique that Minnich used.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_gene-one_enzyme_hypothesis
>
> Really, Minnich didn't do much more than geneticists have been doing for
> over half a century. He just used transposons as his mutator so that he
> could identify the genes that the transposons inserted into. What
> happened when he studied those genes? He found that they had evolved by
> gene duplication over millions of years and that research ended. He
> never determined that the flagellum was IC,

"By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect."

> but he did demonstrate how
> the flagellar tail proteins evolved over a long period of time. Did you
> see that thread?
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ
>
> Did Minnich demonstrate that he could quantitate "well matched?" Behe
> claimed that well matched was essential to his definition, but he has
> never demonstrated that he can quantify well matched to any significant
> degree. What about the unselected steps that Behe claims is important
> for his type of IC?
>
> What did you remove about my claims about Minnich's testimony? Minnich
> claimed that there was a test for IC, but he admitted that he had never
> attempted the testing, and likely still hasn't.
>
> How can you verify something is IC if you can't test and verify it? How
> can you verify something if you never even try to verify it when there
> is a way that you claim that you could test it?
>
> You can't demonstrate that Behe's type of IC has ever been demonstrated
> to exist in nature because no one has even tried to verify it.

Probably thousands of people worldwide have tried to disprove it.
It they'd have had any success, we'd read a out it in the newspaper.

> No one cares about your version of the Dover trial because the bait and
> switch will keep going down. The ID perps will never let another public
> school make the same mistake the Dover IDiots made. Anyone that
> believes them about the science of intelligent design has had the bait
> and switch run on them. All they get is a switch scam that doesn't
> mention that ID ever existed.
>
> Demonstrate otherwise. No one gets the ID science when the need it
> because it never existed and the ID perps understood that years before
> they failed to run the bait and switch on the Dover IDiots. The only
> reason they failed is because the Dover IDiots had already obtained
> their "free" legal service, and refused to take the switch scam from the
> ID perps.
>
> Respond to what I wrote.
>
> Repost:

snip

[RonO]

You have read Behe's response to his critics, and what does Behe claim?
He acknowledges that interacting parts and taking away one part and
losing the original function is not sufficient for his IC. He even
makes the claim that "well matched" was in his original definition, and
that it matters. So what did Minnich do? He only verified part of
Behe's definition, a part that Behe had already admitted was not
sufficient in his response to his critics years before the Dover trial.
You read Behe's response to his critics, what does Behe claim?

>
>> What are you left
>> with. It is obvious that systems that Behe does not think are IC behave
>> the same way that the flagellum behaves in Minnich's study. Demonstrate
>> otherwise. Look up Beadle and Tatum. They got the Nobel prize for
>> thinking up the technique that Minnich used.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_gene-one_enzyme_hypothesis
>>
>> Really, Minnich didn't do much more than geneticists have been doing for
>> over half a century. He just used transposons as his mutator so that he
>> could identify the genes that the transposons inserted into. What
>> happened when he studied those genes? He found that they had evolved by
>> gene duplication over millions of years and that research ended. He
>> never determined that the flagellum was IC,
>
> "By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect."

So where did Minnich determine that the parts were well matched enough
for Behe's claim? The judge called those quantitative parts falsified,
but what he meant is that no one could determine if they mattered.
Really, Minnich used a decades old technique used on systems that Behe
does not claim as being IC to knock stop a system from functioning by
removing parts. It is a way to determine that the parts are part of the
system under study. It is not a determination of IC. It only means
that the parts interact.

>> but he did demonstrate how
>> the flagellar tail proteins evolved over a long period of time. Did you
>> see that thread?
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ
>>
>> Did Minnich demonstrate that he could quantitate "well matched?" Behe
>> claimed that well matched was essential to his definition, but he has
>> never demonstrated that he can quantify well matched to any significant
>> degree. What about the unselected steps that Behe claims is important
>> for his type of IC?
>>
>> What did you remove about my claims about Minnich's testimony? Minnich
>> claimed that there was a test for IC, but he admitted that he had never
>> attempted the testing, and likely still hasn't.
>>
>> How can you verify something is IC if you can't test and verify it? How
>> can you verify something if you never even try to verify it when there
>> is a way that you claim that you could test it?
>>
>> You can't demonstrate that Behe's type of IC has ever been demonstrated
>> to exist in nature because no one has even tried to verify it.
>
> Probably thousands of people worldwide have tried to disprove it.
> It they'd have had any success, we'd read a out it in the newspaper.

You are talking about disproving something that isn't scientifically
testable at this time. The fact that IC is not testable means that it
isn't the science that Behe claims. What an IDiot. The ID perps made
sure that none of their junk was testable. It was what they intended to
do because that is all they ever did. They learned not to put any
testable notions like the age of the earth or any of the creationist
flood science up as part of ID. Demonstrate otherwise. What testable
hypothesis did they ever come up with? Why do you think ID failed as
science in Dover? No verification was ever attempted for any of the ID
claptrap because none of it was testable. What did both Behe and
Minnich admit to? Their only claim that IC was testable was a stupid
ploy that they admitted that they had not attempted to do and they have
apparently not attempted to do since. If they have attempted their
IDiot test, what were the results? Can you find them? How can you
verify something if you never do the testing and you admit that you
haven't done it under oath?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Cited quotes, please... Put up or shut up.

What are you talking about?
You just finished insisting that Minnnich SHOULD HAVE conducted the prescribed test to disprove the
existence of irreducibly complex structures and processes in the cell.
Now you insist that IC ISN'T SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE.

And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
IC. Which is it?

[RonO]

I already gave it to you months ago:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/7bzK52cm324/zXNm8gB2hqwJ

I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
http://www.discovery.org/a/465

QUOTE:
As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
END QUOTE:

Behe goes on to say:

QUOTE:
Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
('IC').
END QUOTE:

Did Minnich determine how well matched the parts were? He only removed
a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.

Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?

So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
post junk like this post of yours.

Man up and do the right thing.

They haven't test anything because they can't do it. What does not
testable mean? They could try to test it, but they would likely fail
because their example was just a stupid ploy to make them sound like
scientists. Why haven't they done the testing that they claimed could
be done if they could do it? They have had over a decade since
testifying. What is their excuse for not testing IC if it is
scientifically testable?

>
> And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
> IC. Which is it?

Testing IC was the topic. Put up or shut up. Go back to any of the
multitude of posts that you have run from instead of backing up your
claims and put up or shut up. Don't just put up stupid citations that
aren't even on the topic like you did for the abzyme posts. Try to
support something that you have run from in the past.

How pathetic will you get? This post of yours is pretty pathetic and
running without doing what you require of others just makes you more
pathetic.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Thank you for raising this point again. I didn't pay enough attention
to it when you brought it up before. IIUC you and I agree that Behe's
IC can be separated into two parts: 1) Behe's definition of IC, as he
explicitly states starting on page 39 of DBB, and 2) Behe's bald
conclusions on pages immediately following, of what IC means to
evolution, that all but the simplest IC can't arise by gradual
incremental processes, and so must be the result of Intelligent
Design. IIUC you and I also agree that without his second part, his
first part is at best an uninteresting and pointless truism.

IIUC what Behe wrote in your cite above, he argued that the measure of
how well-matched the parts of an IC system are, is how much function
is lost when a part is removed, so that if the parts are not
well-matched, only some function is lost, but if the parts are
well-matched, effectively all function is lost.

In making that argument, Behe also explicitly admitted that systems of
not-well-matched parts also exist, and that such systems are easily
formed by chance. Keep these points in mind, because I'll get back to
them later.

As you pointed out above, and I mentioned in a recent post, Minnich's
testimony in the Dover trial focused exclusively on Behe's first part,
his definition of IC. Minnich testified that he knocked out one part
at a time the 35 parts of a bacterial flagellum, and each time the
bacterial flagellum effectively ceased functioning.

Now one can quibble about what qualifies as parts, and about what are
the functions of a bacterial flagellum, but for arguments' sake let's
stipulate to Minnich's specifications. So he showed the parts are
well-matched, as Behe measures well-matched, and the bacterial
flagellum is IC, as Behe defines IC.

But Minnich didn't touch Behe's second part to IC, his asserted
challenge to evolution, and his asserted support of ID. As I pointed
out before, the highlight of Minnich's testimony was his allusion to
being Zsa Zsa's fifth husband. But none of Minnich's testimony had
any relevance to ID, because Behe's definition of IC has nothing to do
with ID.

An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/22/2016 10:37 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they
> can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've
> affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the
> gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic
> complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from
> this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene.
> One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene
> back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out
> one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By
> definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with
> all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.

> (Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108,
> Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)

Here's my question:

Minnich claims to have "knocked out" each of the 35 "components" of the
(or at least one particular type of) flagellum via mutation. In each
case, the critter can't swim. I assume that he has performed one
particular mutation per "component", but if he has performed several, it
does not substantially change my question.

To me, this study provides reasonable evidence that none of the various
"knocked-out" bacteria types he created were among the forms that the
wild-type took in the path to its current form. But I don't see how this
evidence can be extended to support the idea that *any* such path is
unlikely, unless we assume a mode of evolution that no one asserts: each
*current* component added from scratch until the "assembly" is complete.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:14:12 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

IIUC your question identifies one of the many logical fallacies in
Behe's line of reasoning, which claims to refute evolution by
asserting molecular "hopeful monsters", ie his pre-assembled
well-matched parts. Ken Miller et al pointed out that flaw long ago.
Even Behe admitted in his Dover trial testimony that the path
described by his version of IC isn't the path evolution would use. So
why Behe continued to argue the point even after the trial remains one
of the mysteries of IDiocy.

[Jonathan]

You folks can't see the forest for the trees.

What is the ideal initial conditions for life?
Water perhaps? That primoridial soup plus lightning?
A vast interstellar cloud of gas and dust compressed
by a nova? A good idea hitting the Internet?

No matter how you look at it...complexity is the
ideal initial conditions for spontaneous cyclic
order. If you 'reduce' further and create simplicity
self organization can't get started.

As shown in the study of random boolean networks.

A random network - disturbed is the ideal initial
condition.

And of course assuming the God must fill that place
is silly, but it makes perfect sense when you see
that emergence is the designer that steps in to
provide a goal and guide the system towards greater
order and evolution.

This entire discussion is a spectacle of trying
to reverse engineer nature, and that's folly.

It's like trying to reverse engineer a tornado
or seeing a ball at rest at the bottom of a bowl
and from that trying to reverse engineer exactly
where it started out.

It's just stupid.

Nature is understood by watching new examples of life
take hold. By looking into the future, not the past.

Emergence gives us a framework for doing that and
seeing countless different examples of new life
and from that we can see what they all have in common.

And voila! Easy as pie.

This is what all forms of evolved order, whether
the physical universe, life or ideas have in
common.

And these are irreducible, produces emergent
'intelligence' and a goal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence


s









Jonathan



s

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.

[Jonathan]

On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:

> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>
>
> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.

Go to hell bitch

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-05-26 22:53:35 +0000, Jonathan said:

> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>
>>
>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>
>
>
> Go to hell bitch

*
Jon:

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation.

earle
*

[jillery]

As you almost certainly know, the above is only slightly more
incendiary that his standard fare.
--

[jillery]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:53:35 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>
>>
>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>
>
>
>Go to hell bitch

To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:

"I'll let you know when you can tell me what to do.
Who do you think you are?"
--

[r-ma...@wiu.edu]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
> >
> >
> > Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>
>
>
> Go to hell bitch

Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.

[Jonathan]

Why aren't you angrier? But even you have to admit
your reply was pretty ignorant and rude considering
the effort and civility I put into my reply that
garnered your snotty remark about the forests
and trees.

A petulant child of below average intelligence
wouldn't respond that stupidly.

[Jonathan]

Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.

And now that I think about it, I can't remember
ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
wrong, not even once.

Maybe this will start a long overdue trend?

[Steady Eddie]

If you have an argument in relation to another thread, bring it up on that thread.
Otherwise, go away, troll.

> I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
> http://www.discovery.org/a/465
>
> QUOTE:
> As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
> mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
> and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
> which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
> can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
> the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Behe goes on to say:
>
> QUOTE:
> Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
> well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
> 'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
> ('IC').
> END QUOTE:
>
> Did Minnich determine how well matched the parts were?

Well, yes, he certainly did.
He specialized in the flagellum, you know.

> He only removed
> a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
> lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.

Yes, he was the one that conducted the experiment.
So what?

> Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
> how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
> parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
> determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?

How, indeed!
And you're just admitting your own ignorance.

> So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
> from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
> post junk like this post of yours.

U MAD BRO?

What was the test?

> >
> > And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
> > IC. Which is it?
>
> Testing IC was the topic. Put up or shut up. Go back to any of the
> multitude of posts that you have run from instead of backing up your
> claims and put up or shut up. Don't just put up stupid citations that
> aren't even on the topic like you did for the abzyme posts. Try to
> support something that you have run from in the past.

U MAD BRO?

> How pathetic will you get? This post of yours is pretty pathetic and
> running without doing what you require of others just makes you more
> pathetic.

U MAD BRO?

[jillery]

That doesn't make sense even for you. Do you even think about what
you write before you post it?

You asked for cites. RonO gave you cites. He didn't raise another
argument. He didn't mention another thread, except to provide the
cites you asked for. What's your problem here?

>> I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
>> http://www.discovery.org/a/465
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
>> mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
>> and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
>> which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
>> can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
>> the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Behe goes on to say:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
>> well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
>> 'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
>> ('IC').
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Did Minnich determine how well matched the parts were?
>
>Well, yes, he certainly did.
>He specialized in the flagellum, you know.

You get half-credit here. For full credit, say *how* Minnich
determined how well-matched the parts were.

>> He only removed
>> a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
>> lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.
>
>Yes, he was the one that conducted the experiment.
>So what?

Non-sequiturs "R' Us?

>> Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
>> how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
>> parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
>> determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?
>
>How, indeed!
>And you're just admitting your own ignorance.

Wrong again. RonO asked you relevant questions. Asking questions is
not an admission of ignorance. In this case, it's an (apparently
futile) effort to get you to think about what you're talking about.

>> So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
>> from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
>> post junk like this post of yours.
>
>U MAD BRO?

How old are you, exactly?

Minnich tested Behe's definition of IC. That's not the relevant part
of Behe's argument. The relevant part is Behe's baldly asserted
conclusions, that most biological IC systems couldn't have evolved
without intelligent intervention. That's one thing neither Minnich
nor Behe have ever tested.

>> > And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
>> > IC. Which is it?
>>
>> Testing IC was the topic. Put up or shut up. Go back to any of the
>> multitude of posts that you have run from instead of backing up your
>> claims and put up or shut up. Don't just put up stupid citations that
>> aren't even on the topic like you did for the abzyme posts. Try to
>> support something that you have run from in the past.
>
>U MAD BRO?

How old are you, exactly?
--

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:57:54 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/27/2016 3:40 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:53:35 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go to hell bitch
>>
>>
>> To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:
>>
>> "I'll let you know when you can tell me what to do.
>> Who do you think you are?"
>
>
>
>
>Why aren't you angrier?

You read minds as poorly as you read text.

> But even you have to admit
>your reply was pretty ignorant and rude considering
>the effort and civility I put into my reply that
>garnered your snotty remark about the forests
>and trees.

Your alleged effort notwithstanding, there's nothing civil about
repeatedly shifting conversations to your preferred and irrelevant
obsession.

>A petulant child of below average intelligence
>wouldn't respond that stupidly.

So you admit that your response was stupid, and you're not smarter
than a fifth-grader. I already told you that. Apparently I used too
many words for you to comprehend them.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 20:02:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, r-ma...@wiu.edu wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go to hell bitch
>>
>> Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.
>
>
>
>Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.

Of course, you didn't say to me you were wrong. To the contrary, like
a petulant and unrepentant child, you blamed me for your behavior. And
even if you're sincere here, you don't say what you're wrong about.
These things make your alleged admission meaningless.

>And now that I think about it, I can't remember
>ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
>wrong, not even once.

Your statement above only illustrates your ever-so-convenient amnesia.

>Maybe this will start a long overdue trend?

Convenient lapses of memory and blaming others for one's behavior are
traditional and well-used Usenet troll tactics.
--

[r-ma...@wiu.edu]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:04:49 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, r-ma...@wiu.edu wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Go to hell bitch
> >
> > Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.
>
>
>
> Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.

Very good!

>
> And now that I think about it, I can't remember
> ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
> wrong, not even once.

Well you are more right than wrong.

I have done so twice. But I'm sure I have been wrong more than that!

>
> Maybe this will start a long overdue trend?

Let's hope so.

[Jonathan]

On 5/28/2016 12:36 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 20:02:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, r-ma...@wiu.edu wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go to hell bitch
>>>
>>> Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.
>
>
> Of course, you didn't say to me you were wrong.

I knew you would read it.

> To the contrary, like
> a petulant and unrepentant child, you blamed me for your behavior.

My original response to you was civil and on topic, your
reply was juvenile and uncalled for. So your...reply
deserved to be bitch-slapped, not you personally.
For that I apologize.

But of course you will never admit that stupid reply
was anything but an award winning comeback.

> And
> even if you're sincere here, you don't say what you're wrong about.

What did you think I was referring to if not the
insult?

> These things make your alleged admission meaningless.
>

Why don't you write the apology that would satisfy
your expectations. I'd love to see it.

I bet it would involve crawling across the floor while
begging you for forgiveness - as step one of ten.

>
>> And now that I think about it, I can't remember
>> ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
>> wrong, not even once.
>
>
> Your statement above only illustrates your ever-so-convenient amnesia.
>

When have you ever admitted you were wrong?
I showed you mine, now show me yours?

>
>> Maybe this will start a long overdue trend?
>
>
> Convenient lapses of memory and blaming others for one's behavior are
> traditional and well-used Usenet troll tactics.

Nevermind~

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 05:33:41 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/28/2016 12:36 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 20:02:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, r-ma...@wiu.edu wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go to hell bitch
>>>>
>>>> Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.
>>
>>
>> Of course, you didn't say to me you were wrong.
>
>
>
>I knew you would read it.

I read all the posts to T.O. You might as well have "predicted"
tomorrow's sunrise.

>> To the contrary, like
>> a petulant and unrepentant child, you blamed me for your behavior.
>
>
>
>My original response to you was civil and on topic, your
>reply was juvenile and uncalled for. So your...reply
>deserved to be bitch-slapped, not you personally.
>For that I apologize.

What you do above is merely assert your self-serving opinions as
facts, which are neither objective nor emergent.

IMO your "original response" was a typical ham-handed shift of topic,
and my response to that was reasoned and appropriate.

>But of course you will never admit that stupid reply
>was anything but an award winning comeback.

Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.

>> And
>> even if you're sincere here, you don't say what you're wrong about.
>
>
>
>What did you think I was referring to if not the
>insult?

Playing the 'tard doesn't get you out of that hole you keep digging.

>> These things make your alleged admission meaningless.
>>
>
>
>Why don't you write the apology that would satisfy
>your expectations. I'd love to see it.
>
>I bet it would involve crawling across the floor while
>begging you for forgiveness - as step one of ten.

Thus proving once again that you can't read minds.

>>> And now that I think about it, I can't remember
>>> ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
>>> wrong, not even once.
>>
>>
>> Your statement above only illustrates your ever-so-convenient amnesia.
>>
>
>
>
>When have you ever admitted you were wrong?
>I showed you mine, now show me yours?

In fact, both my errors and my notation of same are almost features of
T.O. Here is but the most recent example:

<qivikb9qpknlne47o...@4ax.com>

>>> Maybe this will start a long overdue trend?
>>
>>
>> Convenient lapses of memory and blaming others for one's behavior are
>> traditional and well-used Usenet troll tactics.
>
>
>Nevermind~

Thus demonstrating your Planck-time attention-span.

[jillery]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:53:35 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>
>>
>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>
>
>
>Go to hell bitch

To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:

"I'll let you know when you can tell me what to do.
Who do you think you are?"

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 21:15:05 -0700, Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

As you almost certainly know, the above is only slightly more
incendiary that his standard fare.
--

[RonO]

What is the thread topic? What was your demand? What type of stupid
denial is this? Just because you ran from the same evidence before in
another IC thread doesn't mean that running in denial is something worth
doing.

"Put up or shut up." Who wrote that? This is exactly what you asked
for and this type of denial is all you can muster.

>
>> I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
>> http://www.discovery.org/a/465
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
>> mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
>> and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
>> which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
>> can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
>> the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Behe goes on to say:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
>> well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
>> 'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
>> ('IC').
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Did Minnich determine how well matched the parts were?
>
> Well, yes, he certainly did.
> He specialized in the flagellum, you know.

Prove it. Put up or shut up. Demonstrate that Minnich ever
demonstrated how well matched his flagellar parts are. Go for it. You
won't be able to do it because nothing he has done would demonstrate
that. Why hasn't Behe demonstrated it if Minnich can?

>
>> He only removed
>> a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
>> lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.
>
> Yes, he was the one that conducted the experiment.
> So what?

That is all he did. Look at the quotes above. Just because you can
remove a part and it stops its normal function (like the lever and
fulcrum) it does not mean that the system is IC. Behe needs the system
to have well matched parts, but he never developed a method to tell how
well matched the parts are for any system that he is working with.
Minnich never did it. He only took parts away and found that the
flagellum didn't have its normal function that it has today.

>
>> Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
>> how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
>> parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
>> determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?
>
> How, indeed!
> And you're just admitting your own ignorance.

Put up or shut up. Demonstrate that I am the ignorant one. Go for it.
Who put up the references demonstrating just what I claimed? It wasn't
you or Grasso.

>
>> So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
>> from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
>> post junk like this post of yours.
>
> U MAD BRO?

U A LYIN PRETENDA BRO. That isn't a question, but a statement of fact.
Put up or shut up or continue to be a dishonest pretender. Why is
denial the only thing that you can think of to do? Wouldn't you rather
have the ID science?

If you wanted to teach the ID science in your local school district what
would you get from the IDiot scam artists that sell you the junk? What
has every single IDiot gotten from them instead of the ID science for
over 14 years?

Go back up to the thread where the ID perps were talking about the ID
science that they hadn't worked out, yet. What were they claiming one
year after starting to run the bait and switch. Berlinski and the rest
of the ID perps participating were pretty circumspect in admitting that
they didn't have the science. Did you read Berlinski's article? Their
only claim was that working on what they called ID science qualified as
science even if they hadn't gotten anywhere worth getting at the time.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY/R4EdsCaCCAAJ

Man up and do the right thing. Put up or shut up.

The test both Behe and Minnich put up at the Dover trial. They both
claimed that IC could be falsified if they set up an experiment and
could evolve a flagellum in the lab. That was the only "scientific"
test that they could put forward and both admitted under oath that they
had not attempted it. It was only a stupid ploy to make it sound like
they could do science if they bothered to do it. The test is not
practical and could not be done with what is known today let alone what
was known 10 years ago. The results would tell them nothing because
failure of the test means nothing when you don't know if you are even
running the test correctly. Really, they never said how they would run
such a test because no one knows what conditions the test should be run
under.

This is Behe's only test for well matched because what do the quotes
above claim. The parts could not have come together by chance, and how
has Behe ever tried to figure that out? Where is the quantitative
assay? Where has he even tried to do the calculations? The parts of a
lever and fulcrum have to be well matched enough to function, but that
isn't well matched enough for Behe. Behe needs his parts to be more
well matched than the systems that he doesn't call IC. Behe never got
off first base with IC. He never even determined that his type of IC
exists in nature, so he doesn't know what it could tell him about
IDiocy. It only tells him that he can fool a lot of IDiots with the
ploy, but that is all IC is good for.

http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf

Starts on page 79.

QUOTE:
We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is
dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for
the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed
by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum
in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM,
including those who propose the test, has conducted Case
4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 78 of 139 it.
(P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)). Professor Behe conceded
that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and
even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a
test of evolution, not design. (22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82
(Minnich)).
END QUOTE:

This was the only scientific test for the IC flagellum that both Minnich
and Behe claimed could be done. It is a fact that Behe's type of IC has
not been scientifically verified to exist in nature. A tree branch
falling between two rocks can and likely does exist in nature, but that
isn't Behe's type of IC.

>
>>>
>>> And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
>>> IC. Which is it?
>>
>> Testing IC was the topic. Put up or shut up. Go back to any of the
>> multitude of posts that you have run from instead of backing up your
>> claims and put up or shut up. Don't just put up stupid citations that
>> aren't even on the topic like you did for the abzyme posts. Try to
>> support something that you have run from in the past.
>
> U MAD BRO?

U A LYIN PRETENDA BRO.

>
>> How pathetic will you get? This post of yours is pretty pathetic and
>> running without doing what you require of others just makes you more
>> pathetic.
>
> U MAD BRO?

U A LYIN PRETENDA BRO.

I guess that is all you are, and that is all you have.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/27/16 5:02 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, r-ma...@wiu.edu wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>
>>> Go to hell bitch
>>
>> Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.
>
> Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.
>
> And now that I think about it, I can't remember
> ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
> wrong, not even once.

Selective memory or selective attention. I have done so myself, and I
have seen several people, with diverse views, admit being wrong. Mind
you, it is not a common occurrence.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[jillery]

Ron: would you please respond to the following post:

<6r38kb9h59i0fnekp...@4ax.com>

I believe doing so would clear up some misunderstandings and
confusions.

[RonO]

I just get a blank email that I can respond to. What was I supposed to
use to open it?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

I assumed your newsreader was configured to recognize Usenet
message-IDs. Here's a GG URL:

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/M7rJ2s9Xc6I/4hjtZhZDAwAJ>

[Jonathan]

On 5/28/2016 7:27 AM, jillery wrote:


>
> I read all the posts to T.O.

Oh! Why didn't you say that earlier, that
explains a lot, you're insane.

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 19:58:48 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not at all. OTOH reading Emily Dickenson poetry, that will drive
anybody insane.

[Steady Eddie]

You asked whether Minnich had ever determined how well the parts match up.
It's obvious that he did, because he's a specialist in the flagellum and many pictures and cartoons have
been published to demonstrate just how well-matched the parts of a typical flagellum are.
If you think Minnich somehow blindfolded himself every time he looked at the structure of the flagellum,
you might think you have a sensible question.

Why do you now pretend the question was whether Minnich ever "demonstrated" (supposedly on a talk
show or something) how well-matched the parts of a typical flagellum are?
Why the equivocation?

> >
> >> He only removed
> >> a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
> >> lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.
> >
> > Yes, he was the one that conducted the experiment.
> > So what?
>
> That is all he did. Look at the quotes above. Just because you can
> remove a part and it stops its normal function (like the lever and
> fulcrum) it does not mean that the system is IC.

Yes, if you remove a part from a naturally caused lever and fulcrum, the system will stop functioning.
That's because it's irreducibly complex.
The same applies to the flagellum, doesn't it?

Don't forget, irreducible complexity (my idea of it, not Behe's) alone is not sufficient to disqualify naturalistic origins. For example, a naturally-occurring lever and fulcrum is, strictly speaking, IC.
That's because the arrangement has to meet only a few basic parameters to function.
When you get into more complex machines, the chance that well-enough fitted components naturally
fell into position quickly becomes absurd, doesn't it?

> Behe needs the system
> to have well matched parts, but he never developed a method to tell how
> well matched the parts are for any system that he is working with.
> Minnich never did it. He only took parts away and found that the
> flagellum didn't have its normal function that it has today.

I haven't read any of Minnich's publications, but in Behe's case, I believe the method is to look as closely
and as clearly as you can at the nano-machine, using modern technology, and see that the parts are well-matched.

> >> Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
> >> how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
> >> parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
> >> determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?
> >
> > How, indeed!
> > And you're just admitting your own ignorance.
>
> Put up or shut up. Demonstrate that I am the ignorant one. Go for it.
> Who put up the references demonstrating just what I claimed? It wasn't
> you or Grasso.

The criterium is that you understand what "well-matched" means.
Notice that it is, by definition, a subjective term.
It's based on direct observation in most cases, or by observation through the "lens" of modern
biochemistry.

> >> So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
> >> from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
> >> post junk like this post of yours.
> >
> > U MAD BRO?
>
> U A LYIN PRETENDA BRO. That isn't a question, but a statement of fact.
> Put up or shut up or continue to be a dishonest pretender. Why is
> denial the only thing that you can think of to do? Wouldn't you rather
> have the ID science?
> If you wanted to teach the ID science in your local school district what
> would you get from the IDiot scam artists that sell you the junk? What
> has every single IDiot gotten from them instead of the ID science for
> over 14 years?

U MAD BRO?
Then start substantiating your insinuations, and we might have a discussion.

> Go back up to the thread where the ID perps were talking about the ID
> science that they hadn't worked out, yet. What were they claiming one
> year after starting to run the bait and switch. Berlinski and the rest
> of the ID perps participating were pretty circumspect in admitting that
> they didn't have the science. Did you read Berlinski's article? Their
> only claim was that working on what they called ID science qualified as
> science even if they hadn't gotten anywhere worth getting at the time.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY/R4EdsCaCCAAJ
>
> Man up and do the right thing. Put up or shut up.

Instead of pasting links, why not reply on those threads?
It would resurrect the thread(s) that you seem to be so attached to.
AND, it will provide the full and immediate context without which Darwinists love to quote mine and
equivocate.

So what?
Why would Behe or Minnich waste their time trying to evolve a flagellum when they know full-well
that it is irreducibly complex and could not have plausibly evolve naturalistically?
What's to stop an idiot like you from coming back ten years later and say "Behe and Minnich didn't
evolve a flagellum because they weren't doing the right experiment" or "because they just didn't
try hard enough!"?

The job to prove Behe and Minnich wrong goes to the people who are insisting they are wrong.
And I defy you to deny that millions of dollars in research has been done just for that purpose by
the Darwinian Establishment in recent decades.

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 02:30:01 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

> >I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
> >http://www.discovery.org/a/465
> >
> >QUOTE:
> >As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
> >mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
> >and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
> >which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
> >can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
> >the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
> >END QUOTE:
> >
> >Behe goes on to say:
> >
> >QUOTE:
> >Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
> >well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
> >'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
> >('IC').
> >END QUOTE:
> >

> >Did Minnich determine how well matched the parts were? He only removed

> >a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
> >lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.
> >

> >Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
> >how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
> >parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
> >determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?
> >

> >So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
> >from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
> >post junk like this post of yours.
> >

> >> And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
> >> IC. Which is it?
> >
> >Testing IC was the topic. Put up or shut up. Go back to any of the
> >multitude of posts that you have run from instead of backing up your
> >claims and put up or shut up. Don't just put up stupid citations that
> >aren't even on the topic like you did for the abzyme posts. Try to
> >support something that you have run from in the past.
> >

> >How pathetic will you get? This post of yours is pretty pathetic and
> >running without doing what you require of others just makes you more
> >pathetic.
> >

> >Ron Okimoto
>
>
> Thank you for raising this point again. I didn't pay enough attention
> to it when you brought it up before. IIUC you and I agree that Behe's
> IC can be separated into two parts: 1) Behe's definition of IC, as he
> explicitly states starting on page 39 of DBB, and 2) Behe's bald
> conclusions on pages immediately following, of what IC means to
> evolution, that all but the simplest IC can't arise by gradual
> incremental processes, and so must be the result of Intelligent
> Design. IIUC you and I also agree that without his second part, his
> first part is at best an uninteresting and pointless truism.
>
> IIUC what Behe wrote in your cite above, he argued that the measure of
> how well-matched the parts of an IC system are, is how much function
> is lost when a part is removed, so that if the parts are not
> well-matched, only some function is lost, but if the parts are
> well-matched, effectively all function is lost.
>
> In making that argument, Behe also explicitly admitted that systems of
> not-well-matched parts also exist, and that such systems are easily
> formed by chance. Keep these points in mind, because I'll get back to
> them later.
>
> As you pointed out above, and I mentioned in a recent post, Minnich's
> testimony in the Dover trial focused exclusively on Behe's first part,
> his definition of IC. Minnich testified that he knocked out one part
> at a time the 35 parts of a bacterial flagellum, and each time the
> bacterial flagellum effectively ceased functioning.
>
> Now one can quibble about what qualifies as parts, and about what are
> the functions of a bacterial flagellum, but for arguments' sake let's
> stipulate to Minnich's specifications. So he showed the parts are
> well-matched, as Behe measures well-matched, and the bacterial
> flagellum is IC, as Behe defines IC.
>
> But Minnich didn't touch Behe's second part to IC, his asserted
> challenge to evolution, and his asserted support of ID. As I pointed
> out before, the highlight of Minnich's testimony was his allusion to
> being Zsa Zsa's fifth husband. But none of Minnich's testimony had
> any relevance to ID, because Behe's definition of IC has nothing to do
> with ID.
>
> An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
> need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
> that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
> arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
> existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
> systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
> steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
> system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
> parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
> showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.

> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Nicely argued post.
Send me some crickets if i don't get back to you-I'm going on to look at the rest of the posts...

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 07:14:59 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:

> On 5/22/2016 10:37 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> > We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they
> > can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've
> > affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the
> > gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic
> > complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from
> > this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene.
> > One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene
> > back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out
> > one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By
> > definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with
> > all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
>
> > (Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108,
> > Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)
>

> Here's my question:
>
> Minnich claims to have "knocked out" each of the 35 "components" of the
> (or at least one particular type of) flagellum via mutation. In each
> case, the critter can't swim. I assume that he has performed one
> particular mutation per "component", but if he has performed several, it
> does not substantially change my question.
>
> To me, this study provides reasonable evidence that none of the various
> "knocked-out" bacteria types he created were among the forms that the
> wild-type took in the path to its current form. But I don't see how this
> evidence can be extended to support the idea that *any* such path is
> unlikely, unless we assume a mode of evolution that no one asserts: each
> *current* component added from scratch until the "assembly" is complete.

Wow, you're oilier than I thought.

[Steady Eddie]

What do you mean by "from scratch"?
Let me guess: "they poofed into existence", right?

[RonO]

I see eddie is still running away in denial.

You can be an expert on a lot of things and not know somethings about
the subject especially if what could be known is just fantasy at the
time. If Minnich had determined how well matched the parts were, why
didn't he demonstrate it during Dover?

Why would Minnich know how well matched the parts of the flagellum were?
What did he do to determine how well matched they were? The simple
fact is that no one, not even Behe has come up with a means to determine
if any two parts are well matched enough for Behe.

>
> Why do you now pretend the question was whether Minnich ever "demonstrated" (supposedly on a talk
> show or something) how well-matched the parts of a typical flagellum are?
> Why the equivocation?

Well, if someone never demonstrates something, they obviously haven't
done anything that would demonstrate that well matched exists in nature.
Someone could have told Minnich that the parts were well matched
enough, but why would Minnich believe the guy? Who has demonstrated
that Behe's type of well matched exists in nature, and can quantitate it
so that they can claim that there is enough of it to matter? The lever
and fulcrum have well matched enough parts, but they aren't well matched
enough for Behe. That is just a fact. Behe has to be able to
quantitate well matched and determine if enough exists to matter.

>
>>>
>>>> He only removed
>>>> a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
>>>> lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.
>>>
>>> Yes, he was the one that conducted the experiment.
>>> So what?
>>
>> That is all he did. Look at the quotes above. Just because you can
>> remove a part and it stops its normal function (like the lever and
>> fulcrum) it does not mean that the system is IC.
>
> Yes, if you remove a part from a naturally caused lever and fulcrum, the system will stop functioning.
> That's because it's irreducibly complex.
> The same applies to the flagellum, doesn't it?

It is not the type of IC that Behe needs to exist. Scientists had
predicted that systems with multiple interdependent parts would be
expected to evolve just due to how evolution works. Evolution builds on
what came before and selection would make the parts work more
efficiently together. In the process parts could be lost or become
interdependent due to how they coevolved, making the remaining parts
dependent on each other. Behe isn't talking about those systems. He
claims that there are special IC systems that could not have evolved by
natural means. What do you not get. There are systems with interacting
parts like the photosynthesis system that Behe doesn't claim are his
type of IC. There is too much evidence for their evolution. He needs
to stick with systems that we don't know enough about to make his claims.

>
> Don't forget, irreducible complexity (my idea of it, not Behe's) alone is not sufficient to disqualify naturalistic origins. For example, a naturally-occurring lever and fulcrum is, strictly speaking, IC.
> That's because the arrangement has to meet only a few basic parameters to function.
> When you get into more complex machines, the chance that well-enough fitted components naturally
> fell into position quickly becomes absurd, doesn't it?

Get Behe to demonstrate that he ever got anywhere with IC. You seem to
have run from Behe's admission of what his junk was worth after the ID
perps started running the bait and switch. All the ID perps that
participated in that discussion knew that they didn't have the ID
science at that time and Behe had already written multiple responses to
his critics by that time, and he had to acknowledge that it had amounted
to nothing substantial at the time (2003). Behe knew why the bait and
switch was needed. He may have been one of the ID perps that Wells
referred to that had decided to run the bait and switch instead of give
the rubes the promised ID science. Minnich likely was part of the group
that decided to run the bait and switch because he attended the Ohio
fiasco with Wells and Meyers. You have read Wells' report and you know
what went down.

It is simple,just get Behe or Minnich to verify that they can quantitate
well matched so that they can tell that the flagellum has enough of it
to matter. Why haven't they done their verification test? If they
could quantitate well matched why would they have put up their stupid
verification test that tells them nothing? Why wouldn't they have
verified IC using well matched? Behe's definition of well matched
includes could not form by chance so demonstrating well matched should
have solved their verification issue.

Face the facts, you have been misled and wanted to be lied to.

>
>> Behe needs the system
>> to have well matched parts, but he never developed a method to tell how
>> well matched the parts are for any system that he is working with.
>> Minnich never did it. He only took parts away and found that the
>> flagellum didn't have its normal function that it has today.
>
> I haven't read any of Minnich's publications, but in Behe's case, I believe the method is to look as closely
> and as clearly as you can at the nano-machine, using modern technology, and see that the parts are well-matched.

You should have read the one that I put up published before the Dover
trial where Minnich determine that parts of the flagellum evolved over a
very long time by gene duplication. He even had a phylogeny of the
parts and how they were related. These parts were obviously related to
each other, but were well over an order of magnitude different in
sequence than any homologous proteins between chimps and humans, and
chimps and humans diverged around 4.5 to 8 million years ago. Minnich
discovered that the flagellum had evolved over a very long period of time.

>
>>>> Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
>>>> how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
>>>> parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
>>>> determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?
>>>
>>> How, indeed!
>>> And you're just admitting your own ignorance.
>>
>> Put up or shut up. Demonstrate that I am the ignorant one. Go for it.
>> Who put up the references demonstrating just what I claimed? It wasn't
>> you or Grasso.
>
> The criterium is that you understand what "well-matched" means.
> Notice that it is, by definition, a subjective term.
> It's based on direct observation in most cases, or by observation through the "lens" of modern
> biochemistry.

Put up or shut up. Demonstrate that anyone has done anything worth
doing with well matched. It was only put up to keep fooling the rubes.
Demonstrate otherwise. It is obvious that IC to both Minnich and Behe
means that the system could not evolve by natural means. This was their
only test for the stupidity. Well matched includes not likely by chance
in its definition so why would they need their stupid verification test
if they had demonstrated that enough of their well matched existed in
nature? You were fooled and you remain in denial. That is your reality.

>
>>>> So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
>>>> from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
>>>> post junk like this post of yours.
>>>
>>> U MAD BRO?
>>
>> U A LYIN PRETENDA BRO. That isn't a question, but a statement of fact.
>> Put up or shut up or continue to be a dishonest pretender. Why is
>> denial the only thing that you can think of to do? Wouldn't you rather
>> have the ID science?
>> If you wanted to teach the ID science in your local school district what
>> would you get from the IDiot scam artists that sell you the junk? What
>> has every single IDiot gotten from them instead of the ID science for
>> over 14 years?
>
> U MAD BRO?

U A LYIN PRETENDA BRO.

Yours is a question, mine is a statement of fact.

> Then start substantiating your insinuations, and we might have a discussion.

Projection is so much a part of IDiocy, and I just don't know what
IDiots get out of it. You have to know what you are deficient in, in
order to project the stupidity onto others.

You are the one that needs to demonstrate what they claim. I already
have and you are currently running from that reality. What did Behe
claim about well matched? What was never done that has to be done in
order for well matched to mean anything?

>
>> Go back up to the thread where the ID perps were talking about the ID
>> science that they hadn't worked out, yet. What were they claiming one
>> year after starting to run the bait and switch. Berlinski and the rest
>> of the ID perps participating were pretty circumspect in admitting that
>> they didn't have the science. Did you read Berlinski's article? Their
>> only claim was that working on what they called ID science qualified as
>> science even if they hadn't gotten anywhere worth getting at the time.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY/R4EdsCaCCAAJ
>>
>> Man up and do the right thing. Put up or shut up.
>
> Instead of pasting links, why not reply on those threads?

Why run and make these stupid claims?

> It would resurrect the thread(s) that you seem to be so attached to.
> AND, it will provide the full and immediate context without which Darwinists love to quote mine and
> equivocate.

Running is what it demonstrates, demonstrate otherwise. The old does
not become obsolete, when you are still making bogus claims that were
dealt with years ago and you ran from.

Continued denial accomplishes nothing.

You asked, I gave it to you, now all you can do is deny reality.

> Why would Behe or Minnich waste their time trying to evolve a flagellum when they know full-well
> that it is irreducibly complex and could not have plausibly evolve naturalistically?
> What's to stop an idiot like you from coming back ten years later and say "Behe and Minnich didn't
> evolve a flagellum because they weren't doing the right experiment" or "because they just didn't
> try hard enough!"?

It is the only test that they could come up with that would make IC look
like science, and they haven't even tried it. They have no other
verification tests. That is the point. Acting stupid is stupid. They
only put up the test to sound like scientists. They never intended to
do any science.

>
> The job to prove Behe and Minnich wrong goes to the people who are insisting they are wrong.
> And I defy you to deny that millions of dollars in research has been done just for that purpose by
> the Darwinian Establishment in recent decades.

What an IDiot. You don't have to prove anything wrong when it can't be
determined to be right. What a brain dead type of response. Behe
understood that all anyone had to do was come up with plausible
alternatives and he was done. That is why he added well matched and
multiple unselected steps as being important to his definition in his
responses to his critics. All he could do was make IC more
unverifiable. That doesn't make your argument more viable. It just
removes it further from reality so that it can't be evaluated. That is
all Behe has done with IC in 20 years.

I see you have ignored reality.

The only verification test and the admission that they hadn't tried to
ever verify their junk. That means that junk like well matched was
never verified. It means that Behe's type of IC was never verified.
What don't you get? They admitted that they had never verified anything
of significance or they would have put it forward.

Running in denial is stupid at this time. The bait and switch has been
going down for over 14 years. No one has ever gotten the promised ID
science when they have needed it, and they never will unless a miracle
happens.

Dembski just quit the ID scam recently. What does that tell an IDiot
like you? What happened to Dembski's ID science? Have you heard of
his new law of thermodynamics lately? That was just as stupid as well
matched, and has gotten just as far.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 5/24/2016 3:28 AM, jillery wrote:

>> I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
>> http://www.discovery.org/a/465
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
>> mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
>> and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
>> which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
>> can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
>> the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> Behe goes on to say:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
>> well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
>> 'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
>> ('IC').
>> END QUOTE:
>>

>> Did Minnich determine how well matched the parts were? He only removed

>> a part and the system didn't work, just like removing a part from the
>> lever and fulcrum would make the system non functional.
>>

>> Go up to the photosynthesis thread and help Grasso out by telling him
>> how well matched the parts are. It looks like the criteria is if the
>> parts could not have come together by chance, and how is that
>> determined? Where are the calculations? How would you even do it?
>>

>> So now you put up or shut up. Go back to any post that you have run
>>from where you should have put up or shut up, but you just ran away to
>> post junk like this post of yours.
>>

>>> And, due to your equivocation, I don't know whether you are talking about "testing" the theory of ID or
>>> IC. Which is it?
>>
>> Testing IC was the topic. Put up or shut up. Go back to any of the
>> multitude of posts that you have run from instead of backing up your
>> claims and put up or shut up. Don't just put up stupid citations that
>> aren't even on the topic like you did for the abzyme posts. Try to
>> support something that you have run from in the past.
>>

>> How pathetic will you get? This post of yours is pretty pathetic and
>> running without doing what you require of others just makes you more
>> pathetic.
>>

>> Ron Okimoto
>
>
> Thank you for raising this point again. I didn't pay enough attention
> to it when you brought it up before. IIUC you and I agree that Behe's
> IC can be separated into two parts: 1) Behe's definition of IC, as he
> explicitly states starting on page 39 of DBB, and 2) Behe's bald
> conclusions on pages immediately following, of what IC means to
> evolution, that all but the simplest IC can't arise by gradual
> incremental processes, and so must be the result of Intelligent
> Design. IIUC you and I also agree that without his second part, his
> first part is at best an uninteresting and pointless truism.
>
> IIUC what Behe wrote in your cite above, he argued that the measure of
> how well-matched the parts of an IC system are, is how much function
> is lost when a part is removed, so that if the parts are not
> well-matched, only some function is lost, but if the parts are
> well-matched, effectively all function is lost.

Behe was stupid to put that up because he admitted that if you took away
one part of the lever and fulcrum it lost its function, and those parts
were not well matched enough to matter for Behe.

His, not likely to come together by chance, was his real criteria and he
never demonstrated anything about well matched that would allow him to
determine that.

If he had it would have come up in Dover, and they would have had a
valid test instead of the stupid one that both Minnich and Behe put forward.

>
> In making that argument, Behe also explicitly admitted that systems of
> not-well-matched parts also exist, and that such systems are easily
> formed by chance. Keep these points in mind, because I'll get back to
> them later.

And the not so well matched parts (lever and fulcrum), when taken away
could cause loss of function of the system. Behe had nothing.

>
> As you pointed out above, and I mentioned in a recent post, Minnich's
> testimony in the Dover trial focused exclusively on Behe's first part,
> his definition of IC. Minnich testified that he knocked out one part
> at a time the 35 parts of a bacterial flagellum, and each time the
> bacterial flagellum effectively ceased functioning.
>
> Now one can quibble about what qualifies as parts, and about what are
> the functions of a bacterial flagellum, but for arguments' sake let's
> stipulate to Minnich's specifications. So he showed the parts are
> well-matched, as Behe measures well-matched, and the bacterial
> flagellum is IC, as Behe defines IC.

Nope, all he did was demonstrate that they were like the lever and
fulcrum where if you remove a part you lost function. He did not
demonstrate Behe's type of well matched because Behe claimed that the
lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough.

>
> But Minnich didn't touch Behe's second part to IC, his asserted
> challenge to evolution, and his asserted support of ID. As I pointed
> out before, the highlight of Minnich's testimony was his allusion to
> being Zsa Zsa's fifth husband. But none of Minnich's testimony had
> any relevance to ID, because Behe's definition of IC has nothing to do
> with ID.

That was part of Behe's definition of well matched. The parts could not
have come together by chance. It was his way of determining that the
system could not have evolved. Minnich never demonstrated Behe's type
of well matched existed, so he never got to the, could not evolve, part
of the definition of IC.

>
> An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
> need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
> that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
> arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
> existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
> systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
> steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
> system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
> parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
> showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Behe, likely better than most, knew he had nothing worth jack. IC is
not mentioned as ever existing in the IDiot switch scam. There is a
simple reason for that. If it were science nothing could prevent them
from putting it in. It obviously isn't what they are selling it as.

Ron Okimoto
>

[Jonathan]

On 5/28/2016 9:11 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2016 19:58:48 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2016 7:27 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I read all the posts to T.O.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh! Why didn't you say that earlier, that
>> explains a lot, you're insane.
>
>
> Not at all. OTOH reading Emily Dickenson poetry, that will drive
> anybody insane.

She was insane, she knew the majority was wrong
about nature.



Much Madness is divinest Sense
To a discerning Eye
Much Sense the starkest Madness
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail
Assent and you are sane
Demur you're straightway dangerous
And handled with a Chain



She knew nature was defined by the analogy
of a constantly shifting seashore, or by
uncertainty (complexity) where no constancy
can be found. She knew emergence, or 'nature's ghosts'
was defining, while reducing translates to
increasing ignorance.




Related somehow they may be, —
The sedge stands next the sea,
Where he is floorless, yet of fear
No evidence gives he.

But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get.




And she was insane because the majority thought
evolution was defined by the external forces of
selection, while she knew it was defined by
a self-organizing internal force derived
from the competition of opposing forces.

She said it three times in this poem
just to make sure no one missed it, that
selection is NOT the driving force, but
merely fine tunes or endorses. While
self organization is the 'royalty' of
evolution, while selection merely the
supporting 'countenance'.

She even knew an inverse square law
(power law today) is the driving force
behind self organization, that's amazing!



Growth of Man like Growth of Nature
Gravitates within
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it
Bit it stir alone

Each its difficult Ideal
Must achieve Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life

Effort is the sole condition
Patience of Itself
Patience of opposing forces
And intact Belief

Looking on is the Department
Of its Audience
But Transaction is assisted
By no Countenance




And she knew nature was not defined by a
filing cabinet full of facts, but by three
global behaviors, as in modern attractor theory
of static, dynamic and chaotic.

Or as she terms it, simplicity, harmony
and heaven.



"Nature" is what we see
The Hill the Afternoon
Squirrel Eclipse the Bumble bee
Nay, Nature is Heaven

Nature is what we hear
The Bobolink the Sea
Thunder the Cricket
Nay, Nature is Harmony

Nature is what we know
Yet have no art to say
So impotent Our Wisdom is
To her Simplicity.




But you misunderstand, insanity
can be a beautiful feeling.




I think I was enchanted
When first a sombre child
I read that Foreign Lady
The Dark -- felt beautiful

And whether it was noon at night
Or only Heaven at Noon
For very Lunacy of Light
I had not power to tell

The Bees became as Butterflies
The Butterflies as Swans
Approached and spurned the narrow Grass
And just the meanest Tunes

That Nature murmured to herself
To keep herself in Cheer
I took for Giants practicing
Titanic Opera

I could not have defined the change
Conversion of the Mind
Like Sanctifying in the Soul
Is witnessed not explained

'Twas a Divine Insanity
The Danger to be Sane
Should I again experience
'Tis Antidote to turn

To Tomes of solid Witchcraft
Magicians be asleep
But Magic hath an Element
Like Deity to keep




I'll put Dickinson's mind up against
anyone that ever lived, and probably
win. Even today she is still ahead
of her time when it comes to evolution
and nature.

The poem she left on top for others to find
after her death explained her only goal.




This is my letter to the World
That never wrote to Me
The simple News that Nature told
With tender Majesty

Her Message is committed
To Hands I cannot see
For love of Her Sweet countrymen
Judge tenderly of Me



And she beat the modern world to the
secret of nature by 150 years with
little more than a dictionary in her lap
while sitting on her porch.



Jonathan



s

[Jonathan]

On 5/27/2016 2:13 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:53:35 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>
>>
>>
>> Go to hell bitch
>
>
> To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:
>

Imitation is the highest form of flattery~

> "I'll let you know when you can tell me what to do.
> Who do you think you are?"

It was an expression, not an order.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:23:19 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 5/27/2016 2:13 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 18:53:35 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go to hell bitch
>>
>>
>> To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:
>>
>
>
>Imitation is the highest form of flattery~

You flatter yourself.

>> "I'll let you know when you can tell me what to do.
>> Who do you think you are?"
>
>
>
>It was an expression, not an order.

Non Sequiturs 'R' Us runs rampant in your posts.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 09:16:46 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

>On 5/27/16 5:02 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 5/27/2016 4:19 PM, r-ma...@wiu.edu wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:00 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:58:02 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You folks can't see the forest for the trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad us folks aren't talking about either forests or trees.
>>>>
>>>> Go to hell bitch
>>>
>>> Male chauvinist bigotry must be an emergent phenomena for A..holes.
>>
>> Ya I shouldn't have said that, I was wrong.
>>
>> And now that I think about it, I can't remember
>> ever seeing anyone in this ng admit they were
>> wrong, not even once.
>
>Selective memory or selective attention. I have done so myself, and I
>have seen several people, with diverse views, admit being wrong. Mind
>you, it is not a common occurrence.

I have done the same, and have also seen others (even Ray in
one instance!) do so. I suspect his assertion referred to
the responses of others to him specifically, which would,
given the posts he makes, be understandable.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:58:42 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2016 3:28 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 22:39:58 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2016 8:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

<snip to focus on Minnich and Behe>

>>>> Cited quotes, please... Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>> I already gave it to you months ago:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/7bzK52cm324/zXNm8gB2hqwJ
>>>
>>> I have also found that the Discovery Institute has a copy available:
>>> http://www.discovery.org/a/465
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a mechanical
>>> mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity of a lever
>>> and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an interactive system
>>> which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the parts of the system
>>> can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and still function. Because
>>> the system is not well-matched, it could easily be formed by chance.
>>> END QUOTE:
>>>
>>> Behe goes on to say:
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Systems requiring several parts to function that need not be
>>> well-matched, we can call "simple interactive" systems (designated
>>> 'SI'). Ones that require well-matched components are irreducibly complex
>>> ('IC').
>>> END QUOTE:

[...]

>> Thank you for raising this point again. I didn't pay enough attention
>> to it when you brought it up before. IIUC you and I agree that Behe's
>> IC can be separated into two parts: 1) Behe's definition of IC, as he
>> explicitly states starting on page 39 of DBB, and 2) Behe's bald
>> conclusions on pages immediately following, of what IC means to
>> evolution, that all but the simplest IC can't arise by gradual
>> incremental processes, and so must be the result of Intelligent
>> Design. IIUC you and I also agree that without his second part, his
>> first part is at best an uninteresting and pointless truism.
>>
>> IIUC what Behe wrote in your cite above, he argued that the measure of
>> how well-matched the parts of an IC system are, is how much function
>> is lost when a part is removed, so that if the parts are not
>> well-matched, only some function is lost, but if the parts are
>> well-matched, effectively all function is lost.
>
>Behe was stupid to put that up because he admitted that if you took away
>one part of the lever and fulcrum it lost its function, and those parts
>were not well matched enough to matter for Behe.
>
>His, not likely to come together by chance, was his real criteria and he
>never demonstrated anything about well matched that would allow him to
>determine that.
>
>If he had it would have come up in Dover, and they would have had a
>valid test instead of the stupid one that both Minnich and Behe put forward.

In this context, it's important to keep separate what Behe said from
one's analysis and opinion of what Behe said. In DBB, Behe gave a
definition of IC, and made specific but unsupported claims about what
he thinks IC means to biological evolution. I assumed that's why you
posted your link to Behe's explanation of "well-matched", to document
Behe's explanation with Minnich's testimony.

It's Behe's definition of IC that Minnich tested and about which he
testified. That Behe's definition has utterly nothing to do with ID
or evolution is a point on which I understand both of us agree. Do I
understand correctly?

>> In making that argument, Behe also explicitly admitted that systems of
>> not-well-matched parts also exist, and that such systems are easily
>> formed by chance. Keep these points in mind, because I'll get back to
>> them later.
>
>And the not so well matched parts (lever and fulcrum), when taken away
>could cause loss of function of the system. Behe had nothing.

That's another point where Behe shows his inconsistent logic. In your
cite, Behe introduced a lever and fulcrum as a system that is not IC
as he defines it:

"A system can be more or less complex, so the likelihood of coming up
with any particular interactive system by chance can be more or less
probable. As an illustration, contrast the greater complexity of a

mechanical mousetrap (mentioned above) with the much lesser complexity
of a lever and fulcrum. Together a lever and fulcrum form an
interactive system which can be used to move weights. Nonetheless, the
parts of the system can have a wide variety of shapes and sizes and
still function. Because the system is not well-matched, it could
easily be formed by chance."

So for systems Behe wants to claim as IC, like his iconic mousetrap,
his standard test is to remove a part, and see if the system is able
to perform its alleged purpose. But for a lever and fulcrum, he
ignores that test. Instead he applies an completely different test,
whether parts of different shapes and sizes would still work, which of
course they do. So according to Behe's statement above, the parts of
a lever and fulcrum aren't well-matched and so disqualifies it as IC.

>> As you pointed out above, and I mentioned in a recent post, Minnich's
>> testimony in the Dover trial focused exclusively on Behe's first part,
>> his definition of IC. Minnich testified that he knocked out one part
>> at a time the 35 parts of a bacterial flagellum, and each time the
>> bacterial flagellum effectively ceased functioning.
>>
>> Now one can quibble about what qualifies as parts, and about what are
>> the functions of a bacterial flagellum, but for arguments' sake let's
>> stipulate to Minnich's specifications. So he showed the parts are
>> well-matched, as Behe measures well-matched, and the bacterial
>> flagellum is IC, as Behe defines IC.
>
>Nope, all he did was demonstrate that they were like the lever and
>fulcrum where if you remove a part you lost function. He did not
>demonstrate Behe's type of well matched because Behe claimed that the
>lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough.

But Behe doesn't agree that a lever and fulcrum is IC like a bacterial
flagellum. OTOH he does agree that the bacterial flagellum is like
his iconic mousetrap, which would fail an equivalent test as
Minnich's.

The relevant point here is that Behe identified a test for identifying
whether parts of an IC system are well-matched, and that is the test
Minnich performed. You and I both agree that the test isn't valid,
but that's not Minnich's fault.

>> But Minnich didn't touch Behe's second part to IC, his asserted
>> challenge to evolution, and his asserted support of ID. As I pointed
>> out before, the highlight of Minnich's testimony was his allusion to
>> being Zsa Zsa's fifth husband. But none of Minnich's testimony had
>> any relevance to ID, because Behe's definition of IC has nothing to do
>> with ID.
>
>That was part of Behe's definition of well matched. The parts could not
>have come together by chance. It was his way of determining that the
>system could not have evolved. Minnich never demonstrated Behe's type
>of well matched existed, so he never got to the, could not evolve, part
>of the definition of IC.

According to your cite, "The parts could not come together by chance"
isn't the test Behe specified. It's just one of Behe's several
unsupported claims. It's not really part of Behe's definition. If it
were, his definition would be utterly useless, because that claim is
impossible to prove. For purposes of facilitating discussion, it's
useful to separate Behe's unsupported conclusions, like that
statement, from his actual definition.

>> An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
>> need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
>> that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
>> arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
>> existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
>> systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
>> steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
>> system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
>> parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
>> showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.
>

[RonO]

Behe had a definition in Black Box, but it was inadequate, and he added
things to it in his responses to his critics. When I say Behe's IC I
mean the IC with the junk that Behe claimed was needed, not his
simplistic definition that Behe admitted was inadequate and made his
later additions. He even claims in that paper that well matched was
part of his definition from the beginning, he just didn't say what he meant.

It is inconsistent reasoning and means that he had nothing. His claim
about loss of function and being well matched was wrong even by his own
standards. His original claims in Black Box that removing a part and
losing function was also wrong by his own admission about the lever and
fulcrum. Behe did all this years before Dover. He had nothing and
anyone that followed the ID scam knew it. The bait and switch was no
surprise to Behe. His responses to his critics happened before the bait
and switch went down on Ohio.

>
>
>>> As you pointed out above, and I mentioned in a recent post, Minnich's
>>> testimony in the Dover trial focused exclusively on Behe's first part,
>>> his definition of IC. Minnich testified that he knocked out one part
>>> at a time the 35 parts of a bacterial flagellum, and each time the
>>> bacterial flagellum effectively ceased functioning.
>>>
>>> Now one can quibble about what qualifies as parts, and about what are
>>> the functions of a bacterial flagellum, but for arguments' sake let's
>>> stipulate to Minnich's specifications. So he showed the parts are
>>> well-matched, as Behe measures well-matched, and the bacterial
>>> flagellum is IC, as Behe defines IC.
>>
>> Nope, all he did was demonstrate that they were like the lever and
>> fulcrum where if you remove a part you lost function. He did not
>> demonstrate Behe's type of well matched because Behe claimed that the
>> lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough.
>
>
> But Behe doesn't agree that a lever and fulcrum is IC like a bacterial
> flagellum. OTOH he does agree that the bacterial flagellum is like
> his iconic mousetrap, which would fail an equivalent test as
> Minnich's.

I said that Behe doesn't agree that the lever and fulcrum are IC. This
means that when Minnich only did the removal of a part and losing
function he only could claim that the system was like the lever and
fulcrum. He did not identify the unselected steps and their purposeful
arrangement and he did not determine how well matched the parts were.

By Behe's own admission Minnich did not verify that the flagellum was
IC. All Minnich could say was that the flagellum acted as the lever and
fulcrum did.

>
> The relevant point here is that Behe identified a test for identifying
> whether parts of an IC system are well-matched, and that is the test
> Minnich performed. You and I both agree that the test isn't valid,
> but that's not Minnich's fault.

Behe only claimed to have identified a test. As you point out his
reasoning was inconsistent because the same test would tell him that the
lever and fulcrum parts were well matched and Behe had already admitted
that the lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough to be his
type of IC. It doesn't matter what test Behe claimed to have. He
obviously had no such test, so whatever Minnich did it was nothing worth
doing.

>
>
>>> But Minnich didn't touch Behe's second part to IC, his asserted
>>> challenge to evolution, and his asserted support of ID. As I pointed
>>> out before, the highlight of Minnich's testimony was his allusion to
>>> being Zsa Zsa's fifth husband. But none of Minnich's testimony had
>>> any relevance to ID, because Behe's definition of IC has nothing to do
>>> with ID.
>>
>> That was part of Behe's definition of well matched. The parts could not
>> have come together by chance. It was his way of determining that the
>> system could not have evolved. Minnich never demonstrated Behe's type
>> of well matched existed, so he never got to the, could not evolve, part
>> of the definition of IC.
>
>
> According to your cite, "The parts could not come together by chance"
> isn't the test Behe specified. It's just one of Behe's several
> unsupported claims. It's not really part of Behe's definition. If it
> were, his definition would be utterly useless, because that claim is
> impossible to prove. For purposes of facilitating discussion, it's
> useful to separate Behe's unsupported conclusions, like that
> statement, from his actual definition.

It is Behe's only claim that would demonstrate well matched. His
claimed loss of function test was stupid and obviously would not have
told him anything about well matched. He had already admitted that the
lever and fulcrum was not well matched enough for his type of IC, and if
you take away any part it loses function. Only his unsupported claim
about not being able to assemble by chance would have told him what he
needed to know about well matched.

No one not even Minnich took Behe's claimed test seriously. As far as I
know Minnich never claimed to have determined how well matched the parts
were. He only claimed that if he took some parts away the flagellum
stopped working.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Then I don't see your point in citing the particular article that you
did. Instead of making ad hoc claims of more recent revisions, you
would have been better off to cite something more recent in the first
place. Do you have a cite where Behe identifies his most recent
definition of IC and/or his explantion of what "well-matched" means?

Once again, that Behe couldn't make up his mind how to test for
well-matched is a valid criticism of Behe, but not of Minnich. My
understanding is that Minnich applied what Behe said at the time
Minnich did his experiments. Obviously Minnich did them before the
Dover trial. I don't know which version of Behe's definition was
contemporaneous with when Miinnich did his experiments. Do you?

>>>> As you pointed out above, and I mentioned in a recent post, Minnich's
>>>> testimony in the Dover trial focused exclusively on Behe's first part,
>>>> his definition of IC. Minnich testified that he knocked out one part
>>>> at a time the 35 parts of a bacterial flagellum, and each time the
>>>> bacterial flagellum effectively ceased functioning.
>>>>
>>>> Now one can quibble about what qualifies as parts, and about what are
>>>> the functions of a bacterial flagellum, but for arguments' sake let's
>>>> stipulate to Minnich's specifications. So he showed the parts are
>>>> well-matched, as Behe measures well-matched, and the bacterial
>>>> flagellum is IC, as Behe defines IC.
>>>
>>> Nope, all he did was demonstrate that they were like the lever and
>>> fulcrum where if you remove a part you lost function. He did not
>>> demonstrate Behe's type of well matched because Behe claimed that the
>>> lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough.
>>
>>
>> But Behe doesn't agree that a lever and fulcrum is IC like a bacterial
>> flagellum. OTOH he does agree that the bacterial flagellum is like
>> his iconic mousetrap, which would fail an equivalent test as
>> Minnich's.
>
>I said that Behe doesn't agree that the lever and fulcrum are IC. This
>means that when Minnich only did the removal of a part and losing
>function he only could claim that the system was like the lever and
>fulcrum. He did not identify the unselected steps and their purposeful
>arrangement and he did not determine how well matched the parts were.

Then I don't see your point in saying "Nope, all he [Minnich] did was
demonstrate that they [parts of a flagellum] were like the lever and
fulcrum where if you remove a part you lost function." Minnich said
that removing the alleged parts caused the flagellum to cease
functioning, which according to Behe is *not* what happens with a
lever and fulcrum. We agree that Behe is wrong on that point, but
again, that's not a criticism against Minnich.

I think you and I are tripping over the multiple versions of what Behe
said, and which one is applicable to Minnich's testimony.

>By Behe's own admission Minnich did not verify that the flagellum was
>IC. All Minnich could say was that the flagellum acted as the lever and
>fulcrum did.

I don't recall where Behe said that Minnich didn't verify the
flagellum as IC. Will you refresh my memory?

>> The relevant point here is that Behe identified a test for identifying
>> whether parts of an IC system are well-matched, and that is the test
>> Minnich performed. You and I both agree that the test isn't valid,
>> but that's not Minnich's fault.
>
>Behe only claimed to have identified a test. As you point out his
>reasoning was inconsistent because the same test would tell him that the
>lever and fulcrum parts were well matched and Behe had already admitted
>that the lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough to be his
>type of IC. It doesn't matter what test Behe claimed to have. He
>obviously had no such test, so whatever Minnich did it was nothing worth
>doing.

I agree that what Minnich did was nothing worth doing, but for
entirely different reasons than you say above. My impression is your
reasons give Steadly even more wiggle room to play his word games.

In the Dover trial, Minnich testified about his acceptance of
Intelligent Design, and of the value of Irreducible Complexity as
evidence for Intelligent Design, and of his recognition of the
bacterial flagellum as IC, and of his application of the concepts of
ID and IC in his lab every day, and that his understanding of IC and
ID is similar to Behe's understanding.

Unless Minnich submitted completely perjured testimony, it illustrates
quite clearly his commitment to IC and ID and his support for Behe's
claims.

>>>> An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
>>>> need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
>>>> that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
>>>> arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
>>>> existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
>>>> systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
>>>> steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
>>>> system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
>>>> parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
>>>> showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.
>>>
>>> Behe, likely better than most, knew he had nothing worth jack. IC is
>>> not mentioned as ever existing in the IDiot switch scam. There is a
>>> simple reason for that. If it were science nothing could prevent them
>>>from putting it in. It obviously isn't what they are selling it as.

My impression is that in this thread you're fighting the right war but
the wrong battle. Subtleties like how to test for well-matched parts
are but a drop in an ocean of incoherence from Behe specifically and
the ID community generally. And given that Steadly shows no interest
in understanding these subtleties, they really aren't worth fussing
about with him. My impression is he's just using the topic as an
excuse to post more of his trademark gibberish.

[RonO]

I cited that response from Behe for exactly the reasons demonstrated in
the quoted material. Behe's IC was found to be inadequate even for
Behe. He had to address his critics and he did it by making unsupported
claims about well matched. It is as simple as that. Behe made IC more
untestable than it previously had been. It is obvious that Behe had no
means of determining how well matched any two parts were, so his
additions were just bogus. That is the whole point. IC is bogus. Behe
understood that, and tried to fix it, but it just got worse. Behe may
have made unsupported claims to cover his butt, but he did not have any
way of determining how well matched any two parts were. His own claimed
method would not work by his own admission of the lever and fulcrum.
Just because you take away a part and the system stops functioning
doesn't mean the parts are well matched because Behe had already claimed
that the parts of the lever and fulcrum were not well matched enough. I
don't know How I could be clearer.

There was never a test for well matched. Behe only added the stupidity
to counter the stupidity that IC had become, but he just made things
worse. All Behe has done since Black Box is make IC more untestable and
even worse off than it was before.

>
> I think you and I are tripping over the multiple versions of what Behe
> said, and which one is applicable to Minnich's testimony.

IC is bogus. That is the bottom line, and Minnich could have never
tested well matched even if he had wanted to. That is just reality.
Whatever Minnich did he obviously did not verify anything about well
matched.

>
>
>> By Behe's own admission Minnich did not verify that the flagellum was
>> IC. All Minnich could say was that the flagellum acted as the lever and
>> fulcrum did.
>
>
> I don't recall where Behe said that Minnich didn't verify the
> flagellum as IC. Will you refresh my memory?

Why would Behe have to say it? It is just fact. Did Minnich verify
that the flagellum was IC? No.

>
>
>>> The relevant point here is that Behe identified a test for identifying
>>> whether parts of an IC system are well-matched, and that is the test
>>> Minnich performed. You and I both agree that the test isn't valid,
>>> but that's not Minnich's fault.
>>
>> Behe only claimed to have identified a test. As you point out his
>> reasoning was inconsistent because the same test would tell him that the
>> lever and fulcrum parts were well matched and Behe had already admitted
>> that the lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough to be his
>> type of IC. It doesn't matter what test Behe claimed to have. He
>> obviously had no such test, so whatever Minnich did it was nothing worth
>> doing.
>
>
> I agree that what Minnich did was nothing worth doing, but for
> entirely different reasons than you say above. My impression is your
> reasons give Steadly even more wiggle room to play his word games.

Let eddie wiggle, it doesn't matter because the bottom line is that
Minnich didn't verify anything worth verifying and we all know it. I'd
like to see him demonstrate that Minnich verified that the parts were
well matched. Behe claimed hat it was what made his systems IC and that
the lever and fulcrum didn't have enough so let any IDiot try.

It is called lying under oath, or just being incompetent. I guess you
could lie and believe that you are not, but it doesn't matter. Minnich
was wrong. He didn't do anything except demonstrate that if you remove
a part the system stops working. Beadle and Tatum did that for
metaboloic pathways over half a century before Minnich, and Behe doesn't
claim those metabolic pathways are IC.

When Minnich claimed that he did verification tests for IC and that
removing parts the system lost function, he knew that he wasn't really
verifying Behe's IC. He was only verifying part of the definition. In
his mind this may have been a type of verification, but it was only
partial, and a part that didn't matter because other systems that Behe
claimed were not IC behaved the same way. Sure he was verifying a part
of the definition, but he wasn't doing jack for IDiocy because the part
that he was verifying didn't matter one way or the other. IC and non IC
systems could behave the same way, so what did Minnich verify?

>
> Unless Minnich submitted completely perjured testimony, it illustrates
> quite clearly his commitment to IC and ID and his support for Behe's
> claims.

He probably did perjure himself, maybe not in the strict definition, but
he likely knew that he was being dishonest. My guess is that the judge
understood that both Behe and Minnich were prevaricating. By the Dover
Trial Minnich understood that ID had nothing substantial. He was
probably part of the group that ran the bait and switch on the Ohio
rubes 3 years before. He knew then and he knew during the trial, or the
ID perps would have already tested their junk in the courts of Ohio
years before. Really, according to Wells, Minnich was at the Ohio Bait
and switch, that means that he was likely among the ID perps that Wells
claims got together and decided to run the bait and switch instead of
give the Ohio rubes the promised ID science. The ID perps understood
that they had nothing years before Dover and Minnich was one of them.
They might have still been lying to themselves, but their comments a
year after the bait and switch tell anyone the reason that they ran the
bait and switch.

This is no big deal to IDiots. Why should it be a surprise to you?

IC isn't really about Minnich anyway. It is Behe's definition and
Behe's IC that is being discussed and Minnich's only role is that he did
nothing that would verify that there was enough well matched to mean jack.

>
>
>>>>> An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
>>>>> need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
>>>>> that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
>>>>> arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
>>>>> existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
>>>>> systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
>>>>> steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
>>>>> system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
>>>>> parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
>>>>> showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> Behe, likely better than most, knew he had nothing worth jack. IC is
>>>> not mentioned as ever existing in the IDiot switch scam. There is a
>>>> simple reason for that. If it were science nothing could prevent them
>>> >from putting it in. It obviously isn't what they are selling it as.
>
>
> My impression is that in this thread you're fighting the right war but
> the wrong battle. Subtleties like how to test for well-matched parts
> are but a drop in an ocean of incoherence from Behe specifically and
> the ID community generally. And given that Steadly shows no interest
> in understanding these subtleties, they really aren't worth fussing
> about with him. My impression is he's just using the topic as an
> excuse to post more of his trademark gibberish.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.
>

The point is that Behe's IC has never been verified to exist in nature.
That is something that you can't deny by bringing in any claptrap
argument about what Minnich supposedly did, when he obviously could not
have done what is claimed. Behe made up the junk and he made it a
certainty that his IC would never be verified to exist in nature. He
did it so that no one could test IC and demonstrate that his type of IC
did not exist, but it turned out to make IC worthless because there is
no way to verify if it does exist. This was years before Behe and
Minnich testified in court. These are just facts that the reference
supports. Behe made up the junk to try and shore up IC, but all he did
was make IC into the bogus junk that it is today. Grasso thinks that IC
is a fact. He has been lied to. The lever and fulcrum is a type of IC
system, but Behe claims that it isn't his type of IC system. All the
IDiots are stuck with is that some systems can be determined to be a
type of IC, but it isn't the type of IC that IDiots need to demonstrate
anything about IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

[riskys...@gmail.com]

How so? I'm making the same point as Jillery, although I concede she has done a better job explaining it.

Assume for a second that the Minnich data is exactly what he says it is; if any of the *current* components is "knocked out", the bacterium can't swim. What should that tell us about evolution? Well, I suppose it could tell us that a scenario in which the function evolved starting with one of the *current* components, followed by the second *current* component - and so on - is implausible.

But who would offer that as a likely trajectory? No one, as far as I can tell.

Much more likely would be that in the distant past a collection of the existing genetic bits of the time - some modified, some copied and modified - allowed the bacteria that had that configuration to swim, although likely poorly and inefficiently.

But once "swimming" - even poor swimming - became a function whose improvement could be selected for, mutations that made it more efficient would provide a reproductive advantage. Over time, many, if not most of the components would be different from the ones that originally provided the swimming function; more specialized to provide improved swimming, more efficient use of energy etc. Some components may at some stage have been useful or necessary but have since dropped away as the system was modified.

As all of the creatures would - by virtue of reproduction from the same template - have *all* of the components, "flexibility" (the ability to swim with some of the components missing) would not be selected for, only better more efficient operation.

Fast forward to the present. We should not be surprised to find a configuration that needs all of its *current* parts in order to work. Irreducibly complexity is an expected outcome of evolution; finding it is no argument against standard biology.

[jillery]

Apparently not.

Apparently not.

More accurately, there was never a valid test. Instead, Behe proposed
multiple and mutually exclusive tests, none of which actually tested
whether the alleged parts were well-matched. Behe merely claimed that
they did.

>> I think you and I are tripping over the multiple versions of what Behe
>> said, and which one is applicable to Minnich's testimony.
>
>IC is bogus. That is the bottom line, and Minnich could have never
>tested well matched even if he had wanted to. That is just reality.
>Whatever Minnich did he obviously did not verify anything about well
>matched.
>
>>
>>
>>> By Behe's own admission Minnich did not verify that the flagellum was
>>> IC. All Minnich could say was that the flagellum acted as the lever and
>>> fulcrum did.
>>
>>
>> I don't recall where Behe said that Minnich didn't verify the
>> flagellum as IC. Will you refresh my memory?
>
>Why would Behe have to say it? It is just fact. Did Minnich verify
>that the flagellum was IC? No.

If Behe didn't say it, then Behe didn't admit it. I know it's a
holiday and all, but like a doctor, your mind needs to be on-call at
all times. Give it double-pay and an attaboy if you must, but wake it
up.

>>>> The relevant point here is that Behe identified a test for identifying
>>>> whether parts of an IC system are well-matched, and that is the test
>>>> Minnich performed. You and I both agree that the test isn't valid,
>>>> but that's not Minnich's fault.
>>>
>>> Behe only claimed to have identified a test. As you point out his
>>> reasoning was inconsistent because the same test would tell him that the
>>> lever and fulcrum parts were well matched and Behe had already admitted
>>> that the lever and fulcrum parts were not well matched enough to be his
>>> type of IC. It doesn't matter what test Behe claimed to have. He
>>> obviously had no such test, so whatever Minnich did it was nothing worth
>>> doing.
>>
>>
>> I agree that what Minnich did was nothing worth doing, but for
>> entirely different reasons than you say above. My impression is your
>> reasons give Steadly even more wiggle room to play his word games.
>
>Let eddie wiggle, it doesn't matter because the bottom line is that
>Minnich didn't verify anything worth verifying and we all know it. I'd
>like to see him demonstrate that Minnich verified that the parts were
>well matched. Behe claimed hat it was what made his systems IC and that
>the lever and fulcrum didn't have enough so let any IDiot try.

Sound like a good idea to me.

I'm glad you can agree to that point.

>> Unless Minnich submitted completely perjured testimony, it illustrates
>> quite clearly his commitment to IC and ID and his support for Behe's
>> claims.
>
>He probably did perjure himself, maybe not in the strict definition, but
>he likely knew that he was being dishonest. My guess is that the judge
>understood that both Behe and Minnich were prevaricating. By the Dover
>Trial Minnich understood that ID had nothing substantial. He was
>probably part of the group that ran the bait and switch on the Ohio
>rubes 3 years before. He knew then and he knew during the trial, or the
>ID perps would have already tested their junk in the courts of Ohio
>years before. Really, according to Wells, Minnich was at the Ohio Bait
>and switch, that means that he was likely among the ID perps that Wells
>claims got together and decided to run the bait and switch instead of
>give the Ohio rubes the promised ID science. The ID perps understood
>that they had nothing years before Dover and Minnich was one of them.
>They might have still been lying to themselves, but their comments a
>year after the bait and switch tell anyone the reason that they ran the
>bait and switch.
>
>This is no big deal to IDiots. Why should it be a surprise to you?

Why do you think I'm surprised?

>IC isn't really about Minnich anyway. It is Behe's definition and
>Behe's IC that is being discussed and Minnich's only role is that he did
>nothing that would verify that there was enough well matched to mean jack.

I'm glad you can agree to that point.

>>>>>> An irony here is that, while Behe was so obsessed with explaining IC's
>>>>>> need for his well-matched parts, he unintentionally described a path
>>>>>> that the gradual incremental steps of unguided evolution can create
>>>>>> arbitrarily complex IC systems. Remember Behe admitted to the
>>>>>> existence of systems using not-well-matched parts, and admitted those
>>>>>> systems could easily arise by chance? And the gradual incremental
>>>>>> steps of random mutations + natural selection can convert over time a
>>>>>> system using not-well-matched parts into a system using well-matched
>>>>>> parts, ie Behe's IC. The more Behe argued about IC, the more he
>>>>>> showed his complete lack of logical reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Behe, likely better than most, knew he had nothing worth jack. IC is
>>>>> not mentioned as ever existing in the IDiot switch scam. There is a
>>>>> simple reason for that. If it were science nothing could prevent them
>>>> >from putting it in. It obviously isn't what they are selling it as.
>>
>>
>> My impression is that in this thread you're fighting the right war but
>> the wrong battle. Subtleties like how to test for well-matched parts
>> are but a drop in an ocean of incoherence from Behe specifically and
>> the ID community generally. And given that Steadly shows no interest
>> in understanding these subtleties, they really aren't worth fussing
>> about with him. My impression is he's just using the topic as an
>> excuse to post more of his trademark gibberish.
>>
>

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 06:00:37 -0700 (PDT), riskys...@gmail.com
wrote:

IIUC Steadly has claimed to be one of the "Species Immutabilist With
Heritable Variation" kind. ISTM anyone who can reconcile two mutually
exclusive concepts like "immutable" and "heritable variation", should
have no trouble recognizing that *any* heritable variation, no matter
how small between generations, inevitably and necessarily leads over
time to speciation in isolated populations. Apparently like dark
energy, the mind of a Creationist is a mystery of the Universe: nobody
knows how it actually works; one can only observe its effects.

[RonO]

Valid is always assumed. An invalid test is as worthless as no test.

>
>
>>> I think you and I are tripping over the multiple versions of what Behe
>>> said, and which one is applicable to Minnich's testimony.
>>
>> IC is bogus. That is the bottom line, and Minnich could have never
>> tested well matched even if he had wanted to. That is just reality.
>> Whatever Minnich did he obviously did not verify anything about well
>> matched.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> By Behe's own admission Minnich did not verify that the flagellum was
>>>> IC. All Minnich could say was that the flagellum acted as the lever and
>>>> fulcrum did.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't recall where Behe said that Minnich didn't verify the
>>> flagellum as IC. Will you refresh my memory?
>>
>> Why would Behe have to say it? It is just fact. Did Minnich verify
>> that the flagellum was IC? No.
>
>
> If Behe didn't say it, then Behe didn't admit it. I know it's a
> holiday and all, but like a doctor, your mind needs to be on-call at
> all times. Give it double-pay and an attaboy if you must, but wake it
> up.

Semantics is sort of stupid when we both know that Minnich didn't verify
anything worth verifying no matter what Behe may or may not claim.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/28/16 8:09 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> [...]

> Why would Behe or Minnich waste their time trying to evolve a flagellum when they know full-well
> that it is irreducibly complex and could not have plausibly evolve naturalistically?
> What's to stop an idiot like you from coming back ten years later and say "Behe and Minnich didn't
> evolve a flagellum because they weren't doing the right experiment" or "because they just didn't
> try hard enough!"?

Behe and Minnich wasted their time because they, like you, wanted
apparent scientific support for their religious beliefs, probably
because they had so little faith that they needed some sort of buttress
for what they thought they were supposed to believe.

Unfortunately, they failed utterly. First, they did not try to evolve a
flagellum; they tried to show that one of the many ways that evolution
could proceed probably would not work. To do this, they relied on
irreducible complexity, which says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether or
not something could evolve. Irreducible complexity is not evidence
against evolution; it is an expected *consequence* of evolution.

> The job to prove Behe and Minnich wrong goes to the people who are insisting they are wrong.

That job was already complete before Behe was born.

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:nihlte$q1i$1...@dont-email.me...

"Arguably, this system is itself irreducibly complex. "

http://www.discovery.org/f/389

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 10:51:18 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

<mercy snip>

>>>>> I don't recall where Behe said that Minnich didn't verify the
>>>>> flagellum as IC. Will you refresh my memory?
>>>>
>>>> Why would Behe have to say it? It is just fact. Did Minnich verify
>>>> that the flagellum was IC? No.
>>>
>>>
>>> If Behe didn't say it, then Behe didn't admit it. I know it's a
>>> holiday and all, but like a doctor, your mind needs to be on-call at
>>> all times. Give it double-pay and an attaboy if you must, but wake it
>>> up.
>>
>> Semantics is sort of stupid when we both know that Minnich didn't verify
>> anything worth verifying no matter what Behe may or may not claim.
>>
>"Arguably, this system is itself irreducibly complex. "
>
>http://www.discovery.org/f/389

The "this system" in your quote refers to "an elaborate system of
genetic instructions as well as many other protein machines to time
the expression of those assembly instructions." Even if "this
system" is IC as Behe defines it, which is arguable, that says nothing
about whether it could have evolved by unguided natural processes.
Such complexity is not a problem for rm+ns+almost 4 billion years.

[Steady Eddie]

On what basis do you make this claim?

[Steady Eddie]

Nice find.
More to the point:

"Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all
irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system."
http://www.discovery.org/f/389

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 May 2016 18:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "Arguably, this system is itself irreducibly complex. "
>>
>> http://www.discovery.org/f/389
>
>Nice find.
>More to the point:
>
>"Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all
>irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
>intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system."
>http://www.discovery.org/f/389

False logic. All irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of
the system is known by experience or observation, are designed by
humans. Applying the same reasoning as Minnich and Meyer, one can as
easily conclude that any system not designed by humans is not
irreducibly complex.

[jillery]

Which claim?

[RonO]

Will this be included in the next batch of switch scam material? Who is
going to verify the claims?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Hey Eddie, This talk was given in 2004, a year before Dover. What good
did it do the ID perps? Why will the bait and switch continue to go
down with all this wonderful IDiocy lying around?

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/30/16 6:02 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
[...]

> More to the point:
>
> "Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all
> irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
> intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system."
> http://www.discovery.org/f/389

They lie. Irreducible complexity tells nothing about design. And the
folks at the Discovery Institute have no excuse for not knowing this.

[Steady Eddie]

How do you know that?

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 30 May 2016 20:49:39 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

One could as easily conclude that any IC system not designed by humans is designed by some other
intelligent designer.

[Greg Guarino]

One would first need to explain why - logically - irreducible complexity
has anything at all to tell us about whether or not a biological feature
could have evolved by the usual means. Mutation and selection are
expected to refine an initially kludgy and inefficient system over time.
Systems sufficiently specialized that they cannot function without a
certain minimum set of parts are an expected consequence.

[Glenn]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2bdcd5c6-e0b0-4730...@googlegroups.com...

Didn't Harshman say a week or so ago that most biologists no longer agree with that?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:03:24 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Did he? Cite?

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:06:46 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Since you are almost certainly using "know" here to mean "knowledge
with absolute certainty", which is not possible wrt historical
questions, you will almost certainly reject out-of-hand any
intelligent answer to your question, as you have done in the past.

But for those who accept abduction, one observes the evidence that
biological systems today reproduce with minor variations from
generation to generation, and the variations of each generation are
centered around the characteristics of their parents. And one infers
that biological systems behaved in the past as they do in the present.
And one runs computer simulations which show how systems with
heritable variations inevitably develop major changes over time,
similar to observed patterns in the fossil record.

Now your turn: On what basis do you make the claim that IC identifies
system that could not have evolved by rm+ns?

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Minnich and Meyer already said that. So you're just agreeing with
what I said, that their premise can't distinguish between their
conclusion and mine.

Once again, it really helps to know what the words mean *before* you
imply an equivalence that doesn't exist.

[Greg Guarino]

More likely he said that these is no bias toward greater complexity in
biological evolution. Sometimes things get more complex, or do not, or
even get less complex over time.

[jillery]

Harshman has said some bizarre things in the past, but I still would
be surprised if he actually said that.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:00:09 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Which is, of course, an entirely differnt thing. rm+ns seeks optimal
solutions based on the environment, and optimal may be more complex or
less complex.

Also, that rms+ns *can* produce complex solutions doesn't imply that
it *must*.

[Steady Eddie]

In the case of the flagellum as an example, what makes you thing that the "initially kludgy and inefficient system" actually existed in the first place?

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 09:34:32 UTC-6, Greg Guarino wrote:

Can you come up with a "kludgy and inefficient" flagellum, even in your dreams?

[Steady Eddie]

What does "abduction" have to do with evolution?
Did someone "abduct" your brain?

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:59:31 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 30 May 2016 20:49:39 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 May 2016 18:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> >> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> "Arguably, this system is itself irreducibly complex. "
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.discovery.org/f/389
> >> >
> >> >Nice find.
> >> >More to the point:
> >> >
> >> >"Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all
> >> >irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
> >> >intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system."
> >> >http://www.discovery.org/f/389
> >>
> >>
> >> False logic. All irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of
> >> the system is known by experience or observation, are designed by
> >> humans. Applying the same reasoning as Minnich and Meyer, one can as
> >> easily conclude that any system not designed by humans is not
> >> irreducibly complex.
> >
> >One could as easily conclude that any IC system not designed by humans is designed by some other
> >intelligent designer.
>
>
> Minnich and Meyer already said that.

Yes, because they're specialists in the field and they know what they're talking about.
Do you?

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:59:31 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

Or were you abducted by aliens, giving you "extra-terrestrial" reasoning powers?

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:07:58 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>What does "abduction" have to do with evolution?
>Did someone "abduct" your brain?

Look it up.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Stupid *and* dishonest is no way to go through life. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

Don't you ever get tired of playing the village idiot?

[RonO]

The reference that you have already been given told Minnich that the
flagellum had evolved over a very long period of time.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/epQCRdfToOo/vktI2MjyIwAJ

Minnich even has a phylogeny for the tail proteins.

http://jb.asm.org/content/182/17/5001.long

The earlier flagellum only had one type of tail protein. The flagellum
evolved the taper in their tail (improved effectiveness by making the
tail narrower towards the end.) The tail is constructed so that it is
thicker initially and gets thinner as it gets longer. The way the
system evolved is that there was once only one type of flagellar
protein, then there was a duplication of that gene and at first the two
proteins were identical and did the same job, but a deletion happened in
one of the copies and when it got added to the tail it would mess things
up initially, but what happened? That new smaller protein is now added
after the first one. This system worked for quite a while (10s of
millions to hundreds of millions of years) and another gene duplication
event happened involving the second smaller flagellar protein. A third
flagellar protein evolved that was even smaller than the second one and
guess what? It got added to the tail of the flagellum after the second
one and made the taper even more pronounced as you move to the end of
the flagellar tail.

This all makes sense because the flagellar tail is made from the tip
out. It is not made from the base and pushed out. It looks like the
parts of the flagellum evolved from protein transporters that
transported proteins through the bacterial membrane. The bacteria used
these protein transporters to get proteins needed to make their cell
walls and antibiotic peptides outside the cell where they could work.
The bacteria obviously still have ATP based protein transporters that
are not associated with the flagellum. When the flagellar proteins got
transported out they started making a tube and the tube was eventually
used as the flagellar tail. The flagellar proteins go through the tube
and get added to the tip of the tube to make the tail longer. So the
oldest flagellar protein is added to the tail first. The second oldest
flagellar protein was added after the first, and it looks like that
arrangement worked fine for probably hundreds of millions of years (look
at how different the proteins are and think about how long it takes to
make proteins that different when many proteins are identical between
chimps and humans). The system was made even better by the evolution of
the third flagellar protein.

In some bacteria the flagellar system seems to have been co-opted (type
III secretory systems) to inject antibiotic peptides into other
organisms, or the flagellum evolved from something like the type III
secretory system. One way of the other one system likely came before
the other because they share a lot of parts in common.

So Minnich found evidence that the flagellum had improved in function
over a very long period of time, but he seems to have quit that research
and did not follow up after making that discovery. It would have told
him something about how his designer did it, but he didn't want to know
what it was telling him. Really, if Minnich had wanted to know more
about how the flagellar tail evolved he could have started sequencing
his flagellar proteins and comparing many different kinds of bacteria
with flagellum, but he either couldn't get funding or he wasn't
interested in finding that out.

Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

El domingo, 22 de mayo de 2016, 14:27:27 (UTC+1), Otangelo Grasso escribió:
> Irreducible complexity
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-irreducible-complexity#2133
>
> Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place. The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form. All this requires specific information. The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established. Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?

you are also a fact, angelino.
eri

[Steady Eddie]

That'll be a "no".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:00:09 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>:

Sounds likely; Glenn tend to see what he wants to see.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:44:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:49:29 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

<snip>

>> Don't you ever get tired of playing the village idiot?

>That'll be a "no".

Good of you to admit it...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:38:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, no cite? No surprise...

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 06:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

And yet you continue to do so. Why is that?

>> >> So you're just agreeing with
>> >> what I said, that their premise can't distinguish between their
>> >> conclusion and mine.
>> >>
>> >> Once again, it really helps to know what the words mean *before* you
>> >> imply an equivalence that doesn't exist.

And *still* no comment about this. Is anybody surprised?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:30:45 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Maybe I'm missing something, but he *did* say he doesn't get
tired of it...

>>> >> So you're just agreeing with
>>> >> what I said, that their premise can't distinguish between their
>>> >> conclusion and mine.
>>> >>
>>> >> Once again, it really helps to know what the words mean *before* you
>>> >> imply an equivalence that doesn't exist.
>
>
>And *still* no comment about this. Is anybody surprised?
--