The validity (and testability) of Michael Behe's theories

[Joao]

1. 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?

2. 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.”

3. 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.

[Joao]

@Eddie

But of course, for the flagellum there would have to be many more steps

Which flagellum, Eddie?

[Joao]

[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?

[dcscccc]

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.

[Joao]

[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?

why you cant tell what you believe?

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.

[dcscccc]

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.