From Newsgroup: talk.origins

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example-of-irreducible-complexity/

Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are resurrecting that old creationist argument. They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it is
a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.

Karl Crawford championed the scientific creationist evolution denial
argument about the impossibility for woodpeckers to have evolved, and obviously some god was needed in order to create such a bird. It was
pretty much like the scientific creationist argument that the bacterial flagellum had to be a designed machine. Gish would routinely put up a
slide of a flagellum and make that argument. The ID perps seem to think
that both woodpeckers and flagellum are their type of irreducibly
complex. That should tell you how bogus irreducible complexity has
always been for creationists like they have a the Discovery Institute.
Behe claims that his type of irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved by natural means, but nothing that the ID perps have ever called irreducibly complex was ever demonstrated to not be evolvable by natural means. Behe and the other ID perps have just made the claims, and have
never even attempted to verify that their claims have any validity.
Both Behe and Minnich lied about IC being scientifically testable during
the Kitzmiller court case, and both acknowledged that they had never
attempted such testing even though they both put up the same possible
bogus test. No verification attempts have ever been attempted as far as anyone is concerned, because if any testing has been done, the ID perps haven't published any results of the testing, and that court case
happened 20 years ago. The bench trial started Sept. 26, 2005.

I do not think that Crawford ever claimed to support the ID scam. There
was some overlap, I think Crawford was still posting when the Wedge
document was leaked to the public, but ID was only a minor part of the
TO discussions in the late 1990's. The old earth creationists running
the ID scam were pushing YEC like Crawford to extinction with their
incessant claims that ID perps were not as bogus as the scientific creationists even though several of the original fellows had been
scientific creationists, and the ID perps had adopted their gap denial arguments (the scientific creationists had routinely used all of the ID
perp's Top Six gap denial arguments).

I just posted a couple posts in a recent thread demonstrating that the
10 icons of evolution creationist obfuscation and denial arguments in
Wells' book were routinely used in the Gish gallop. So even the ID
perp's obfuscation and denial switch scam, that they give the rubes
instead of any ID science, came from the Scientific Creationists, even
though the ID perps claim that the obfuscation and denial switch scam
has nothing to do with ID nor creationism.

Ron Okimoto


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example- of-irreducible-complexity/

Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it is
a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.

That's a hell of a way to begin a post.

---snip---

Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address. What does interest me is the accusation
that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes." This is how Ron talks...i
get it.

He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the
example is irreducibly complex. I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is
their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at. The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors. Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has
and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.

The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship." Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming
"Life finds a way." I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real. If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.

But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the
human eye. The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.

https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/

The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the
necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement. Somehow, we are supposed to believe
that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations. That's all you get, chance. Even if in the early stages of
eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it. It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.

Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time. Someone else can, but to me the
example is obvious. It simply did not happen on it's own. I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it. Evolution does not
have the required tools.

Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct? Of course not. It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.





















--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:

On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example- of-irreducible-complexity/

Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.

That's a hell of a way to begin a post.

---snip---

Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how Ron talks...i
get it.

Yes, you have to get past that.

He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.

This is a fine example of the argument from incredulity. "It sure seems
to me that this wouldn't happen without ID". Can you see that this is
not a compelling argument?

The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.

Creationists frequently seem unable to understand what metaphors are.
But surely you can?

But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.

https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/

The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.-a Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it.-a It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.

Another argument from incredulity, combined with a straw-man
evolutionary scenario.

Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution does not
have the required tools.

Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.

And yet we have no evidence of anything else happening. We have no
evidence that any genetic differences among species are in any way other
than unguided and random before being winnowed by selection. Where is
positive evidence of any sort of ID process anywhere in nature? Personal incredulity is not evidence.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

sticks wrote:

On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example- of-irreducible-complexity/


Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.

That's a hell of a way to begin a post.

---snip---

Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how Ron talks...i
get it.

He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.

The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.

But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.

https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/

The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.-a Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it.-a It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to maintain that incredulity when you assiduously
avoid even a cursory search for things that upset your apple cart. Here
you go- this is over 20 years old, at the talk origins website (www.talkorigins.org) that I suggested to you:

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

And here's this on evolution of oculomotor neurons and muscles:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960224000177

That one popped up with a 0.5 second delay from Google.

Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution does not
have the required tools.

Many years ago I helped mentor a student doing a bacterial growth study.
She showed me her data and I asked her where the 12-hour number was. She replied, "Oh, I didn't bother taking that measurement. I knew what it
was going to be." She didn't last in the research program.

Chris

Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/30/2025 3:54 PM, sticks wrote:

On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/

Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.

That's a hell of a way to begin a post.

Spot on description of the article.

---snip---

Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how Ron talks...i
get it.

It is a lie, and they know that they are lying, because their definition
of IC includes the claim that their type of IC system is something that
cannot have evolved, but they obviously have never demonstrated that for
the woodpecker or anything else. By the turn of the century Behe had
admitted that IC systems (a system of interacting parts where if you
take away one part the system loses it's function) could evolve by
natural means, but he maintained that his type of IC systems could not
have evolved. Since that admission 25 years ago Behe has failed to
verify that his type of IC systems exist in nature. This means that
whenever the ID perps claim that something is IC they are lying. After
25 years of failure, they know that they are lying about any system
being their type of IC. The best that they can do at this time is
continue to claim that some system might be their type of IC system. It
is a stupid god-of-the-gaps argument. Since we have not yet determined
how woodpeckers and flagellum evolved they can still claim that the
system might be their type of IC.

He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.

God-of-the-gaps is just stupid and dishonest. Just because they claim
that the gaps can't be filled doesn't mean much. You need to consider
the 100% failure rate of filling these gaps with some god. Just think
of all the god-did-it claims that have been shown to be false once we
have figured out what was really going on.

The Bible has been interpreted to claim that a flat earth was created in
a geocentric universe, just a few thousand years ago in 6 days (or for
old earth creationists, 6 periods of time). The Hebrew cosmology has
the heavenly bodies embedded in a firmament above the earth that their
god opened up to let the rain fall through. It was the flat earth
geocentric cosmology that they got from their neighbors who had been
civilized for a longer period of time. All of these god-did-it claims
have been falsified by replacing them with what actually is happening or
what actually exists. There has actually been a 100% failure rate for god-did-it claims. Not a single verified god-did-it success. All the
ones that we have been able to check out, it turned out that the
god-did-it explanation was wrong. These claims were not testable when
they were first made, and it took a lot of hard work to figure out what actually happened or was happening.

The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.

There is no doubt that some that claim to be on the science side are
just as nuts and and or incompetent as the ID perps. Over stating your
case and misapplication of terminology is part of human nature, and
scientists are human. The thing about science is that it is self
correcting, and things get knocked down to what they should have been,
and things move forward. This never happens for the ID scam, nor for scientific creationism that came before the ID scam. The ID perps still
use the god-of-the-gaps arguments that the scientific creationists used
to use. The ID perps Top Six best god-of-the-gaps evidence for ID were
all used by the scientific creationists. For scientific creationists woodpeckers were birds that could not have evolved, and for ID perps woodpeckers are IC (could not have evolved).

But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.

https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/

You likely have to figure out the difference between fish eyes and
tetrapod eyes. You would be talking about the evolution that occurred
as eyes were evolving into what jawed vertebrates have. Vertebrate eyes
were evolving in the ancestors of extant jawless fish.

The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.-a Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it.-a It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.

Just because you can't imagine how something happened, doesn't mean much
in science. Instead of retreating to god-did-it and stopping there
(that is all IC is good for) you need to figure out how god-did-it. If
it happened like the "novel" structures that have a more clear
evolutionary path like the fingers of your hand. You can see that the designer built onto an existing wrist structure of lobefin fish. The individual fingers are duplications of extensions from that wrist. The designer repurposes existing structures by duplicating them and then
using the duplicate copy for something new. You likely need to look for
the muscle that existed before the superior oblique existed. You would
be looking for muscles and nerves that existed in the early head before
eyes evolved. They would likely be cells derived from the neural
ectoderm that makes tissue inside the head. The neural crest evolved in ancestors of jawless fish and is responsible for forming the vertebrate
head around the brain (central nervous system). That is what I have
figured out in the last few months as I have tried to understand when melanocytes evolved (they are derived from the neural crest).

Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution does not
have the required tools.

That is the problem with god-of-the-gaps. It is a science stopper, and nothing more than that. You were never interested in getting an actual answer. Jawless fish may have existed during the Cambrian explosion
over half a billion years ago. Eyes would have been evolving (or being designed) before and during this time. The real issue for you should be
that this gap is not Biblical. This god created eyes out of Biblical
order. The Cambrian explosion started around 200 million years before
the first land plants evolved from fresh water algae, so there were sea creatures existing before the third day or period of time, not only
that, but the ancestors of the crop plants described as being created on
the third day would not evolve until after dinos were walking around on
this planet.

MarkE can't deal with the fact that the god that fills his gaps is not Biblical. Just ask him for a straightforward statement on how filling
the origin of life gap with a non Biblical god affects his Biblical
religious beliefs. None of the gaps support the Biblical creation
described in the Bible. The Supreme court was correct in telling the scientific creationists that gap denial was no support for their
Biblical alternative. Even if you could fill the gap with some god the
Bible would just be demonstrated to be wrong. Since your Biblical
beliefs are the basis for your gap denial, you are just shooting
yourself in the head. Once this fact was made clear to the IDiots
posting on TO when the ID perps put out the Top Six god-of-the-gaps
denial arguments in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe it was game over for most of the Biblical creationist IDiots.
They quit supporting the ID creationist scam. They could no longer
support the ID scam because if the ID perps ever did produce any real
science supporting ID it would just be more science for them to deny.

Ron Okimoto

Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/30/2025 8:07 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

sticks wrote:

On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/

Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it
in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and
it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was
just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.

That's a hell of a way to begin a post.

---snip---

Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the
accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that
it is given to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how
Ron talks...i get it.

He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the
example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it
is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to
the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply
something that defied how this could have happened with unguided
mutations or genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the
woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something
that seems guided to completion.

The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process
by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of
engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother
Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real
evolutionists at their word and accept that those things simply aren't
real.-a If Ron were aligned with the ID crowd, he would say they're
simply nice words and phrases we can use to fool the evolutionist rubes.

But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in
the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just
doesn't work with evolutionary processes.

https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/

The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar
push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the
necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the
trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed
to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the
engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the
trochlea pulley, and figured out how to get the superior oblique to
thread itself through this tool, and attach itself to the eyeball all
on its own, and by chance mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.
Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this
rotation was desired, the eye still could not just simply grow it.-a It
just happened by accident, over a long period of time, and then
selection won over and we all get one now.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to maintain that incredulity when you assiduously avoid even a cursory search for things that upset your apple cart. Here
you go- this is over 20 years old, at the talk origins website (www.talkorigins.org) that I suggested to you:

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

And here's this on evolution of oculomotor neurons and muscles:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960224000177

That one popped up with a 0.5 second delay from Google.

The article is paywalled at this link, but you can access an open access
copy from PubMed.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38346566/

It is a review of what was known by 2024. Just as I assumed they trace
the tissue origins of the nerves and muscles. You can think of it as
some type of tissue or cell duplication where one copy is allowed to
develop into a new structure. It isn't just cell types that can be duplicated. A mutation in how a single gene is regulated can add an
extra finger to your hand. It is how new structures evolve in
multicellular animals. Things are just added to what existed before.
All the changes have to work within the frame work of what is already
working.

MarkE put up the paper demonstrating that nearly all the genes needed to
fuel the Cambrian explosion could be documented to have evolved during
the several billion years when life was limited to microbial life forms,
and that the vast majority of "new" genes had evolved by duplication of existing genes. MarkE wanted to claim that too many new genes were
needed, but few de novo new genes had evolved during this time. Most of
them had evolved from existing genes, but then evolved a new function.
This may have been expected because we already knew that nearly all
existing genes belong to gene families. When a protein coding gene
evolves from non coding DNA sequence. It may have an open reading frame
that codes for a protein, but most possible protein sequences do not
fold into stable structures. When they look at such de novo evolved
genes they have to go through a period of selection for more consistent folding into a stable 3D structure before they become reliably
functional. It turns out that you can take an existing protein sequence
and change it a bit to make it do something else and you skip the
process of getting it to fold into a stable structure.

My example is always Abzymes. They can get antibodies to evolve
specific enzymatic activity in a single immune response, so in less than
2 trillion (the number of antibody sequences trials has to be less than
the number of cells in a mouse) sequence trials you can evolve a new
enzyme activity in an existing antibody sequence. The ID perps make a
big deal about the small amount of protein space that life occupies, but
the sequence space is such a minor fraction of what is available because
that is all nature has needed to search to find the protein sequences
needed for life on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abzyme

Mike Gene was an IDiotic creationist supporter of the ID scam, probably,
from the beginning of the existing ID scam. He was likely the most scientifically inclined supporters of the ID creationist scam at their
ARN discussion group and claimed to have attended the early ID perp conferences with the Discovery Institute fellows. Mike Gene was a
pseudonym and Gene never revealed his real name, but claimed to be a scientist. Gene didn't quit supporting the ID scam until a couple years
after Kitzmiller, but he eventually admitted that the ID science had
never existed. Gene could not give up on the gap denial, so he started
making claims that his god was responsible for front loading the initial
genes needed for current functional lifeforms. He started claiming that
his creator was responsible for creating the first members of the gene families that exist in nature. After these initial creations, the gene
family could evolve and diversify. As MarkE found out these gene
families evolved and diversified over a very long period of time.
Reality just does not support the Biblical version of creation.

Ron Okimoto>

Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this
way? I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me
the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I
really don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution
does not have the required tools.

Many years ago I helped mentor a student doing a bacterial growth study.
She showed me her data and I asked her where the 12-hour number was. She replied, "Oh, I didn't bother taking that measurement. I knew what it
was going to be." She didn't last in the research program.

Chris

Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence
was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker
tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does
not have the tools to come up with these solutions for these two
features.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2