Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, January 03, 2019

The Double Standard of Arthur Hunt

The setup is Art Hunt's claim that T-URF 13 is an example of blind and mindless processes producing a functional sequence out of non-functioning sequences. And then its product producing an IC system. Joshua discusses the exchange here. The following is Art's closing salvo:
Turf13 makes maize plants male sterile. Contrary to what some may claim, this actually increases the reproductive strategies for the plant, and is not a detriment to the plant. Also, male sterility is not an arcane and contrived creation of plant breeders. It happens in the wild as well. Put it all together, then what we have here is an increase, not only in functional information when it comes to proteins, but in reproductive options and interactions with microbes.
All coming about by piecing together some non-coding sequences. Randomly, via unguided processes.
That last part is just baldly stated, without any evidence. Again I reference the peer-reviewed paper Waiting for TWO mutations and note that this newly formed gene would nee a binding site. So either that also needs to be constructed or it just so happened to fall under the control of an existing binding site that allowed the gene to be expressed when its protein was needed.

The ID claim is that organisms were intelligently designed with the ability to evolve. Art's unguided shit A) cannot account for living organisms and B) given starting populations of prokaryotes cannot account for eukaryotes, which leads to C) forget about sexual reproduction. The origin of life dictates how it evolved, that is why A is important.

So, understanding this, Dr Behe responded:
The authors of the review write: “Although novel when discovered, it is now apparent that many other CMS genes have arisen by recombinational events involving other mitochondrial-encoded genes. In fact, mitochondrial DNA rearrangements are a significant force in changing the genome organization and in causing mutations in the mitochondrial genomes of higher plants (Mackenzie et al., 1994).” A distinct possibility implied by this, it seems to me, is that plant mitochondrial DNA is in fact built to provide easily accessible functional variability. In other words, intelligently provided, pre-existing information was tapped for this protein.
Sounds reasonable to me. But Art isn't having any of it and his double standard become obvious:

Doesn’t this sound sort of circular? Anyways, how would one determine this, without assuming the conclusion Behe wishes to draw?
What about YOUR claim, Art? How did YOU determine that recombination is a blind and mindless process? Once you do that and Behe is refuted.

"Not By Chance" was published in 1997. It's main premise is that organisms contain "built-in responses to environmental cues", that is organisms were designed with the ability to adapt and evolve.

And you do realize that t urf 13 is only ONE part whereas even Behe's mousetrap had five. So your claim of IC just exposes your ignorance of the concept.


Post a Comment

<< Home