[quote=“dcscccc, post:27, topic:2406, full:true”]
my hypothesis cant tell us how many genes should be different between whale and human (neither evolution).[/quote]
Don’t downplay the value of testing hypotheses as a way to clarify your thinking!
It can’t give us an exact number, but it puts us in the ballpark. As you pointed out (while mangling most of the numbers), evolution is extremely limited in its ability to produce new proteins and new genes. A Designer, particularly an omnipotent one, has no such limitations. Therefore, intelligent design predicts lots of new components, because there are no limitations, while evolution predicts few to none. Evolution’s new stuff has to be produced by slogging through an incredibly iterative process to duplicate and repurpose existing genes and proteins with only rare exceptions.
hi joao. i disagree. a lot of parts in design systems are not unique and can be found in another systems. wheels for example can be found in airplanes, cars, trucks and so on. so again- id cant predict how many perecnt of unique parts we can found. by the way- a lots of genes are unique to many animals. orphan genes for example are genes that unique to specific animal. and we found a lot of them. now lets check if a whale sonar can evolve in a geologic time. for start- how do you think that a minimal sonar evolved? how many mutations it need to make a sonar from non-sonar?
the evidence for design is real. for example: the flagellum is an organic, self replicating motor. we know that a motor need a d esigner. even if its organic.
It is true we don’t know exactly what path evolution took to end up with a flagellum. The fossil record is not very informative about single-cell biochemistry hundreds of millions of years ago. However, multiple paths have been shown which could have led to a flagellum by ordinary evolution. This falsifies claims that it could not have evolved by variation + natural selection + drift.
hi loujost. the flagellum cant evolve step wise. miller say that the ttss share parts with the flagellum and because of this its mean that they can evolve step wise from each other. we can disprove this claim by simple example: car and airplane also share parts like wheels and feul. but they car cant evolve into airplane step by step. so again- motor need a designer.
Eddie, as you know, I’ve read Behe and much of the web discussion about him. That wasn’t my definition, it was Wikipedia’s, and I agree that it is not accurate. You are right that I was not careful enough there. But my reason for citing the Wikipedia article was not its definition of irreducible complexity but rather as a convenient starting point, with pointers to the skeptical literature on the subject. I was not interested in going into depth about Behe again.
As I said, I do not expect to know exactly how the flagellum evolved, because there is no fossil record and our knowledge of gene sequences that far back is very vague. But I strongly disagree with you about the onus of proof. Behe claims to have shown that evolution COULD NOT produce the flagellum. So we have an evolutionary theory that relies on known principles, which we have no reason to believe would NOT work to evolve the flagellum, and we have a competing claim which insists that unknown principles were needed to produce it. The burden of proof is on him to really show the impossibility. He has not done that.
You are right that there might possibly be something going on beyond normal evolutionary theory here and elsewhere. Logically, the evolutionary biologist has not proven that evolution produced the flagellum, and such proof would be nearly impossible given our incomplete knowledge of past ecological conditions. I think your demand for such proof is misplaced. If someone wants to shake up the evolutionary paradigm, they need to find hard limits on what evolution could theoretically do, and then they need to show those limits are violated. This is in fact Behe’s research program, his “edge of evolution”. That’s the right approach. But he fails on the technical details.
Then you disagree with yourself, because you started this with “a minimal ic system need at least 2-3 parts to its function. so if the chance to get a one part is about 10^10 then a 3 parts system need about 10^30 mutations. so to evolve a whale sonar for example we will need 10^30 mutations.”
Why did you specify 3 new parts made entirely from scratch?
in a lot of system we will need new parts
2)because if you will claim that this system evolve by a combination of parts from other system then you will just remove the problem to another systems. so we will still need a new parts in the end.
even if you will base your claim in a combination theory the chance is still near 10^30 because some reasons that i can explain if you want. but first in need to know what theory you believe to do the calculations.
So we’re back to your testable prediction/assumption again. How many new parts do you predict of 20,000 that would be needed to distinguish an intelligently designed whale from an intelligently designed human?
What I claim doesn’t matter. This is about testing the assumption you presented as fact: “a minimal ic system need at least 2-3 parts to its function. so if the chance to get a one part is about 10^10 then a 3 parts system need about 10^30 mutations. so to evolve a whale sonar for example we will need 10^30 mutations.”
Again, what I claim doesn’t matter and I have no idea what you mean by “a combination theory.” Let’s do the “calculations” (a funny word for estimates) based on your hypothesis of intelligent design. Number of new genes, please. You wrote “lets go on,” but you keep running away from your claims.
[quote=“Eddie, post:37, topic:2406”]
[IC] is a fact about certain systems from which ID theorists make an argument…
[/quote]Speaking of presenting positions fairly and in a scholarly manner, how can you assert that ID theorists exist if you cannot even articulate a single ID theory?
as for your question- i dont know how many parts need. but i think its a lot. like to convert a fish robot into a walking robot. why you cant tell what you believe? i think we can test your belief from a chance prespective. it will be interesting.
[quote=“dcscccc, post:44, topic:2406”]
i dont know how many parts need. but i think its a lot. like to convert a fish robot into a walking robot.[/quote]
Progress! By a lot, do you mean dozens, hundreds, or thousands out of the 20,000?
Because it’s not about belief. When you insert belief, you’re no longer motivated to do real science.
[quote] i think we can test your belief from a chance prespective.
[/quote]There’s the problem–natural selection isn’t chance. Your numbers also had no terms to account for the iterative nature of evolution.
about the unique parts: i think it can be from doezns to hundreds. i realy dont know.
you said that natural selection isnt chance. i agree. but natural selection can work only if you already have a working system. but to get system work you will need several parts.