Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Which is, that he denies that these biochemical systems are "BUILT UP" not viewed in restrospect and "believed to have been there all along"?

Is that correct?

That;s Behes major flaw,(of which hes been fairly quiet ince , say 2010).
His concepts of hving all the biochemitry in place "from the Beginning" is almost a kids gme to debunk. BTW, lets not take him apart w/o knowing what hes done . Hes been a mjor contributor in the evo/devo of the opsin/rhodopsin qn the Px-3/Pax6,HOX gene biochem and his own diss was pretty damned important work on gelation of sickled cell proteins

BTW, hes Romn Ctholic, not a Fundy. Hes every bit as grounded in science qnd his religion as is Ken Miller (who sits at the other pole and had some grad students really critique irreducible complexity in chains of enzymatic linkages and reactions.
Miller makes more scientific sense because it can be trqcked while Behe's loses veracity because he drops everything at the fossil record (NO DNA IN DINO BONES).

Darwins major flaw was due to his ignorance of genetics . He was convinced that a favorable trait was "diluted" by successive generations of breedinf. Mathemaically it would be a 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2 (ad nauseum).

Wedont talk about this goof any more than we do of gravity"s diversion via Newton v SRT

Can you back that statement up with any scientific data, or by sighting scientific journals? I do believe, it is an accepted mainstream scientific understanding of nature and physics, that the laws of nature existed long before humans ever existed. Or am I wrong in that assumption?

I am assuming that the laws of physics were established before humans existed, and that humans learned to understand them long after they were established. If you want I could sight some scientific sources supporting that view. So why would I want to realize something that is your scientifically unsubstantiated philosophical view, that (according to mainstream science) is scientifically incorrect and unsupportable as a basis to form my world view?



I think you need to take a serious look at how you formed your world view,especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion when looking at the scientific data as presented by the current models of mainstream physics. It appears to me that your views are not very mainstream. Would you agree or disagree?

I also believe you need to leave religion out of the discussion, until it is absolutely necessary to provide a workable scientific theory. What do you believe?

We know by the end of the book which side he takes but one of the things that impressed me was that he really does not state a hard conclusion - it only taught the strict undisputed facts about cellular biology and let's you come to your own conclusion. There is no preaching in the book anywhere.

I forgot to add that I'd go wherever the evidence leads. I am where it led me.

"Alt Right" or "Neonazi", what's the difference? I am a Fundamentalist Roman Catholic. "What" I call myself and other people call me is not important. "Why" I am called that is important, but mostly irrelevant to the discussion. (But the nice thing about being a Roman Catholic is it teaches me to rely heavily on Natural Law or, "science" when interpreting the data to develop my world view, rather than the "Scripture Only" view of most mainstream Protestant Fundamentalists. Behe is on a journey. 90% of what you learn is from the mistakes you or somebody else made.)

What's important to the discussion is mainstream evolutionary science is trying to combine random mutations, evolutionary biology, and natural selection into one complex system that supposedly can provide the necessary new information in the right way at the right time for DNA to reorganize in a way that can cause macroevolution. But, as Nie pointed out Random mutations is a separate process with evolutionary biology and natural selection providing boundaries to the mutations. Molecular biology provided the predetermined boundaries that were set in the past in the molecular structure of DNA, and natural selection provided its boundaries in real time through elimination of the weak. But, as you pointed out in the discussion about Behe, even those boundaries established in the molecular biology of the DNA were randomly put in place in the very distant past, and built upon over time. And inside those boundaries set up in the molecular biology of the DNA, random mutations are the only way new information is introduced. Whether, these mutations were introduced in the distant past to build the structure to DNA to provide the necessary boundaries that we now observe as the evidence provided in the fossil record and current microbiology or, these mutations were selected by natural selection by deciding the survival of the fittest after the mutations happened, Nie's conclusion that, "random mutations alone must always be considered the main driver introducing new information into DNA, according to our current understanding of Darwinian evolution".

But Nie's understanding provides a problem. When random mutations are the main driver for the introduction of new information (whether past or present) that still leaves the problem of irreducible complexity. Any further understanding of biogentics to solve that problem, leads us back to Behe's (as you pointed out earlier) already disproved hypothesis that states, "this was all written in the DNA code long ago just waiting to be triggered by future environmental changes."

It appears we are chasing our tail here trying to use an unreasonable driver (In the form of random mutations.) for the development of the new information necessary for macoevolution . To me this seems rather futile when, a reasonable explanation to irreducible complexity is being presented to us as in a model that we are observing in the evolution of human technology. This model is running constantly, right now, and in real time. We can observe it daily and, IT WORKS. The reason it works to build complexity is:

PLANNING is provided to the system by INTELLIGENCE.

So far that is the only real time model we have been able to observe providing complexity to any code. (Whether that code is a blue print, a computer program, or in the structures themselves as, we build them without physical plans from the ideas we had formed in our minds).

Evidence is evidence. Why would you leave scientific evidence (natural law) out your understanding of God or philosophical evidence out of your scientific search for a Designer? I ask this question of everyone reading this post.

Ive responded to your post which stated that You "go where the evidence takes you". I have to politely disagree from the summation of our discussions. Youve cherry picked mostly and hve only been pointing at one concept at a time when understanding the path of evolution, like gene expression, is usually an interplay of many lines of evidence all simultaneously.
With your "I follow the evidence" announcement I understand why youve avoided the Dover transcript. Its a true forensic battle of how a judge weighs the evidence The 3rd Fed district judge, (a political right sider ) who reached a decision (using court appointed resources of scientists and theologians ). His decision was actually based upon "following the evidence" and concluding. He didnt try ID. He used the well defined Lemon Test to show that ID, as presented in the Dover public school announcements, were simply religion attempting to don a lab coat, and were, according to our Bill of Rights , an attempt at breaking the Establishment Clause.

Its just that the definition of ID at Dover became undeniably (and often lughably) religion. The full evidentiary package weve discussed in the past and, by your responses youve just dismissed em. I guess we just have to yield to your "alternative legal as well as scientific analyses"

Fair enough. Now again, tell me, using only the processes I listed before, how you can create a stromatolite.

Actually, itis what science says. All those laws are real laws. Try to prove them wrong. Try to create something living, out of non-living matter. And that's just the beginning.

So is the environment planned or is life planned and the environment just responds?? Or is both the environment AND life an example of vast community planning?

Sometimes one should read and absorb more than one text. In my past genetics studies Ive probably garnered two dozen texts including some really classic papers by Goldschmidt and even Mendel. Seeing from a chemical basis and how the discovery of DNA was the result of German industrial applications from testing known derivative chemicals that form in several different reaction types (following the evidence )

No its central bcause you guys miss the significance of "top down v Bottom up" reactions. ID requires you to take a top down approach, or youre just messing with your own mind. The evidence is quite clear from looking at extant species that are relative to each other ,This includes humans/bonobos here the transcription errors, Transposable elements . sexual congress single inserts , and environmental mutation has clearly endowed us with a genetic time clock . Functioning gene number in the human genome is somehwre around 19.4X10^3. PSEUDOGENES amount to 19.7 X10^3. Weve learned that we must remove all transposable elements to keep the number below the 5 or 6 million that would be the result if all TEs were considered. Pseudogenes are much of our history and its quite easy to "map" where trcription errors, ubstitutions etc appear in our clsest relative just after our common ncestor. We can see the loss of a functioning GULO (vitmin C) gene, GBA gene. (Here a loss of 55 functioning base pairs hs undoubtedly been a huge "mutation step" nd demonstrates that Chimps and bonobos (which also hqve a 55 base pair function loss while a whole bunch of other apes nd monkeys hqve the funtioning GPA. Haemoglobin genes in humqns is about 13 0r 14 of which, 2 are only fetal and turn off to become pseudogenes after birth (They enble the fetus to breathe in the amniotic fluid (like a fish ?)Other great apes dont hve the complemet of humn pseudo hemoglobin genes (humans wind up with 5 out of the 13) left. New world monkey have only one of the two pair of the ( forgot the named gene). Also, there are 9 different inversions in specific chromosomes between humans and chimps and 6 between bonobos. The exciting stuff is that we can use all these recent mutations, inversions and other TE;s to understand when and even where we split off from a mother species. The even neater part of the picture is we can see the Planned?? environment (acute desertification) lotsa ash producing volcanoes. AAnd the stage for some macro adaptation and evolution may have been set, desertification began with high grass savannas with enough rain to result in regional lakes. High grasses on the paths between these lakes needed to be crossed. protohumans were travelers or were just opportunistic . Its kinda interesting tht, since several different Homos genera were discovered in the last 100 years the "dogma" mostly bbegun by Louis Leakey stated that humans arose in a small area of Africa. MORE finds have cast waaay much doubt on that until this year came the first two major papers about original distributions of primal population.

Do you know what simply psychology tells us? When someone is feeling threatened in an argument, they revert to big words in an attempt to make the other person think they are so smart, that there's no point in arguing... It's simple psychology.

As someone who has visited Mary Leakey's site at Odulvi Gorge in Africa that has a small museum many decades ago, I'm a believer in her findings, because subsequent paleontologists have also supported what she discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Leakey

Are these guys still talking about the same thing? I can't keep track of all (what appears to be) the shifting viewpoints.

Those are the words of a person who actually is connected with the topic, not an armchair expert like some on here. Attacking the messenger, psychology tells us, is an attempt to divert attention from the subject.

I just wanted to see that in print again.

That's really all I was pointing out. When the court decides who the right experts are, the outcome should be no surprise.

Is it a surprise that people actually doing the work are the ones the court gives credence to, instead of people attempting to subvert it by injecting religion where science is called for?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-life-form-new-a-t-c-g-x-y-scripps-research-institute-synthetic-semi-a7544056.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Wikipedia: Miller-Urey Experiment

You are assuming that no one on the other side is qualified and doing work.
That is wrong on both counts.