Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,11:51)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17)|
|Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it. Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.|
The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).
According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.
You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed. In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.
To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'. There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done. That's the claim.
The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful). So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.
The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature.
The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations.
Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea.
It doesn't matter. I told you they would use the "It's a designed experiment" option.
And it doesn't matter. There was a specific claim made... that no two mutations could happen to increase the function of an RNA (in this case).
That claim has been falsified. It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen in nature. What is nature? The natural world.. EVERYTHING is a part of nature, including that lab, and those scientists, and those RNAs, and those copy enzymes.
The RNA doesn't care if it's in a test tube or in a puddle or in a human or in a liverwort. All any of it does is what it is supposed to do. The end result of the experiment showed a MASSIVE gain in function. Not a little, but a huge gain.
Therefore, the claim, as stated is falsified. BTWL I have talked to Dr. Joyce. My understanding is that the samples from this run are still available. I'd love to see these guys take a look at them and find the place where the designer worked.
Basically, their objection to the experiment is a red herring. It is meaningless.
First they would need to state a definition of 'designed' or 'to design'. I predict that they will refuse to do so. If they do, then they will provide a definition so loose, that I could claim to have designed my son.
Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the RNA during this experiment (before, during or after)? No.
Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the enzymes during this experiment (before, during or after)? No.
Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the mutations during this experiment (before, during or after)? No.
Therefore, they did not design THE RESULTS of the experiment.
I know this is very picky, but that's the way science and logic work.
There was a claim made, that two or more mutations are so impossible to happen that they will not. That claim is falsified here.
The other claim is that two or more mutations cannot result in improved function. That claim is also falsified.
They also might need to be told about the mutation rates in 'natural' things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract Shows a mutation rate that is way beyond even those levels. BTW: This is a viroid, which is almost exactly the same thing as in Joyce's experiment.
Don't let them go off on tangents. They made a very specific claim. That claim is refuted.
If they can bury you under BS, then you'll never get out. State it very specifically. This is the claim... this is why it is refuted.
The experimental nature has nothing to do with the results. If that were the case, then easily 75% of modern science would be wrong.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.