mynym: If a Darwinist succeeds in falsifying IC based on empirical evidence then they have admitted that the concept is amenable to science and they have no grounds to bar it as they typically do.

Bradford: There is no point in mounting empirical efforts at falsifying a concept that does not lend itself to testing is there?

Now, Bradford. You had said that discussion of the definition of IC was off the table. How is anyone to respond to your comment without discussing the entailed equivocations? And here you are talking about the concept of IC.

If a Darwinist succeeds in falsifying IC based on empirical evidence then they have admitted that the concept is amenable to science and they have no grounds to bar it as they typically do.

There is no point in mounting empirical efforts at falsifying a concept that does not lend itself to testing is there?

Rock: Predicting the existence of a fossil taxon does not even distinguish evolutionary theory from creationism.

Zachriel: Biblical Creationism does not consider reptiles and humans to be descendents of a common ancestor, so the prediction of intermediate species is not predicted by Biblical Creationism.

Rock: I didn’t say anything about Biblical creationism, Zachriel.

creationism, doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

Common Descent is contrary to the common meaning of creationism.

mynym: 1) Define precisely what you mean by [evolution], with no hemming and hawing. If it s a scientific concept, then it must have a precise definition.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution, and makes empirical predictions in a wide variety of fields, from genomics to geology. {We probably need a new thread for this discussion.}

3) To reiterate, double-daring a competing explanation does not constitute an experiment.

This is why I typically ask where the supposed singular "theory of evolution" has been specified (encoded in the language of mathematics) and verified (used to predict a general trajectory of adaptation in a group of organisms).

When it comes to those who promote Darwinian creation myths the standards with respect to "science"/knowledge always seem to be shifting. They work to control State funding and consequently research bases are developed based on their standards, yet then they often demand that dissenters meet a standard of knowledge which they haven't met even with all their funding.

The closest thing to a "precise" definition of evolution is Darwinism rooted in natural selection culling random mutation, yet apparently when the theory of natural selection is encoded in the language of mathematics very little predictive knowledge can be derived from it. It seems that what is known by the theory is what could already be known by observation and it seems the "theory" itself may be an observation. Yet to hear proponents of Darwinism tell it the theory of evolution is the epistemic equivalent of the theory of gravity. But if physics is an example then by their own comparison it's as if proponents of Darwinism believe that observing objects after they come to rest and then imagining a sequence of past events which "explains" how the object came to rest in its current position is the equivalent of having a theory with explanatory and predictive power which is open to falsification/verification. It isn't. (Note that the more people imagining things about the past based on such a theory the more overwhelming the supposed explanatory power of such a "theory" become. At any rate, it's a good thing that generally physicists tend to adhere to higher epistemic standards than biologists.)

The fight over defining irreducible complexity is a fight about a "theory of evolution" that was never specified in the first place. If anything IC is more defined and empirically verifiable than the hypothetical goo typical to evolution. Note that "double-daring a competing explanation does not constitute an experiment" but it does answer stupid attempts at explanation which weren't supported by empirical evidence in the first place. This type of notion of falsification: "If I could be shown an organism which I could not imagine coming about in a gradual series of events then my theory would absolutely break down." can indeed be answered with: "Well… I dare you to try to imagine something about this!"

If a Darwinist succeeds in falsifying IC based on empirical evidence then they have admitted that the concept is amenable to science and they have no grounds to bar it as they typically do. Yet if they have some imaginary success in reducing IC based on imagining things about the past then their success is rooted in pseudo-science even if it does seem "overwhelming" in its day as pseudo-science typically does. Either way it's doubtful that IC is going away as a scientific issue.

That’s a fascinating animation. Thank you. Unfortunately, for me at least, it raises a lot questions than it answers– but that is science.

That's a good site. Raising more questions is a quality inherent to virtually all disciplines. I know what you mean.

In DBB Behe describes the replication of prokaryotic DNA noting that the “replication of eukaryotic DNA appears to be much more complex, and therefore much less is known about it.” (p276)

A post on eukaryotic DNA replication is coming.

Of course that brings in the inference of evolution. If eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotes, then logically eukaryote DNA evolves from prokaryote DNA. Sooner or later the critics are going to discover this and say: Aha! How can DNA replication be irreducibly complex if we can plainly see that evolution has led to a newer more complex kind of DNA replicator and replication? This appears to be the TTSS > Bact. Flagellum (or, BF > TTSS) all over again.

I deliberately began with unicellular DNA to focus our attention at the point of DNA origin.

The problem, as exhibited over and over again on the other thread, is that the critics still haven’t grasped Behe’s argument. Behe never uses IC to argue against evolution; rather, he uses IC to argue against gradualistic evolution. Behe, BTW, is afterall, himself a evolutionist and has said so in several of his writings.

I think the utility of an IC perspective lies in its value as an analytical lens. If pathways are identified so be it. Functions dependent on many interacting parts are more interesting and more challenging.

Do they have a real, empirically testable, answer to this natural riddle? Or, is it all just a lot of pretense and posturing?

There are no ready answers to some questions.

That’s a fascinating animation. Thankyou. Unfortunately, for me at least, it raises a lot questions than it answers– but that is science.

In DBB Behe describes the replication of prokaryotic DNA noting that the “replication of eukaryotic DNA appears to be much more complex, and therefore much less is known about it.” (p276)

Of course that brings in the inference of evolution. If eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotes, then logically eukaryote DNA evolves from prokaryote DNA. Sooner or later the critics are going to discover this and say: Aha! How can DNA replication be irreducibly complex if we can plainly see that evolution has led to a newer more complex kind of DNA replicator and replication? This appears to be the TTSS > Bact. Flagellum (or, BF > TTSS) all over again.

The problem, as exhibited over and over again on the other thread, is that the critics still haven’t grasped Behe’s argument. Behe never uses IC to argue against evolution; rather, he uses IC to argue against gradualistic evolution. Behe, BTW, is afterall, himself a evolutionist and has said so in several of his writings.

Do they have a real, empirically testable, answer to this natural riddle? Or, is it all just a lot of pretense and posturing?

When you start introducing the culture war stuff as Mr. Levine has you begin to sense that the other side is becoming more than a little desperate.

How curious, when you restrict the concept of irreducible complexity to science, and scientific answers that the self appointed defenders of science (not to mention that they also claim to be the defenders of all true rationality and western civilization) have very little to say. How curious, indeed.

Do you have you any graphics of this very amazing molecular machine? How about a movie?

Try this John:

http://bioisolutions.blogspot....

I was curious whether or not Behe had anything to say about DNA replication. He does. In fact, he includes a discussion about it in the appendix section of, Darwin’s Black Box.

Primarily he focuses his discussion on the role of DNA polymerases enzymes that are critical in not only replicating DNA but also repairing it. Polymerase I’s ( or Pol I) basic function is the repair of DNA while Pol III’s main role is replication itself . There is also a Pol II whose function is not well understood.

Behe then goes on to describe Pol III in a little more detail.

DNA polymerase III is actually a complex of seven different subunits, ranging in length from about 300 to about 1,100 amino acid residues. Only one of the subunits does the actual chemical joining of the subunits: the other subunits are involved in critical accessory functions. For instance, the polymerizing subunits tend to fall off the template DNA after joining only ten to fifteen nucleotides. If this happened in the cell the polymerase would have to hop on back hundreds of thousands of time before replication was complete, slowing replication enormously. However, the complete Pol III– with all seven subunits– does not fall off until the entire template DNA template (which can be more than a million base pairs long) is copied. (p275)

Behe, unfortunately doesn’t provide any graphics. I’m imagining something like a very sophisticated zipper. Do you have you any graphics of this very amazing molecular machine? How about a movie?

Hi samsen. I was going to respond to your very good comment with one of my own but on second thought think that it is better to devote a blog entry to your questions. It may take a few days but the issues you raise are worth the effort.

Thanks!

I see that I wasn't clear in my previous comment in places. I was trying to write down the thoughts and questions that arose in my mind as I read your blog entry so
let me clarify…

samsen: It has been indicated that the presence of very few precursors to such systems would go against a gradualistic evolutionary scenario but could that be because of any design constraints of building such a system?

I meant that the scarcity of precursors could be explained by the presence of design constraints. As design constraints decrease one might expect an abundance of precursors. But to increase the plausibility of this explanation one needs to identify the design constraints. In order to do that an analogical system from human design systems could be used in analysis. Hence, my question about a CD/DVD duplication system. Btw take your time in responding to my questions…