Thinking About Creation: Irreducible Complexity Pt. 1

[Bacchant33rd]

There is a very important reason I bring up the motivation behind the pursuit of the field of baraminology. The scientific community does not even consider it a legitimate science. I search for it in academic databases & come up with nothing.

Baramin (ברא-מין): The term "baramin" was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind).

BUT, "Bara-min" just takes the bible out of context.

[Bacchant33rd]

Mind you, I'm not trying to be rude or put down anyone's beliefs, but I feel compelled to address baraminology. I am a Christian, but I do not read the bible literally because I read it the way it has traditionally been read for 1800 years. I bring this up because of the fact that barminology is a reaction against what fundamentalist (in the back-to-basics sense, not derrogatory sense) Christians consider the social consequenses of materialism, the source of which is scientific materialism.

[Bacchant33rd]

The fundamentalist Christian holds the bible as the ultimate authority. I would think that respecting the Good Book also entails using the Good Book in its proper context.

Biblical etymology of "bara min":

From Genesis chapter 1, mentioned in verse 1 at its earliest, word 2; "bara" (בָּרָא ), literally means "created."

From Genesis chapter 1, mentioned in verses 11-24 but most notably verse 12; "l'minehu" (לְמִינֵהוּ), literally means "in its own kind."

[Bacchant33rd]

Baraminology is considered a pseudo-science & the motivation for its pursuit tells the whole story. That is how I can tell that the etymology of the word "baramin" betrays the motivation behind speaking out against evolution. The term doesn't even etymologically respect the bible.

I understand the concern with materialism & the desire to combat it with Christian values, but putting oneself at odds with orthodox science is not the way to do it. Orthodox science is not the root of all evil.

[Bacchant33rd]

The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, & therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. Powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes & proteins associated with the flagellum & other & other cellular structures.

Bacteria threaten organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is by producing poisons & injecting them directly into the cells of the body.

[Bacchant33rd]

In order to do infect, bacteria not only must produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but also must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes & into the cells of their hosts. They do this by any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the Type III Secretory System (TTSS), allows gram-negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell.

[Bacchant33rd]

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of their hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of the proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact: the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in basal portion of the flagellum.

[baraminology]

Three things: (1) We haven't covered evolvability yet, so it seems you didn't bother to watch the video. (2) Your information has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. (3) Current studies show the TTSS to be derivative from the flagellum, not the other way around.

[Bacchant33rd]

1. I knew evolvability was eventually going to covered.

2. I watched the video. My information has everything to do with irreducible complexity because the flagellum story is what creationists or intelligent design proponents use to "prove" that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.

3. [this is a longer answer pertaining even more to irreducible complexity]

-the etymology of the word "baramin" betrays the the motivation behind the desire to speak out against evolution.

[Bacchant33rd]

3...The TTSS works by using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surpeising. In fact, it's to be expected that opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix & match proteins in order to produce new & novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible... (continued in the next reply).

[Bacchant33rd]

3 (continued). If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone ten or fifteen, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully functional even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum... (continued in the next reply.)

[Bacchant33rd]

3 (continued). We can tell that the flagellum developed from the TTSS because a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

[memoryofakiss]

in order for irreducible complexity to be scientific the scientific method itself would have to change.

at its heart IR makes a negative claim. "this object cannot function if it is missing any parts" and further assumes that it must have a function that does not vary and always had the same degree of importance.

[macguy]

I would like to give you my appreciations for creating such a video! I've been needing a simplistic introductory of Irreducible Complexity for my classmates. Just thought I'd drop by to say thanks as many people here are evolutionists blindly attacking your video as usual. They're a rather active voice these days.

[baraminology]

Thanks! And one thing to take particular notice of, is that, while many people say that IC is an argument from ignorance and only anti-evolution (instead of pro-design), this whole video on IC never mentions evolution once, is not a negative argument against anything. It just shows the connection between IC and design.

[Desertphile]

IC doesn't exist.

[baraminology]

Actually it does. If you remove any part from a flagellum, it ceases function. That has been shown experimentally. That is irreducible complexity. You may disagree with Behe as to whether or not it is evolvable via natural selection, but the fact that it is irreducibly complex has been shown experimentally by Scott Minnich.

[Desertphile]

"Actually it does."

No, it does not. Nobody can point to any feature in the biosphere and say it is "irreducibly complex." P.S., the flagellum is not irreducibly complex: dissassembled it still has functions--- just not the current functions.

And IC was called "Interlocking complexity" by Hermann Muller 89 years ago.

[baraminology]

"dissassembled it still has functions--- just not the current functions."

Right - but irreducible complexity deals with the current function, not others. By Behe's definition of IC, the flagellum is irreducibly complex.

[quiIl]

"Right - but irreducible complexity deals with the current function, not others."

That's basically just a position of pure stubbornness. "Sure, the flagellum could have evolved from a type-2 secretory system - but then it wouldn't have been a flagellum, so I still win." What a joke.

[quiIl]

Seriously, whoever said that it HAD to operate as a flagellum? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "The function of a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because if you take something away it functions equally well as something else." Maybe the problem is that science requires imagination.

[thrufaithalone]

"Seriously, whoever said that it HAD to operate as a flagellum?"

If it was functioning as something else before, why on earth would it develop into the flagellum?

Before responding please go to the site randommutationdotcom.

[quiIl]

"If it was functioning as something else before, why on earth would it develop into the flagellum?"

Because doing so confers a -useful survival advantage-. That's the whole point.

Before answering please use your imagination and maybe even make an honest attempt to understand the basics of how and why evolution occurs.

[quiIl]

That website of yours seriously made me feel like vomiting. You are missing the whole point about natural selection.

Mutations are random, but because of natural selection, only ones that enhance the product in some way are persist, because all the the others are weeded out.

This is basic stuff. You should have learned it in sixth grade.

[thrufaithalone]

DNA is a code; scientists willingly admit that. What does it take to write a code?

[quiIl]

NATURAL SELECTION.

[thrufaithalone]

No, it takes intelligence. Please read Perry Marshall's article (the learn more button on the site) He's also got an open forum going and has a link for that. At least listen to his Lucent presentation, ok?

[quiIl]

Oh gee, you're right. The whole science of paleontology, to say nothing of archeology, anthropology or geology is nothing but one vast conspiracy against the truth. Every natural history museum and every university bio department around the world is in on it. That's pretty much what you have to believe before you can reject evolution. Thank you, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist, for opening my eyes.

But seriously, get an education.

[thrufaithalone]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Science draws conclusions from facts:

"All languages, codes, protocols and encoding (or) decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind-there are no known exceptions"

"DNA is a language a code a protocol and an encoding (or) decoding mechanism"

"Therefore DNA came from a mind"

You can challenge Perry Marshall on this on the "Infidels" discussion board.

[baraminology]

Paleontology doesn't say anything about DNA, nor does anthropology or geology. Mathematics does say a lot about codes, and you should read the following article from a math journal: "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent" Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals 28:4. Some biologists are starting to catch on. See "Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life" Cell Biology International 28:11.

[quiIl]

"Mathematics does say a lot about codes, and you should read the following article from a math journal: "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent""

Oh, no kidding? You mean biological characteristics are actually determined by the structure of an organism's DNA?

I think you just grasped the founding principle of evolution and all genetics, but how on earth does that imply design?

[baraminology]

Except that it is wrong.  Mutations are not random. Most biochemists know this, but the zoologists are unwilling to admit they were wrong. This is why the upcoming debate at Cornell University _presupposes_ for BOTH sides that natural selection is not the cause of evolution.

[quiIl]

If "most biochemists know this", then something's not adding up since only a miniscule portion of them, a fraction of a fraction of 1%, have endorsed Behe's claims in the 20 years that he's been promulgating them. And that the overall zoological community is currently involved in a conspiracy of science, collectively unable to admit a shared mistake, is, I think, a damning inditement of your respect for the scientific method.

[baraminology]

"then something's not adding up since only a miniscule portion of them, a fraction of a fraction of 1%, have endorsed Behe's claims"

You are confusing the facts with their implications. The fact of nonrandom mutation is well-known. The implication that this signifies intelligent design is not as well agreed-upon. For a perspective on this, google "Third Way" and "Shapiro". I don't think zoologists are in a conspiracy, they simply haven't moved past the 1940s conception of biochemistry.

[baraminology]

As for a collective body unable to admit a shared mistake, this occurs in every discipline. (1) The scientific method doesn't make people immune from being people, and (2) the standard scientific method is not what operates in evolutionary theory anyway. Most lay people don't know that evolution follows other rules. See Mayr's "Philosophical Foundations of Darwinism".

[quiIl]

I think we've been able to show here that your criticism of evolution is really nothing more than a game of sophistry. "Main capacity", lol.

Again if you're willing to believe that the whole scientific world is taking part in a vast conspiracy, ID is for you. Have fun with it.

[Desertphile]

"...why on earth would it develop into the flagellum?"

Nested hierarchy. That is how evolution works.

[baraminology]

That might be an interesting point if life was a nested hierarchy. But then you have the duck-billed platapus, lots of marsupials, the octopus eye, and so many other things that blow the concept of a nested hierarchy out of the water.

[baraminology]

So now you are going to imagine solutions without testing them and assume they work? I thought science was about testing. Behe made a testable definition. Whether or not you agree with the implications he assigns to IC for evolvability, making testable predictions and then doing the tests are much more scientific than simply imagining what you personally think might possibly work somehow.

[quiIl]

"So now you are going to imagine solutions without testing them and assume they work?"

We already do know that nested hierarchies work. Laboratory observations have been confirming that for years (there have never any laboratory experiments conducted to demonstrate irreducible complexity or ID, by the way). So yes, an inference extrapolated from a known process found in nature is given more credibility than one completely made up.

[baraminology]

"there have never any laboratory experiments conducted to demonstrate irreducible complexity or ID, by the way"

Scott Minnich did knock-out experiments on every gene in the flagellum. Each one prevented it from swimming. By definition, this means that it was irreducibly complex. This has been done.

[quiIl]

"Scott Minnich did knock-out experiments on every gene in the flagellum. Each one prevented it from swimming."

Again that does not in any way imply design, nor does it make it irreducibly complex. At the Dover trial, in which Scott Minnich was a lead expert witness, he was asked to provide an example of a peer-reviewed paper in support of ID, and he had to reply that there were none.

[baraminology]

"nor does it make it irreducibly complex"

It does make it irreducibly complex -- that's the definition!!!

"peer-reviewed paper in support of ID"

Not explicitly (i.e. using the words ID), but there are many who do so implicitly. In fact, its almost a joke that you can get almost any paper published on ID as long as you begin it with a disclaimer about the paper not being about ID or don't mention ID at all.

[quiIl]

"Not explicitly (i.e. using the words ID), but there are many who do so implicitly."

Nonsense. The expert witnesses for the defense in the Dover case were asked to provide any such papers and under examination, they simply could not.

[baraminology]

Ross and Dembski have published papers in non-ID journals showing both why and how (including experiments) evolutionary systems must have pre-existing information to work.

Stapp and Schwartz have done experiments to help determine how minds impact the material world.

Denton does experimental research in protein folds to show how pre-existing platonic forms is the best explanation of biological form.

[quiIl]

"Ross and Dembski have published papers in non-ID journals showing both why and how (including experiments) evolutionary systems must have pre-existing information to work."

That's a false claim. Again at Dover, they were asked for such papers. They presented one, but after cross-examination, had to admit that it actually did not present evidence against evolution after all.

[quiIl]

"Behe made a testable definition. Whether or not you agree with the implications he assigns to IC for evolvability, making testable predictions and then doing the tests are much more scientific than simply imagining what you personally think might possibly work somehow."

Actually, one of the important conclusions reached at the Dover trial was that Behe was unable to provide any testable predictions regarding ID. I really think you should read that memorandum. :/

[baraminology]

Actually, first of all, the definition was in place long before anyone every brought up type 3 secretory systems. Also, it isn't about winning, it is about science. The definition Behe gave was empirical. But as with most things empirical it doesn't answer all questions.

[baraminology]

In addition, a lot of modern research is showing that the TTSS evolved _from the flagellum_, not the other way around. As I mentioned earlier, the beginning of life is where the complexity likely originated.

[Desertphile]

"Right - but irreducible complexity deals with the current function, not others."

But evolution works via nested hierarchies: therefore "irreducible complexity" does not exist--- one cannot point to anything in life that is IC.

[baraminology]

You are confusing Irreducible Complexity and the evolvability of irreducibly complex structures. The bacterial flagellum _is_ an IC structure, and has been shown to be so experimentally. We'll cover evolvability next, but remember, Behe agrees that the flagellum is evolvable. The question is whether or not RM+NS is capable.

[quiIl]

"The bacterial flagellum _is_ an IC structure, and has been shown to be so experimentally."

Ridiculous. It's "irreducibly complex" if you mean in the sense that if you take something away from it, it functions perfectly well in another capacity, but that does nothing at all to detract from the feasibility from the structure of being evolved through standard Darwinian means, does it? No, it does not.

[baraminology]

"if you mean...if you take something away from it, it functions...in another capacity"

If it doesn't function in its main capacity then it's IC.

"that does nothing at all to detract from ..being evolved through...Darwinian"

It does, and I'll cover that more in the next video. Look at the # of parts and configurations which separate that subordinate system from the flagellum, and realize that the cell has to both produce it _and_ integrate it with the cell, with each step selectable.

[Desertphile]

"If it doesn't function in its main capacity then it's IC."

There is no such thing as a "main function" regarding mutation and natural selection: function follows form, not the other way around.

Surely this is bloody obvious.

[quiIl]

And by what criteria do you get to decide what function is its "main capacity?" This is really quite hilarious. Clearly your definition of "main capacity" is whatever function it presently performs, and by that definition, if I took away one protein so that it became a type-2 secretory system and showed it to you, you would say its "main capacity" was that of a type-2 secretory system.

[quiIl]

This is turning into nothing more than a refusal to admit that you were wrong.

[baraminology]

Hmmmm.... I've pointed out experiments and evidence, peer-reviewed journal articles contradicting nearly everything you've said, yet I'm the one who refuses to admit I'm wrong. Right.

[quiIl]

No you haven't. :P

[baraminology]

"Clearly your definition of "main capacity" is whatever function it presently performs"

Would you define "main capacity" as a function it does not perform? That would be hilarious. In any case, you obviously haven't even bothered to watch the video, as I specifically mentioned this vagueness as being an issue with irreducible complexity. However, in the case of the flagellum, I am not aware of anyone who thinks that motility is not its main function.

[quiIl]

"However, in the case of the flagellum, I am not aware of anyone who thinks that motility is not its main function."

The "main function" of any biological trait is whatever function that it happens to perform at a given time. To suggest that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because if it evolved from anything else, those things would not have fulfilled its "main function", is an absurd piece of sophistry at best. Their "main functions" in those cases would be quite different.

[quiIl]

You're actually suggesting to us that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because anything it evolved from would not have been a flagellum. That is patently absurd and ignores the whole point of evolution, which is that one trait can evolve out of another. Really I could not think of any more intellectually vapid argument you could be making.

[Desertphile]

"The bacterial flagellum _is_ an IC structure, and has been shown to be so experimentally."

Er, no. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Random mutation and natural selection are observed to be fully capable of producing interlocking complexity. By the way, there are severasl videos on YouTube (a few by Christians) that explain why the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

[Chrismoore1281]

Search "Ken Miller, Intelligent Design." This argument is totally dead.

[baraminology]

I'm very familiar with Ken Miller's arguments. He tends to erect straw men and then attack them with vigor.

[Chrismoore1281]

Give me one example of a straw man that Miller erected in that video... You can try, but you are only being willfully ignorant. There is simply no denying evolution.

[baraminology]

Which video, specifically? Any of his?

[ygolohcysPesreveR]

Irreducible Complexity was created by creationists, and like quill said, it is no longer valid...game over...study real science

[quiIl]

Furthermore, anyone can understand how evolution accounts for things that APPEAR to be irreducibly complex (they're not).

As an example, if you took away an owl's specially adapted irises, it would not be able to survive, because it could not hunt at night. But instead of trying to label an owl as irreducibly complex, just use your friggin' imagination. Its evolutionary ancestors, hunting during the day, would have been just fine.

Again, what a joke.

[baraminology]

I think you didn't actually watch the video. The video did not even cover evolvability. In addition, you are confusing irreducible complexity with evolvability.

[quiIl]

No, the video did not cover evolvability, that's my point. What you call irreducibly complex is, in fact, evolvable. Thank you.

[baraminology]

I agree. So does Behe. He always has. What he disagrees with is whether or not it is evolvable via random mutation and natural selection.

[quiIl]

Let me repeat myself:

What you call irreducibly complex is completely evolvable by random mutation and natural selection, and has been shown to be thus for a very, very long time.

As the person earlier said, this is a totally dead argument.

[quiIl]

The only reason "intelligent design" even existed as a hypothesis was that "creation science" was deemed unconstitutional subject matter for public school science curricula in the 1980s and the creationists needed a new Trojan horse to bring before schoolboards. And now that ID has been ruled unconstitional as well, even the Discovery Institute is no longer seriously advocating it. Game Over.

[baraminology]

It's the genetic fallacy, folks! Not only that, it is using a made-up version of history to base it on!

[baraminology]

"completely evolvable by random mutation and natural selection"

This part is false.

[quiIl]

This is a complete joke. Not even Michael Behe believes in irreducible complexity anymore. None of his supposed examples held up under scientific scrutiny in court and in his latest book he freely admits that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with apes. Give It A Rest.

[baraminology]

"Not even Michael Behe believes in irreducible complexity anymore."

This is false.

[quiIl]

No, read his new book. In The Edge of Evolution, Behe accepts every part of Darwinian evolution. His only point of departure now is that he insists God suprenaturally selects which mutations are going to occur, as opposed to them occurring more or less randomly.

[baraminology]

I've read EoE. It goes MUCH FURTHER than Darwin's Black Box. Everything in DBB is taken for granted, and then he shows why IC systems are not the only types of systems which cannot evolve via random mutation and natural selection.

[quiIl]

No, he accepts both natural selection and mutation as well as the evolution of all life from a universal common ancestor. He only maintains that the mutations which fuel natural selection are predetermined by his "designer", i.e. non-random in nature, which is a thoroughly debunked claim.

[baraminology]

"i.e. non-random in nature"

That's exactly what I said - random mutation.

"which is a thoroughly debunked claim."

Then you haven't been reading the literature. Here's an entire volume dedicated to the phenomenon: Molecular Strategies for Biological Evolution

[baraminology]

"non-random...which is a thoroughly debunked claim."

Hmmm...let's see:

yrl5b8

22ryw9

2hwlcl

yoswb9

(put all of those into tinyurl dot com)

[quiIl]

Those URLs were totally irrelevant to the claim you're making. Did you even read them? x_x

The very first of them was an article on genetic engineering. Yes, I know it's possible to alter a genome artificially. We're not talking about whether or not a genome could theoretically be designed. We're talking about whether or not that's the way it happens in the wild when an animal's genome mutates, and it does not. Anyone who understands DNA replication knows that.

[quiIl]

Every DNA molecule mutates a little every single time it goes through replication, and yes, those mutations are entirely random since they are simply copy errors in the duplicate. This is NOT hypothetical, this is simply a fact, which has been known to genetics since genome sequencing was first invented, and is not going to be reversed by any lack of understanding on your part.

[quiIl]

What ygolohcysPesreveR said yesterday was right on target. In regards to intelligent design, it's simply dead. The game is over and the players have left the field. ID never had any intellectual merit to begin with - it was a political movement, not a scientific one - and even the political movement is now over and forgotten, so give it a rest already.

[baraminology]

It's randomness has actualy been presumed, not evidenced. Checked the papers I referenced.

[baraminology]

"Those URLs were totally irrelevant to the claim you're making"

"A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutation" is irrelevant for whether or not mutation is random?

"The very first of them was an article on genetic engineering."

None of them were on genetic engineering. Check them again.

[quiIl]

"A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutation" is irrelevant for whether or not mutation is random?"

Yes, dude, it is. You are misrepresenting that article and I very much doubt you read it. We all know processes by which nonrandom mutation can occur. It's not a question of can, it's a question of whether that's how it happens in the wild, and that question has already answered and the answers is no.

[quiIl]

Furthermore, those articles are not even talking about "nonrandom" mutations in the ID sense, meaning mutations planned and performed by an intelligent agency. They're just talking about ways in which mutations sometimes occur in predictable patterns rather than completely at random. None of those articles suggest that mutations are nonrandom in the sense that they are planned. You're just grasping for straws.

[baraminology]

You are confusing "planned" and "performed". Those are two different things. Most ID'ers think that the mutations were planned at the origin of life, rather than performed throughout its history. What happens in history is mechanical, but is based on already-encoded information.

[quiIl]

If those nonrandom mutations of yours did not involve anything other than the laws of nature acting upon the organism throughout its evolutionary history, then some might call that, what? Natural selection. Your argument brings nothing new to the table except to say "yes, all of this happens because of natural events, but someone knew those natural events were going to happen." So what?

[baraminology]

"then some might call that, what? Natural selection."

Incorrect. The entire point of "natural selection" is that the designing element of organisms is the environment. If the organisms are built to produce beneficial variations themselves, then natural selection is a subservient, not a primary, agent in change.

[baraminology]

The way this affects biology is that (a) it no longer needs to be assumed that life began simply and then became complex. In fact, it makes a good case that when it started it was probably more complex than it is today.

[baraminology]

(b) the genome's coding may have multilayered semantics. That is, the origination of the genome may have a formal semantic model that it follows, rather than the happenstance of history.

[baraminology]

(c) it actually removes most of the evidence for common ancestry.  Most of common ancestry and phylogenetics is based on the _assumption_ that life started simply and diversified a small step at a time, if that is not true, then phylogeny needs to be redeveloped in terms of original patterns instead of evolutionary history.

[baraminology]

As for predictable patterns, there is a difference between something which is simply a pattern, and something which is both a pattern and useful to the organism. These patterns are both - which is indicative of planning.

[quiIl]

No, it isn't, because the whole point of natural selection is that it forces random mutations to conform to a nonrandom pattern. It doesn't require intelligence to do so, it only requires the simple basic laws of nature to be established. Nature works blindly all the time to achieve things you are suggesting require intelligent intervention. They do not.

[baraminology]

One of the things that ID is working to do is to establish information as a fundamental principle of science. It is already implicit in certain fields, but ID moves to make it explicit. Your use of the phrase "blind" in connection with natural processes shows the bias here. An informationally-directed process is not blind, even if it is fully physical. My computer works on entirely natural processes, but its working is not blind.

[quiIl]

"Your use of the phrase "blind"... shows the bias here. An informationally-directed process is not blind..."

When geneticists use the term "genetic information", they are using the word "information" simply to describe the structure of an organic molecule. When a molecule replicates itself and mutates, that is, yes, a blind process, since it is driven ONLY by the laws of nature exerting pressure upon the molecule, not by the deliberate intervention of some exterior intelligence. xD

[baraminology]

Do you consider the actions of a computer processing being "blind" even when it is driven ONLY by the laws of nature exerting pressure upon the molecule without intervention?  For instance, if I write a program to summarize all the data in a database, is that blind? After I start it, there is no intervention, but that doesn't make the program's action "blind".

[quiIl]

Evolution is a blind process because it does not require any form of intelligence to work. It only requires the laws of nature exerting pressure upon molecules and later organisms in the physical world, which, as those organisms press against such laws, are forced to conform to specific patterns which are defined by them.

[baraminology]

"in his latest book he freely admits that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with apes."

He freely admitted that in his first book. What does that have to do with anything?

[baraminology]

"None of his supposed examples held up under scientific scrutiny"

Please give an example so we can discuss it.

[quiIl]

An example? Are you kidding?

If you've been following along with the whole intelligent design thing, then you know it completely exploded under scientific scrutiny in the Dover trial. All of the examples Behe originally gave in Darwin's Black Box - flagella, blood clotting - were refuted, until he admitted under oath that they had been. Pete Minnich said after the ruling that intelligent design had been "decapitated".

[baraminology]

No I'm not kidding. But the limited space we have prevents a good discussion unless you want to limit the topic further.

[quiIl]

I'm not going to limit the topic further because you know very well those claims have been debunked for a long time and it was shameful for Behe to repeat them in his first book.