The Minimal Genome Project: "Here we report a new cell"

[Biosemiosis.org]

@GJDS

My understanding is the IC notion is removal of one part renders the organism inactive/dead

It is a great irony that we find an entirely unambiguous example of IC at the very moment of biological life – the translation of information inside the cell.

Bibliography

[beaglelady]

@Biosemiosis.org

Thirdly, Michael Behe himself, as far as anyone knows, has not walked away from biological discovery.

So what does his lab do and where does he publish his work?

[Biosemiosis.org]

He is Professor of Biochemistry in the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

I have asked for something very small. I have asked, e.g., for statements on origin of life in high school science textbooks to say something like: “We do not know whether life could have originated by wholly natural causes. However, if it originated by wholly natural causes, they might have been along these lines …”

If something is in a science book, it should be about the natural world OR about why only the natural world can be addressed in the book.

Otherwise it sounds too much like the famous warning label or the Dover statement.

[GJDS]

I am not dismissive of statements such as these, but I think they deal with profound aspects - it takes a lot of effort and time to work though the implications, and I do not wish to confine my musings to genetics. My contemplations have reached the stage where I ask, “How is it that we human beings can access the Universe”? It requires a model in which a human being is part of the objects he/she examines to know, and yet establishes a “knower/known/knowable” setting (awkward but a short way to say this).

Thus far, while I think I may have made some progress on the intelligibility of the creation, I am inclined to view it all as the celestial mystery that orthodox Christianity speaks of.

[Biosemiosis.org]

Fair enough.

regards …

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

Yes I understand your position, it just that is falls apart in just about every direction. Firstly, if one scientist says “This is designed”, there will be another who says “No, it’s not”. If a thousand scientists say “This is designed” there will be another thousand who will say “No, it’s not”. It’s the nature of the beast. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that man intends to stop his quest to build life for himself (for many different reasons) which will require learning how to create biological IC systems. Thirdly, Michael Behe himself, as far as anyone knows, has not walked away from biological discovery. The idea that men like Michael Behe are just going to stare at the sky is silly, to be generous. And fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the alternative is to ignore physical evidence. I find it hard to think we should express our protection of the institution of science by instigating a policy whereby we do not speak of that thing we do not speak of. And all of this fearful hand-wringing is over what exactly – the proposition that we have discovered something? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. Your objection is just a tool, whether you mean it sincerely or not. And the place it shows it weakness the most is directly in front of the physical evidence.

That’s all great. Which IDers pursued the origin of the function of the flagellum after it was deemed “irreducibly complex”?

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

It is a great irony that we find an entirely unambiguous example of IC at the very moment of biological life – the translation of information inside the cell.

And what do we do with that?

[Biosemiosis.org]

@fmiddel

That’s all great. Which IDers pursued the origin of the function of the flagellum after it was deemed “irreducibly complex”?

To satisfy your fears, the question is "How many said, “No its not”?

Plenty.

[Biosemiosis.org]

@fmiddel

And what do we do with that?

What do we do with knowledge?

Generally, we incorporate it.

regards…

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

I agree with the general premise that the incredible complexity of the simplest cells does indeed imply an intelligent Designer. But from the small understanding, the majority of ID proponents use the implication of a Designer to preclude the possibility of His using evolution as a tool. I recognize that the general scope of ID does not address age of the earth, but why do a vast majority of ID proponents reject the most obvious method of His design process? I have heard mention of ID proponents that do not reject the possibility of “macro” evolution, but I have been unable to find writings from any of them.

[beaglelady]

@Biosemiosis.org

He is Professor of Biochemistry in the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

I know that, but I asked what his lab does and where he publishes his work, since you said he has not walked away from biological discovery.

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

To satisfy your fears, the question is "How many said, “No its not”?

Plenty.

Really? Okay.

[fmiddel]

@Biosemiosis.org

What do we do with knowledge?

Generally, we incorporate it.

That’s really good, but not quite good enough. It should lead to further inquiry…

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

Have you looked on his university website to see if there is any description of his research there? Have you written to him to ask him what he is currently working on? If you are truly interested in the answer, and are not merely asking a rhetorical question, why haven’t you done these things?

And have you conducted a similar inquiry regarding Ken Miller? Has he published any scientific research since 1999? If not, wouldn’t a similar line of questioning about him be appropriate? And if it turns out he hasn’t published anything in many years, would that affect your support for his position – which in the past you have strongly endorsed?

Biosemiosis made the claim that Michael Behe “as far as anyone knows, has not walked away from biological discovery.”
So I’m asking him to back up that claim.