quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

quote:

Read a little more carefully – he says nothing about ‘successive’.

quote:

Well, I think I picked that up from you. I don't feel like digging them up, but I seem to recall you saying something along those lines in the discussions over bat traits.

I haven’t had much time to spend online as a result of getting ready to move, but here is Jack’s explanation from our debate about bats where he described what we would expect to see if evolution is true, in comparison to if ID is true:

quote:

Well it is notable that these are two separate experiments dealing with two separate changes to the expression of two different genes. Even with those two changes one wouldn't have sufficient changes to make a 'wing', though the limb would certainly be more wing-like - so we can specifically and systematically explore what it would take – and if the evolutionists are right per the quoted scientists, then we should be able produce a series of 'successive slight modifications" each one representing a viable form - I am predicting this hasn't actually been the result, and will not end up being the result - and thus other factors are necessary, primarily organization and planning.

Is that quote what you were looking for? This is describing the results of an experiment attempting to reconstruct how bats evolved, but the principle is the same: if ID is true, “successive slight modifications” should not be able to produce a novel function.

I notice that Jack uses the phrase “successive slight modifications” in quote marks also, implying he got it from someone else. If he’s not quoting it from Behe, who is he quoting it from?

quote:

So basically his criticism of the conclusions from the citrate eating e.coli is that several mutations just had to have happened at the same time for the bacteria to get this feature. When looking at the quote above, you can really understand why he must claim this. If they are shown to be successive, and one could possibly look at the final results of the successive mutations as irreducibly complex, it will be impossible for him to come up w/ any more justifications for IC biological systems as evidence for intelligence. In short, he's sitting on the razors edge and his hypothesis is dangerously close to being conclusively falsified (as if it hadnt already).

If your going to lean one direction on this one, seems to me that anyone being honest with themselves would see that the more likely explanation is that successive mutations did occur. This would be evidenced by the generations of e.coli that are much more likely to reproduce the trait. Can't wait to see what happens next.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Which would constitute two different predictions based on two different theories. I am willing to go with Behe on this one and allow such a result when it comes about to effect my view of ID - is any evolutionist willing to do the same with his theory?

Unlikely, I would guess.