> >SJ>All Hoyle is saying is that one cannot plausibly arrive at
> >>histone-4 by the normal, bottom-up, step-by-step, Neo-Darwinian pathway.
>
> JR>Step-wise downward and lateral changes are also part of
> evolutionary theory,
> >since they're part of run-of-the-mill genetics. (This is one difference
> >from epicycles: the existence of these alternate mutation
> possibilities is
> >fairly obvious, whereas the existence of epicycles was purely
> speculative.)
>
> Histone-4 is a *protein* not a gene:
>
. . .
> But the protein for Histone-4 is coded for by a gene, the histone
> H4 gene.
> But this is even more invariant, only differing in 2 loci out of 306!:
. . .
>
> JR>Also, to observe that this argument is fallacious is neither
> to claim nor
> >imply that neo-Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Those are independent issues.
>
> See above. It is instructive to note that John used Neo-Darwinian all-
> purpose explanation type thinking to solve the problem, even
> though it was
> not applicable.
>
huh?
> While Neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, and in fact has been
> falsified, in the
> minds of those who believe it, Neo-Darwinism it is not
> falsifiable, because
> Neo-Darwinists can always think of some ad hoc hypothesis which can
> save the theory. See for example Chris' "maybe we are too ignorant to
> think of the answer" which was used by Darwin himself. A theory which
> can always resort to such stratagems can never be falsified, in
> the minds of
> its adherents.
Maybe so (or not), but that has precious little to do with what I was
pointing out.
> JR>BTW, thanks for posting Behe's comment basically agreeing with
> my point, I
> >believe (which encourages me wrt the ID movement: given that I
> haven't read
> >Behe's book, I've relied on articles and discussions here, and
> this is the
> >first time I've come across this [what seems to me] major and insightful
> >concession), but then adding that the probability of producing a given IC
> >system drops dramatically if a more circuitous incremental path
> is required.
> >I think this may be true, actually, but the implications are
> unclear, since
> >the prior probabilities are unknown. (E.g., if a circuitous path reduced
> >the likelihood of producing X by 5 or 10 or n orders of
> magnitude, producing
> >X may still be extremely likely.)
>
> It is a major problem that critics of ID are working from the prejudiced
> reviews of Darwinists.
huh?
> If they took the time to read and absorb Behe's
> arguments they would find it is quite a different thing from what they
> imagined.
I've read articles by him and Dembski and their supporters, but not their
books -- no time yet. (I've read most of Johnson's books, but they're quick
reads.)
> JR>Also, I say only "may be true" because it's hard to know just what the
> >change in odds is. A more complicated pathway to a given result seems a
> >priori much less likely than a simple pathway. But given that there are
> >indefinitely many, perhaps literally infinitely many complex pathways (in
> >principle, not in concrete practice), it's hard (for me, anyway) to see
> >accurately just what the effect is on the overall probability of
> producing
> >X.
>
> If histone-4 has 102 amino acids but only varies by 2 amino acids
> across all
> eukaryotes, which include "protozoa green algae, yeasts, fungi and all
> higher plants and animals (Maynard Smith J.., "The Theory of Evolution",
> 1993, p118), then is evidence that there are no functional pathways down
> from it (and hence up to it) or up from it (and hence down to it).
Well, perhaps it's -some- evidence for that, but not strong evidence.
Perhaps the reason that there's so much convergence is, as you suggest,
that every other nearby protein (or correlated gene) fails miserably.
OTOH, it may just be that this protein (and correlated gene) is optimal --
other similar proteins/genes function, but not as well, and so are
competitively weeded out.
> JR>I think what one really needs to make this argument pack a
> lethal punch is
> >either (1) a good statistical analysis of all the different
> possibilities,
> >which would be an ENORMOUS (and perhaps impossibly speculative) task, I
> >think, or (2) an argument not merely from IRREDUCIBLE complexity, but
> >something like IMMUTABLE complexity, complexity such that change in any
> >direction -- a reduction, an increase, a substitution, a
> reversal, etc.-- on
> >any scale occurring in nature (one base pair, a contiguous group of base
> >pairs, etc.) would results in an overall dysfunctional system. Now THAT
> >would be an interesting proof, were it ever soundly
>
> Well that's *exactly* what Hoyle has done! Histone-4 *is* virtually
> "immutable" being invariant across the whole eukaryotic world at 98%
> of its 102 amino acid positions.
I don't think so -- see my quotes above. "Unchanged" is by no means
synonymous with "unchangeable."
>
> JR>Remember, Steve, I'm entirely open to ID theory being true.
> I'm simply not
> >open to bad arguments to that conclusion. And I think Hoyle's
> argument (as
> >summarized, at least) is a bad one.
>
> I am sure John sincerely thinks he is "open to ID theory being
> true" but in
> my experience he always raises the bar so it can never be true *for him*.
"True for [me]"?? .... I'm not raising or lowering the bar, and I'm pretty
undecided on the truth of ID (though I don't think it's yet scientific; but
that's independent of truth). I'm just pointing out what I see as defective
arguments.
>
> I would remind John of the true story I told Loren of a Pakistani manager
> who only ever employed Pakistani's, claiming he was not biased,
> but it was
> just that Pakistani's were always the best applicants!
>
> The fact is that John just dismisses both Behe and Hoyle's IC
> arguments as
> "bad" without ever actually read either of their books! That
> might be John's
> idea of a mind "entirely open to ID theory being true" but it is
> not mine.
>
> Steve
As you recall my saying, I refuted Hoyle as you presented him. I'm not
saying this means I refuted Hoyle.
John