Regarding Ken Miller, who I think is pretty easy to discredit: <snip>
You appear to insist on appealing to the authority of Michael Behe, who is pretty discredited himself.
Further, Behe is moving the goalposts, and in doing so, asserts that "Darwinists" such as Begley and Miller are moving the goalposts by sticking to his original claim, to whit, that if but one component were removed from a system, it would render it non-functional.
"Non-functional" does not
mean "incapable of performing the same function, only more primitively". There is no reason why structures in an organism can't be co-opted - if the result works
, that's all that matters. Natural selection does not entail some predefined goal.
Behe states that: "Miller's argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That's it!" Behe omits to mention that that is all that is required
as a foil to Behe's own argument. Behe's further argument - to the effect that Miller did not go on to show that natural processes did
result in the flagellum being what it is.
This gets to the heart of the intellectual dishonesty implicit in this kind of argument. Essentially, it goes like this:
(a) assert that a system is IC.
(b) point to a component that looks IC.
(c) when counterpoints are raised that indicate that the component is not IC, point to another component.
(d) repeat (c) until you run out of components.
(e) demand that your opponent demonstrate how the system was arrived at through purely natural processes, and claim victory ("he still hasn't explained how Darwinian processes can arrive at this organism!") unless your opponent can provide a complete map of the system's development.
(f) repeat steps (a-e) until you run out of systems.
This is "IC-of-the-gaps". It is essentially a massive game of Whac-A-Mole™ that has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with trying to discover anything useful about how organisms work or how they might have come to be the way they are, and certainly
nothing to do with discovering truth.
When he later says that "the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device", I have to wonder about his knowledge of such devices. Rotary pumps and rotary propulsion devices both have a rotary motor; and as such there is a very clear relationship between them.
lol, I guess i'm going to have to give up. It just seems like if a system would become non-functional if 1 part was not there, then there was never any beneficial random mutation that nature could have selected to lead up to that end state. There needs to be a beneficial function of some sort for nature to select throughout the process of Darwin evolution. That is what Behe is getting at. Otherwise , the entire system has to be assembled at once and obviously that sounds like intelligent design.
DrTesla, I am guessing this means we aren't going to see you post again. If you are honest and open and genuinely willing to learn about this stuff, then do a bit more research on the Websites people have provided here. The central premise of Behe's claims is flawed, as I explained earlier: it does not take into account substitutions and deletions, but rather simplistically assumes a process of cumulative addition (it has
to, since that is the only means by which his argument, that the subtraction
of a part renders a system inoperable, could even remotely be considered valid).
In short, Behe is wrong, his arguments are discredited, and if you want to find out why
then you need to stop sipping the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis Kool-Aid™ and do some work to try to understand the actual science.
And though you may not post again, I nevertheless have to ask: why is it so important to you to try to discredit evolutionary Theory?