Nils wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:53 pm
Sorry DB, for late response.
You misunderstand me completely. My claim above isn’t about Axe’s article. My claim is a general claim that one (or a few) single article isn’t enough to dismiss an established theory.
I don't believe Behe, Meyer, and Axe are dismissing an established theory.
They are questioning one part of a theory that has not been empirically established.
And the specific part that has not been empirically established is the alleged ability of "random" mutation to infuse new information into the biosphere that we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.
They are not questioning natural selection or that mutation of some sort has played role.
They are saying that empirical evidence demonstrates that what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today is beyond the capability of the observed limits of "random" mutation.
The main problem with your (and Meyers) reasoning is that evidence for a problem being difficult and having no known solution, isn’t evidence that the problem is not solvable. During the history of evolution, since 1859, there has been so many problems solved, problems that seemed unsolvable beforehand. Why do you think that all the problems that are unsolved exactly 160 years after the Darwin will remain unsolved?
This is where you are misunderstanding Meyer's position.
Meyer is proposing that there is an empirically known cause of design and information.
And that known cause is intelligence.
A solution exists and is apparent based on known causes of design and information.
in the video you refer to above Behe states that “that Darwinism cannot make complex functional system” 46:19, and that there “is an observation that it does not”.
He does the following reasoning in minutes 26 to 46:
1. He shows that a single mutation has the probability of 1 in 10^10
2. He shows that two independent mutations have the probability of 1 in 10^20
This is based on evidence of the malaria parasite and is uncontroversial
3. He concludes that the probability of four independent mutations would be 1 in 10^40
This is also uncontroversial.
4. He says that the probability of 1 in 10^40 is so small that four independent mutations will never occur during the existence of Earth.
So far so good
5. He states that because 4. “Darwinism cannot make complex functional system”
The problem with 5. is that it doesn’t follow from 4. There is a hidden assumption:
4.1. In Darwinian evolution four independent mutations are necessary.
But he has no evidence at all for 4.1. It’s only assumption.
That's not accurate...
In his first book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe provides a number of examples of irreducibly complex biological systems that require much more than 4 independent mutations.
In Behe's video, he also discusses the behavior of Darwinian evolution, and he notes that observed beneficial mutations do not involve adding information to DNA, instead observed beneficial mutations involve some replacements but mostly deletions.
Which again speaks to the inability of "random" mutation to add new information to life.
The evolution theory assumes that complex structures evolve in small steps (probably with not more than two independent mutations in each step) where each step is beneficial.
And that particular assumption has not been empirically validated.
Despite your issue with the semantics of the word prove, I still think Matheson's quote is relevant here, because he acknowledges that this is still an "open question".
"It is surely an open question
about whether that whole tree can be navigated through function all the way through.
I certainly can't prove it's the case."
The bottom line is that there is no evidence at all for the impossibility of evolution. Meyer and Behe are completely wrong.
No... you are completely wrong here.
Behe has provided empirical evidence in nature and in the lab regarding the limits of Darwinian Evolution.
Behe has provided numerous examples of irreducibly complex biological systems that require much more than 4 independent mutations at the molecular level.
It is you who have provided zero empirical evidence to support the "assumption" that random mutation is capable of generating the information that we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.