"A question to discuss..." Topic

This was a beautiful metaphor in itself because they were then able to show there were simpler organisms very closely resembling the flagellum – they just did not use the flagellum for propulsion. Rather the long whip-like tail was used as a syringe. Like the 1/2 mousetrap tie-clip, it turns out it was perfectly viable with parts missing – just with a different function.

Here is an interesting overview of the reducibility of the Irreducibly Complex bacterial flagellum. Check out the conclusion (section 4). It traces the passive pore to a gated pore to a type III secretory system, to proto-flagella to full flagella.

link

Of course if you are only concerned with motility, then the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Sadly, for Behe and his ID followers, biology and evolution doesn't work this way.

The odd thing is, Doctor Behe must have been aware of these counter-examples long before Dover, but went ahead with his argument anyway.

Well, he won't be the first ID apologist that has been accused of intellectual dishonesty. The transcripts of the Dover Trial are somewhat telling. When presented with masses of articles and publications refuting his thesis, Behe simply told the court that all that evidence, "…wasn't good enough". He later admitted that he didn't read any of them, during cross examination.

We can't ALL be the most important thing in existence. Either just one of us is, or – incredibly – none of us is.

I suspect that existence will get on perfectly well without me when I am gone, and apparently it was here before I was born, so the lucky candidate is not me.

Yes, we are ALL the most important thing in the "universe": if each "universe" is in fact an egocentric thing directly caused by "God". If sapience is the most godlike attribute we possess, and is exclusive to our species, then that would make us the most important thing in existence. If it can ever be shown that something akin to sapience typifies all other complex life, then our "specialness" as sapient beings would only be measurable on a scale of sapience; the highest quality of sapience being the closest to "God's" sapience. It wouldn't change the proposition that each and every individual animal (including us) is the most important thing in each egocentric "universe".

While "God" Is that sapient being in a literal sense, being the Cause of them all, nothing could be more important to "God" from the perspective of that individual, unique egocentric perspective: as if it were the only one in existence; for that is how it feels to each one of us: everybody looks around at the world of other living things: but none of them can intimately "join" with our own ego: we remain apart forever. If there is ever a time and place where "God" allows our minds to join, that would change the egocentric perspective into something else, something shared. Here and now, that does not happen. So the perspective remains centered upon the "I". And nothing else in existence is as important to each one of us as the "I AM".

You seem to pride yourself on the intellectual exercise in demolishing your ego, subsuming it in the welter of "life" that surrounds us: claiming that the ego is a flatterer and aggrandizer, especially the religious ego: making human beings out to be specially important, when science shows us to be "merely mammals", products of evolution no different from everything else, etc.

I prefer to raise all animals and all of the world we inhabit to a level of infinite importance; allowing for sapience, so far as we know by observation, to hold an especially important/precious quality to "God", as we are made that way, while other living things are not. This isn't putting on airs or getting all prideful in itself: rather, such a concept makes eternity into a never-ending process of becoming godlike ourselves, instead of imagining the immediate future denouement taking us out of "existence" as if we never had been. Your own imagination can effortlessly conjure up an immortality of continual learning; why push that down in the place of a less imaginative denouement? I will never understand the mind that refuses to contemplate the largest possible concepts for its own existence. Are you afraid of getting too full of yourself and becoming insufferable to yourself and others? There are plenty of reminders of how limited we are: we get humbled constantly, without the need to artificially hold ourselves in a lowly esteem that is in denial of the sapient imaginative powers that are our birthright….

I will never understand the mind that refuses to contemplate the largest possible concepts for its own existence.

I contemplate a lot of things, thanks for asking. That doesn't make them real. Dreaming up things and then announcing the same things in a stentorian fashion doesn't make them true. You have a bad habit of doing that, and it's been pointed out to you by others.

Is it bad form to ask if you could put your philosophical meanderings into a more appropriate board? (I'd recommend "Utter Drivel" in the General Boards). There is some Science, and Science related issues being discussed on this, the Science Board, and it keeps getting derailed.

"Stentorian", now that's a word that has never attached to me before. I thought that the voice had to be involved in order for that quality to be there. Mere text can't translate into stentorian, can it? Shouldn't I have to at least use excessive all-caps? I guess if you "hear" the text that way it must seem to be that way, regardless. You must have previous experience of "stentorian" presentation of religio-philosophical views.

"Utter Tripe/Drivel", here I come….

You must have previous experience of "stentorian" presentation of religio-philosophical views.

Yes, I prefer Jimmy Swaggart and Ernst Angley.

"Utter Tripe/Drivel", here I come….

I think it is just "Utter Drivel". Tripe, on the other hand, I do enjoy. Especially in a bowl of Pho.

Utter Tripe is TBF board. I kept my word….

…….where it does belong.

TJRaymond,

Since Doug de-railed a page of this thread, AND I know you are lurking on this site, could you please answer the following:

Question #1

When asked: "Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?" you dodged the question stating that I obviously didn't understand the nature of Creationism.

But if Creationism and it's offspring Intelligent Design are to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, it must explain the biodiversity of life forms. This is a legitimate question and a potentially large fail for any theory that cannot.

Question #2

You stated, "On the other hand, science and the scientific method can certainly be used to determine if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or processes are viable, and as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid."

When asked, "What are the "scientific laws to overcome" before evolution is considered valid?", you have remained mute. As I stated before, the overwhelming consensus of biologists already consider evolution valid and the small handful that don"t disagree on religious reasons, not biological ones (see Behe).

Question #3

An new question. Let's assume that Darwin was totally wrong in his assessment of Natural Selection as the driving force for evolution. After all, he was working in an era before any understanding of the molecular basis of life.

Then at the start of the 20th century the field of genetics blew wide open (started with Mendel actually in the earlier century) and half way through that century DNA was discovered as the molecule that carried our genetic code (along with most everything else living on this planet).

So how come every new discovery in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to bolster Darwin's finding? How come there are no irreconcilable findings contradicting Natural Selection? How come that there are no molecular findings that point towards Intelligent Design or Creationism?

Thanks

Lurking…? I've been quite ill thanks. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you for your kind thoughts of late.

First, with curiosity I read the posts about the mousetrap and tie-pin. I think something has been overlooked.

First, personally, I'm not always a big fan of the way ID'ers present their thoughts and arguments. I don't like the way they generally seem to skirt the "intelligent" part of ID and leave it undefined. Having said that, and to state the obvious, ID is consistent with the creationist position of an intelligent creator God. On the other hand, it's impossible to see how the ID position can be consistent with the evolutionary position in any way. A guiding intelligence has no part in any evolutionary scenario.

Ok. What was overlooked? Well, first of all, a bunch of intelligent lawyers started with a complete and fully functioning mousetrap – correct? A mousetrap is designed – intelligent thought has been put into it – it has a definite function – a definite purpose – correct?

Now the lawyers (again applying their intelligence I'll add) removed the little bait lever and the holding arm reducing the mousetrap to just the base and the spring arm. Then (applying their intelligence again to make a point I'll add) they imposed a "use" upon this item as a rather odd "tie-pin". It could be used for other things – a rather odd "clothes peg" for example. Further, it's worth noting that their "tie-pin" can no longer perform its function as a mousetrap with those particular parts missing.

What I'm saying is this: The lawyer's choice of components to remove was very specific indeed. Any other choice of items to remove and their resulting item would be meaningless for the point they were trying to make. Their choice of the components to remove was certainly not random in any way and their choice of what to do with it was not random in any way either. It was all very specific – there was constant intelligent input into it by the lawyers right through the whole process – nothing was left to time and chance was there…?

Like the 1/2 mousetrap tie-clip, it turns out it was perfectly viable with parts missing – just with a different function.

As already noted, it's only viable when certain and very specific parts are removed. However, you have touched on the point that I was to make.

The point is this: A mousetrap IS irreducibly complex… if its purpose, its function, is to be a mousetrap… just as the rather odd tie-clip is also irreducibly complex… if its purpose, its function, is to be a tie-clip. Whether an item is irreducibly complex or not depends on its PURPOSE, its FUNCTION – what it has to do. If you want a paperweight, then both items are again reducible down to just the base… which of course could be used as a paperweight.

Now, being naturally curious, I ratted about (pardon the pun) for a mousetrap at home, and upon finding it, I thought… and yes, you guessed it… I promptly clipped it onto my tie just as the lawyers had done. You see, the point I believe that has been overlooked is this:

A fully functioning mousetrap, with all of its parts present, can be used as BOTH a mousetrap AND also as a rather odd tie clip

It has at least these two possible uses. That of course got me thinking.

I asked myself: Biologically, can our flagellum be a fully functioning flagellum (a fully operational "mousetrap") AND yet still be able to do the same functions as a non-flagellum system (a "tie-clip" or "clothes peg")? Biologically, is it able to do more than one function just as my "mousetrap/tie-clip" can? Not that I'm aware of. If it could then I guess we wouldn't need "tie-clips" or "clothes pegs" or "paperweights" would we…? A fully functioning "mousetrap" could do them all.

In any case, the actual problem is not if something is irreducible, the problem is in the other direction: Can the tie-clip become a working mousetrap? Essentially, that's what evolutionary theory proposes – that via random processes and time the tie-clip can become a working mousetrap – correct?

For example, imagine if we gave our intelligent lawyers just the "tie-clip" and then ask them to produce a working "mousetrap". I wonder how they would have gone… especially without any exact pre-existing intelligently designed parts to draw on…? Mmm… Yes, I wonder how they would have gone indeed…

The odd thing is, Doctor Behe must have been aware of these counter-examples long before Dover, but went ahead with his argument anyway.

And similarly, no doubt, the lawyers involved in producing the "tie-clip" considered the above scenarios long before fronting up in court with their rather odd "tie-clips" – they wouldn't be very good lawyers if they didn't. So, for one to believe that their simple mousetrap/tie-clip illustration had proven some point is really quite naοve indeed. Perhaps that's what the lawyers were relying on – how naοve people can be…

So, where are we?

Well, reducing a mouse trap down to a tie-clip does not present a problem. It can be easily done. Pre-existing mousetrap parts can be removed easily enough to produce a rather odd tie-clip. Our intelligent lawyers showed us that even they could do this. I could do this. Gee, even you could do this.

Now, it is clear that evolutionists believe that "tie-clips" evolved into "mousetraps"… true? But can it also be said that "tie-clips" are intelligently re-designed "mousetraps"? After all, using our mousetrap analogy, it took intelligence to build a mousetrap in the first place and it also took intelligence to dismantle that mousetrap to make a rather odd tie-clip. There is intelligence required all the way through our mousetrap analogy, and as I noted earlier, a guiding intelligence has no part in any evolutionary scenario.

So, as usual, it all comes down to what our beliefs are as to how "mousetraps" and "tie-clips" or even "paperweights" came to be. Evolutionists have simply interpreted the "development" of the flagellum using evolutionary beliefs, biases and premises. How a "base" can "evolve" and that base "evolve" into a "tie-clip" that can "evolve" into a "mousetrap" via unguided random non-intelligent processes is conveniently avoided… as usual… eh?

TJ, thanks for the response.

Lurking…? I've been quite ill thanks. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you for your kind thoughts of late.

You know that I knew you were ill and convalescing. We talked about that previously. I also knew you were well enough to respond to some other topics on the Science board. That is what I meant by my term "lurking". No insult or criticism was implied.

Well, first of all, a bunch of intelligent lawyers started with a complete and fully functioning mousetrap – correct? A mousetrap is designed – intelligent thought has been put into it – it has a definite function – a definite purpose – correct?

Incorrect. Micheal Behe employed this example on his own Faculty page from Lehigh University. To whit:

link

The University is also so pleased with Dr. Behe's statements that the Dept. of Biological Sciences has come out with this:

link

As for the lawyers. Lawyers didn't make up the mousetrap as a model for Irreducible Complexity, Behe did. Lawyers didn't excoriate the theory using the mousetrap either, scientists did. The main protagonist was Dr. Kenneth Miller, Prof of Biology at Brown University. As Dr. Miller was one of the expert witnesses at the Dover trial, I'm sure lawyers presented the "tie-clip" argument to the judge. That is the extent of lawyers involvement in this discussion.

The point is this: A mousetrap IS irreducibly complex… if its purpose, its function, is to be a mousetrap… just as the rather odd tie-clip is also irreducibly complex… if its purpose, its function, is to be a tie-clip. Whether an item is irreducibly complex or not depends on its PURPOSE, its FUNCTION – what it has to do. If you want a paperweight, then both items are again reducible down to just the base… which of course could be used as a paperweight.

No. You clearly understand IC better than Doug, but you really don't get it. All your argument shows is that the model Dr. Behe chose (the mousetrap) displays limitations.

Let's leave the mousetrap and head to Behe's argument of the flagellum and it's 30 or so proteins. IR means that the minimum number of protein components must be present to make the flagellum biologically and functionally viable.The individual components should have no function at all until all 30 are put into place and the flagellum begins to spin.

I'll quote Dr. Behe, "Natural Selection can only choose among systems already working, and an irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of it's parts are accounted for."

"The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity", Natural History, April 2002, 74.

Therefore, the flagellum was intelligently designed to function as a single, irreducible unit. That is what Behe is saying.

I'm not going to argue with you on how this argument was overturned. I provided a link above showing the evolution of these 30 or so proteins from the simplest archaebacter to the Class II secretory Systems, to Class III secretory systems, to Class IV conjugational systems and finally to the flagella of modern bacteria. You would do well to look at the work of Prof. David DeRosier of Brandeis University, Prof Shin-Ichi Aizawa of the Center of Developmental Biology, Riken Taiwan, and Prof. Ariel Blocker of Oxford University.

Other researchers have shown that other complex systems are not irreducible either, such as Dr. Russel Doolittle (Prof. Emeritus, UC at San Diego) on his work on the clotting system.

I'll let you do the rest of the footwork yourself.

I'll finish with a quote from Prof. Kenneth Miller as he addresses your comments directly:

"It is of course possible to "rescue" the concept of IC by redefining it. But that redefinition also destroys it's usefulness to the design movement.One could reword the definition to state that an irreducibly complex machine is one in which the removal of a single part causes only the loss of it's original function. By this standard the 3 part mousetrap has lost lost the machines original function of catching mice, so it could still be considered irreducibly complex. However, the reason IC machines were vital to the design argument in the first place was that they were supposedly unevolvable because their component parts had no function at all. Once one admits that component parts can indeed have functions, the argument for unevolvability collapses. So one can redefine IC to save it from the "mousetrap problem", but the rescue comes at the price of the argument itself."

Kenneth Miller, "Only a Theory", Notes, page 226

How a "base" can "evolve" and that base "evolve" into a "tie-clip" that can "evolve" into a "mousetrap" via unguided random non-intelligent processes is conveniently avoided… as usual… eh?

It already been studied, is understood and cataloged. (I assume you mean the biological analogues to the mousetrap model)It's like the slow and ponderous evolution of the eye. Each biological change that improves selectivity and can be inherited gives some benefit to the organisms. It's called mutations and genetic drift. The bacteria have had billions of years to evolve the flagellum.

So how are those questions coming along?

TJ,

Glad to have you back

Elliott

TJ, I've been thinking about your comment:

How a "base" can "evolve" and that base "evolve" into a "tie-clip" that can "evolve" into a "mousetrap" via unguided random non-intelligent processes is conveniently avoided… as usual… eh?

Do you not know the biochemical basis of how things evolve?

Do you need me to go into a detailed explanation of how hemoglobin has mutated into a form that still carries oxygen, but with other deleterious characteristics? And yet the mutant hemoglobin gives the population on a whole an inheritable benefit that has nothing to do with oxygen transport. It's a good example of a tie clip evolving into a mouse trap.

Also, your inclusion of the term "unguided" illustrates some basic lack of understanding. While the mutations are random, the consequences of them are not. Evolution is "guided" by the simple principle that successful, more adapted mutations in a given population will have a better chance of survival, and will subsequently pass those traits on to successive generations. It is not steered by an external force, towards some sort of goal. Please try and lose the "whirlwind in a junk-yard produces a Boeing 747" style of thinking so prevalent among creationists.

Ok. With respect to those dreaded "questions"… Now let's see:

Question #1
When asked: "Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?" you dodged the question stating that I obviously didn't understand the nature of Creationism…

Dodged the question? Well, not exactly… I didn't reply simply because I wasn't well at the time… Nevertheless, I still feel that it's clear that you really don't comprehend "the nature of creationism" (or simply don't want to) probably because you totally dismiss the idea of the existence God and the supernatural out-of-hand. In the past, I have found that this is usually because such a person has had some bad experiences with some close so-called "religious" person or persons and this has seriously tainted their views on "religion". If you can put aside your feelings for a moment, I pose the following philosophical question for you:

Could God (as we understand God, being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal) create any and all of the varied forms of life that exist or have ever existed straight up… no evolution involved?

If you stop to consider this premise then it should be obvious that God could create all living things straight up and so "creation" or "creationism" explains the "bio-diversity" that you are looking for via the direct creation of all those various life forms involved. I guess I should add that it can also explain the myriad of interactions between all those different life forms, something that "evolution" clearly struggles with at times.

Nevertheless, if you decide to reject the notion that God exists (or even the supernatural), as you appear to have done, then evolution is all you have… or all you will ever have. Thus, everything, and I mean absolutely everything, must be interpreted in the light of evolution for as an atheist once put it "… you cannot let a divine foot in the door…"

Question #2
You stated, "On the other hand, science and the scientific method can certainly be used to determine if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or processes are viable, and as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid."

When asked, "What are the "scientific laws to overcome" before evolution is considered valid?" you have remained mute [again, simply because I was ill and not really up for a long drawn out discussion. Nevertheless, it appears that you haven't noticed that I have indeed broached the subject before. Check back through the postings]. As I stated before, the overwhelming consensus of [now let's be quite clear now, here you mean evolutionary…] biologists already consider evolution valid [as one would expect] and the small handful [not as small as you think] that don't disagree on religious reasons, not biological ones [no, those dissenting biologists disagree on scientific grounds not "religious" grounds] (see Behe) [see what exactly? He has written quite a lot you know].

Several comments have been added… quite obviously. Please note that statements like "overwhelming consensus" and "small handful" are clearly unsubstantiated bold statements. Nevertheless, I'll answer this question with just one question for the time being:

How do the proposed natural processes of evolution circumvent the Laws of Thermodynamics?

That is a scientific question with scientific implications is it not? I have asked several questions similar to this one before about the implications that the Laws of Thermodynamics have on proposed evolutionary processes (such as on abiogenesis for example) and not that surprisingly I'll add, I've had no relevant answer as to how. I suspect we all know why…

Question #3
A new question: Let's assume that Darwin was totally wrong in his assessment of Natural Selection as the driving force for evolution. After all, he was working in an era before any understanding of the molecular basis of life. Then at the start of the 20th century the field of genetics blew wide open (started with Mendel actually in the earlier century) and half way through that century DNA was discovered as the molecule that carried our genetic code (along with most everything else living on this planet).
So how come every new discovery in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to bolster Darwin's finding? How come there are no irreconcilable findings contradicting Natural Selection? How come that there are no molecular findings that point towards Intelligent Design or Creationism?

By my reckoning that's three questions… (and you could always refer to my previous post as to my general thoughts on ID).

To be clear (and yet again) "natural selection" as a process is quite real. I don't know how many times I must say this before the penny drops for some here. Natural selection as a process is very good at depleting the genetic pool… "weeding" things out of the gene pool… but unfortunately, it's not so good an explanation as to how those genes that it "weeded" out came to be there in the first place… As to whether it is or even can be "the driving force for evolution" as often claimed, well, that's another matter altogether. So:

Question #3a:
So how come every new discovery in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to bolster Darwin's finding?

Please note that "every new discovery" is again a bold statement. It reflects your unwavering faith in evolution. Your use of the word "seem" is enlightening. Remember what I said: Everything, and I mean absolutely everything, must be interpreted in the light of evolution.

Nevertheless, before discussing anything like this, I would like you to define exactly what is meant by "Darwin's finding" which is so vague a term that it could mean just about anything…

Question #3b:
How come there are no irreconcilable findings contradicting Natural Selection?

Again, "no irreconcilable findings" is quite a bold statement, and I must say it could mean just about anything again. It again reflects your unwavering faith in evolution.

Nevertheless, before discussing anything like this, I would be nice if you could provide a particular example for discussion instead of making such broad foggy statements. Lastly:

Question #3c:
How come that there are no molecular findings that point towards Intelligent Design or Creationism?

And yet again, "no" is a broad, all encompassing bold statement, and yet again, it reflects your unwavering faith in evolution. Further, as is regularly pointed out by others here, one cannot prove a non-existence. Nevertheless, answering your question with a question:

What type of evidence (what type of "findings") were you (or they) looking for exactly…?

For you personally, when it comes to the question of the existence of God, what evidence would you consider? That's a question that I seem to regularly ask and as yet I have not had a single relevant reply. By the way, "not had a single relevant reply" is not a bold statement in this case. No one here has ever attempted to answer this question directly. So, with really not much expectation of getting a relevant reply, I'll ask it again anyway…

What evidence would you consider for the existence of God (or the "supernatural" if you wish to call it that)?

If you are true to your evolutionary beliefs then you will answer "Absolutely none!"

If you are true to your evolutionary beliefs (read dogma) then whatever evidence is placed before you, no matter what it is, if it supports the premise that God or the supernatural exists in the slightest way then you must reject it out-of-hand. Your overwhelming faith in "evolution" won't let you do otherwise. So, again, what evidence would you consider? Or is it that the only evidence that you will consider as valid evidence is evidence that "seems" to support the "evolutionary" paradigm in some way…?

Ah, once again we see the same tired old lies about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here is one refutation using responses from several experts in thermodynamics. But there are dozens more you can look up if you are interested in learning as opposed to repeating lies.

link

I am sure none will convince you and you will trot out this ignorant lie again and again, but that is the nature of religious fanaticism.

<Again, "no irreconcilable findings" is quite a bold statement, and I must say it could mean just about anything again. It again reflects your unwavering faith in evolution.>

Saying there are no examples is not bold. It is either true or untrue. On all evidence, it is true. I realise you do not hold evidence in any great regard, but have you ANY evidence that it is not? Any at all before writing it off with a sneer? No….? Finding a single example would refute it utterly. It would likely win you a Nobel too.

So can you find even ONE example to contradict it? Dr Behe could not, despite devoting a large part of his professional life to the search.

No, easier just to say it is bold and somehow imply it is therefore invalid. Somehow.

<(What evidence would you consider for the existence of God (or the "supernatural" if you wish to call it that)?

If you are true to your evolutionary beliefs then you will answer "Absolutely none!">

Well thank you for providing not only questions BUT ALSO our answers for us!

What your answer for us misses is that there are plenty of evolutionary scientists who are believers. Rejecting young Earth Creationism does not mean rejecting belief in God. It just means rejecting one out there belief from the extreme end of Fundamentalism.

Remember, your view only represents one sliver of religious views. It is not even mainstream within Christianity – though it may be in your neck of the woods. Catholicism and Episcopalianism has no problem with evolution. Catholics do not consider evolution to be heresy so long as someone believes God made the soul of man by special creation. The CoE (Anglicans) have apologised for their prior misunderstanding of evolution and Darwin's theory. Buddhists have never had a creation myth so do not get their undergarments in a knot about evolution either. Good on them all. They are sane, and they do not seem threatened by science.

granted, you do share your young earth creationism with Fundamentalist Islam and the Moonies though, so you are in good company there.

<For you personally, when it comes to the question of the existence of God, what evidence would you consider?>

I have answered this. My answer is STILL that an omnipotent being could provide proof incredibly easily. Appear to me, and to everyone else on Earth. Or re-arrange the stars to say 'I am real' in every language. Or move Mt Everest to the Sahara and write 'I did this – God'. How about some healing – stuff like severed limbs, not just the easily misdiagnosable stuff that is the stock in trade of faith healers now. That would do it. Or any one of a zillion other ways. Omnipotent remember? He can provide proof in an instant if he is real. That he has not done so presumably means he does not want to.

But the idea that he chooses not provide proof, and that he then deliberately arranges his world and his Universe to contradict the stories of his Bible (as you imply he has done above), and then throws those who believe his world rather than his book into eternal hellfire as a punishment for studying and drawing conclusions from his works is really quite monstrous.

Ok. With respect to those dreaded "questions"… Now let's see:

They must be "dreaded" to you as you have not answered them…..again.

Question #1
When asked: "Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?" you dodged the question stating that I obviously didn't understand the nature of Creationism…

Dodged the question? Well, not exactly… I didn't reply simply because I wasn't well at the time… Nevertheless, I still feel that it's clear that you really don't comprehend "the nature of creationism" (or simply don't want to) probably because you totally dismiss the idea of the existence God and the supernatural out-of-hand. In the past, I have found that this is usually because such a person has had some bad experiences with some close so-called "religious" person or persons and this has seriously tainted their views on "religion". If you can put aside your feelings for a moment, I pose the following philosophical question for you:

Don't assume things. My Genetics Professor, Dr Threkeld, was a great influence on me. He was also very religious. So is Prof Kenneth Miller, one of my other mentors. I can't remember any bad experiences with religious people. I count many of them as my close friends. What's with the cheap psychology? I wasn't beaten by Nuns, if that is what you are trying to get at.

Plus, I believe I can understand the "nature of creationism" as well as anyone else who can read and comprehend the events described in Genesis 1 and 2, thank you very much. I can even tell that the two versions of the "nature of creationism" seem to contradict each other.

Could God (as we understand God, being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal) create any and all of the varied forms of life that exist or have ever existed straight up… no evolution involved?

No, because why would He create such ample geological, fossil, and biochemical evidence that shows evolution IS involved?

If you stop to consider this premise then it should be obvious that God could create all living things straight up and so "creation" or "creationism" explains the "bio-diversity" that you are looking for via the direct creation of all those various life forms involved. I guess I should add that it can also explain the myriad of interactions between all those different life forms, something that "evolution" clearly struggles with at times.

Sorry it is not obvious. Simply stating that "creationism explains biodiversity" does little to explain HOW creationism explains biodiversity better than the prevailing scientific theory. That was my question in the first place. It doesn't explain the countless millions of life forms that became extinct over a period of hundreds of millions of years. It doesn't explain the distribution of modern animals today. For example, how did the platypus walk from Mt. Ararat (the ostensible site of Noah's Ark's landing) to Australia? Why are there no remains of platypuses in Asia, Europe or Africa?

Nevertheless, if you decide to reject the notion that God exists (or even the supernatural), as you appear to have done, then evolution is all you have… or all you will ever have. Thus, everything, and I mean absolutely everything, must be interpreted in the light of evolution for as an atheist once put it "… you cannot let a divine foot in the door…"

"Evolution" isn't all I have; anymore that "Creationism" is all that you have. Don't assume again, TJ. I'll gladly reconsider things when or if I ever see a "divine foot" perched on my doorstep.

I have to consider Question #1 unanswered.

Question #2
You stated, "On the other hand, science and the scientific method can certainly be used to determine if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or processes are viable, and as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid."

When asked, "What are the "scientific laws to overcome" before evolution is considered valid?" you have remained mute [again, simply because I was ill and not really up for a long drawn out discussion. Nevertheless, it appears that you haven't noticed that I have indeed broached the subject before. Check back through the postings]. As I stated before, the overwhelming consensus of [now let's be quite clear now, here you mean evolutionary…] biologists already consider evolution valid [as one would expect] and the small handful [not as small as you think] that don't disagree on religious reasons, not biological ones [no, those dissenting biologists disagree on scientific grounds not "religious" grounds] (see Behe) [see what exactly? He has written quite a lot you know].

The Dover trial transcripts are a good start, when it comes to Behe's personal beliefs dictating his science.

Several comments have been added… quite obviously. Please note that statements like "overwhelming consensus" and "small handful" are clearly unsubstantiated bold statements.

As far as consensus goes, no I haven't personally polled every scientist out there. For a good indication of all scientists (not just evolutionary biologists) why don't you look up the Mission Statements and Policy Statements of any scientific organization you care to choose. You can do this on the Web. You will see that they do have a consensus opinion towards evolution.

Nevertheless, I'll answer this question with just one question for the time being:

Answering a specific question put to you with questions of your own is a dodge, TJ. Kindly answer the questions and THEN pose further questions. That is how intelligent discourse works the best, I find.

How do the proposed natural processes of evolution circumvent the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Oh God, this nugget again. The short answer is it doesn't. First of all, let's be specific, we are talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which involves "isolated systems". In contrast, biological systems are not "closed or isolated systems". The apparent decrease in Entropy due to a biological process is at the expense of a greater increase in Entropy of its surroundings. Therefore, an increase in Entropy is maintained. No circumvention involved. I happened to graduate with an Hon. BSc in Biology 33 years ago. I still remember Dr. Sorger explaining back then, "Anyone claiming that biology contravenes any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, understands neither the biology nor the physics involved". Prophetic words indeed. This very topic is taught in first year Cell Biology class in every good university on the planet. Maybe there is one close by, TJ. It may help to take or audit such a course.

That is a scientific question with scientific implications is it not? I have asked several questions similar to this one before about the implications that the Laws of Thermodynamics have on proposed evolutionary processes (such as on abiogenesis for example) and not that surprisingly I'll add, I've had no relevant answer as to how. I suspect we all know why…

Yes, you brought this up before. We have also corrected your scientific misunderstanding before, on this very topic. Sorry that the answer wasn't what you were looking for. I suspect we all know why too….

Your efforts to conflate abiogenesis and evolution indicate a lack of understanding of both topics. This has also been explained to you before. One does not depend on the other for validity. I'm sorry you don't seem to get that. Oh and by the way, abiogenesis is NOT an evolutionary process.

You attempted to answer Question #2 by posing another question. Your answer is a FAIL.

Question #3
A new question: Let's assume that Darwin was totally wrong in his assessment of Natural Selection as the driving force for evolution. After all, he was working in an era before any understanding of the molecular basis of life. Then at the start of the 20th century the field of genetics blew wide open (started with Mendel actually in the earlier century) and half way through that century DNA was discovered as the molecule that carried our genetic code (along with most everything else living on this planet).
So how come every new discovery in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to bolster Darwin's finding? How come there are no irreconcilable findings contradicting Natural Selection? How come that there are no molecular findings that point towards Intelligent Design or Creationism?

By my reckoning that's three questions… (and you could always refer to my previous post as to my general thoughts on ID).

To be clear (and yet again) "natural selection" as a process is quite real. I don't know how many times I must say this before the penny drops for some here. Natural selection as a process is very good at depleting the genetic pool… "weeding" things out of the gene pool… but unfortunately, it's not so good an explanation as to how those genes that it "weeded" out came to be there in the first place… As to whether it is or even can be "the driving force for evolution" as often claimed, well, that's another matter altogether. So:

Question #3a:
So how come every new discovery in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to bolster Darwin's finding?

Please note that "every new discovery" is again a bold statement. It reflects your unwavering faith in evolution. Your use of the word "seem" is enlightening. Remember what I said: Everything, and I mean absolutely everything, must be interpreted in the light of evolution.

No. Everything that is newly discovered in Science has to be held up against how it fits amongst the prevailing theories. That is how science works. New facts either "fit" into the model of the prevailing theory, or they contradict the model of the prevailing theory. The prevailing theory is then modified, or is discarded for one that explains and models the facts better. It has nothing to do with "unwavering faith" in anything. In fact, a cursory glance at the history of Science shows how non-unwavering the scientific process actually is. A glance at the history of religion on the other hand, well……..Pot calling the kettle black.

Nevertheless, before discussing anything like this, I would like you to define exactly what is meant by "Darwin's finding" which is so vague a term that it could mean just about anything…

You could have Googled this yourself. For our purposes, Wikipedia give a pretty good account:

"Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]"

[3] Lewontin, R. C. (1970). "The units of selection". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.000245. JSTOR 2096764.
[4] Darwin, Charles (1859). "XIV". On The Origin of Species. p. 503. ISBN 0-8014-1319-2.
[5] Kimura M (1991). "The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence". Jpn. J. Genet. 66 (4): 367–86. doi:10.1266/jjg.66.367. PMID 1954033.

You have failed to answer Question 3a

Question #3b:
How come there are no irreconcilable findings contradicting Natural Selection?

Again, "no irreconcilable findings" is quite a bold statement, and I must say it could mean just about anything again. It again reflects your unwavering faith in evolution.

Actually, no it doesn't

Nevertheless, before discussing anything like this, I would be nice if you could provide a particular example for discussion instead of making such broad foggy statements.

You haven't answered Question 3b. But, as a sign of respect, I will answer your question:

Nylon eating Bacteria

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or, for that matter, any other bacteria), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

Kinoshita, S.; Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H. (1975). "Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of e-aminocaproic acid by Achromobacter guttatus". Agricultural & Biological Chemistry 39 (6): 1219−23. doi:10.1271/bbb1961.39.1219. ISSN 0002-1369.

This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frameshift mutation. Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way.

Ohno S (April 1984). "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 81 (8): 2421–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421. PMC 345072. PMID 6585807.

A 2007 paper that described a series of studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggested that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase. However, many other genes have been discovered which did evolve by gene duplication followed by a frameshift mutation affecting at least part of the gene. A 2006 study found 470 examples in humans alone.

Okamura K, Feuk L, Marquθs-Bonet T, Navarro A, Scherer SW (December 2006). "Frequent appearance of novel protein-coding sequences by frameshift translation". Genomics 88 (6): 690–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2006.06.009. PMID 16890400

Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain.[5] Other scientists were able to get the ability to generate the enzymes to transfer from the Flavobacterium strain to a strain of E. coli bacteria via a plasmid transfer.

Negoro S, Taniguchi T, Kanaoka M, Kimura H, Okada H (July 1983). "Plasmid-determined enzymatic degradation of nylon oligomers". J. Bacteriol. 155 (1): 22–31. PMC 217646. PMID 6305910

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs.

Thwaites WM (Summer 1985). "New Proteins Without God's Help". Creation Evolution Journal (National Center for Science Education (NCSE)) 5 (2): 1–3.
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design', Ker Than, MSNBC, Sept. 23, 2005
Miller, Kenneth R. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (2008) pp. 80-82

BTW, did I mention that Question #3b was unanswered?

Question #3c:
How come that there are no molecular findings that point towards Intelligent Design or Creationism?

And yet again, "no" is a broad, all encompassing bold statement, and yet again, it reflects your unwavering faith in evolution. Further, as is regularly pointed out by others here, one cannot prove a non-existence. Nevertheless, answering your question with a question:

TJ, your understanding of logical fallacies is a bit lacking. Asking why there is a lack of evidence is hardly the same as demanding a proof of something's non-existence. Surely, you can see that.

What type of evidence (what type of "findings") were you (or they) looking for exactly…?

Once again, answering a question by posing another question is a dodge. How about, any evidence that would contradict the current Theory of Evolution? How about that evidence? BTW, no one looks for "specific" evidence. They actually do observations and then see how the observations fit the model. You can't pick or choose what observations you want. Even if one tries to be intellectually dishonest like this, they are eventually found out by the scientific methods self-correcting nature. Examples abound. (Pons and Fleischmann's Cold Fusion, and the Piltdown Man hoax come to mind)

For you personally, when it comes to the question of the existence of God, what evidence would you consider? That's a question that I seem to regularly ask and as yet I have not had a single relevant reply. By the way, "not had a single relevant reply" is not a bold statement in this case. No one here has ever attempted to answer this question directly. So, with really not much expectation of getting a relevant reply, I'll ask it again anyway…

We are not talking about the existence of God. This is a Science Board. All the questions you have been asked are of a scientific nature. Please keep it that way or retire to the Blue Fez.

What evidence would you consider for the existence of God (or the "supernatural" if you wish to call it that)?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

If you are true to your evolutionary beliefs then you will answer "Absolutely none!"

I don't have "evolutionary beliefs" in a religious sense. I believe in the validity of a theory that has been shown to fit the observations the best, even after 200 years of close scientific (and non-scientific) scrutiny. I also believe in the Heliocentric Theory, the Atomic Theory, and the Germ Theory for exactly the same reasons. It's not faith.

If you are true to your evolutionary beliefs (read dogma) then whatever evidence is placed before you, no matter what it is, if it supports the premise that God or the supernatural exists in the slightest way then you must reject it out-of-hand. Your overwhelming faith in "evolution" won't let you do otherwise. So, again, what evidence would you consider? Or is it that the only evidence that you will consider as valid evidence is evidence that "seems" to support the "evolutionary" paradigm in some way…?

It's kind of funny, you lecturing me on "dogma". You are repeating yourself. See above.

You didn't answer Question 3c either.

TJ, you display the characteristics of many creationists when it comes to dealing with scientific topics at issue with one's personal beliefs:

Never get cornered into directly answering a question. Redirect this attention to your lack of answers by posing further questions instead.

Try to obfuscate, instead of illuminate.

When all else fails, make an appeal to theology.

No thanks, TJ. You clearly do not have any wish to engage in a meaningful discourse. You have no interest in answering the questions put to you by others, even though they have done you the courtesy of answering yours. I'll leave you now. Perhaps one day you'll realize that conversation is a two way street. Hope your convalescence continues, and I look forward to updates on your blog.

This is a science board.

The nature of science means you make a claim, you provide the proof.

TJ.

Prove it.