[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[Barbarian]

I certainly expect Adam to have all the same parts modern humans have, regardless of how he "looked."

Chimps pretty much do, also. Chimp brains might be a bit smaller than ours, but they have all the same parts.

I also expect he had the same intellect.

God doesn't say so.

I'm believe except for Adam and Eve, no human ever existed that wasn't born from them.

That would go a long way back. Humans appeared a few million years ago. Not our own species, but humans.

If I heard correctly (this was decades ago) scientists theorized that modern man came from one set of perents.

Seems likely. And I think the Bible is pretty clear that we are all from one pair of humans.

That does make God special.

More special would be to create a universe that would bring everything into existence as He intended. Like the earth bringing forth living things. Stuff like that.

It means he let the science teacher dictate what God couldn't do or wouldn't do.

All things are possible with God. But that doesn't mean that He did everything that was possible.

He got knocked off the solid foundation of Christ by the science teachers seemingly insurmountable amount of evidence.

Kinda hard to deny something in evidence, yes.

People don't even question what they're being taught.

I think most people are smarter than that.

 

[journeyman]

Yeah, that's pretty much the case. Speed of light in a vacuum is very well-established. There's no out here. Either the universe is ancient, or those supernovae were faked.

Some try to argue that the speed of light changed. But that won't work. The speed of light is tied to radioactive breakdown, and if that speed was significantly faster a few thousand years ago, the increased ionizing radiation would have fried all life on Earth.

I wonder if you have a theory about how the heavens' aren't big enough to contain our God, who is a consuming fire, but doesn't consume the heavens now?
Your backwards. You're assuming God bows to nature.

Some say God is testing our faith. But that goes back to a deceptive God, which He is not.

It's no different from God sending someone a deceiving spirit. People are led into temptation by their own foolishness.

I saw another thing (but this one by christians) where they showed how the plagues of Egypt could have happened in concert with science. It was entertaining, but take the Bibles' word for it anyway.

 

[journeyman]

God doesn't say so.

Not if you think "made in Gods' image" has nothing to do with human intellect.

That would go a long way back. Humans appeared a few million years ago. Not our own species, but humans.

"Species" is a term which is used to place humans into a catagory they don't belong.

More special would be to create a universe that would bring everything into existence as He intended. Like the earth bringing forth living things. Stuff like that.

All things are possible with God. But that doesn't mean that He did everything that was possible.

Kinda hard to deny something in evidence, yes.

The evidence doesn't show that mankind and whales have a common ancestor. I can't believe I even have to point this out.

I think most people are smarter than that.

I used to, but since I learned a lot of things I was taught in church aren't true, I don't anymore.

 

[Barbarian]

God doesn't say so.

Not if you think "made in Gods' image" has nothing to do with human intellect.

If you think the difference in intellect between H. erectus and H.sapiens is significant in relation to God, then you are grossly underestimating God.
That would go a long way back. Humans appeared a few million years ago. Not our own species, but humans.

"Species" is a term which is used to place humans into a catagory they don't belong.

Use whatever terms you want; the facts remain. Humans appeared a few million years ago.

The evidence doesn't show that mankind and whales have a common ancestor.

DNA evidence, fossil transitionals, and anatomical data show that they have a common ancestor. It's just a lot more distant than apes and humans. Genetically, humans and whales are boreoeutherians.

Like Quote Reply

Report

 

[Barbarian]

I wonder if you have a theory about how the heavens' aren't big enough to contain our God, who is a consuming fire, but doesn't consume the heavens now?

That's a metaphor. Fire is a physical thing, and God is a spirit.

You're assuming God bows to nature.

I'm pointing out that God uses nature for His purposes. Could He have miraculously faked the light? Sure. But He is not deceptive.

I saw another thing (but this one by christians) where they showed how the plagues of Egypt could have happened in concert with science.

People who bother with such things miss the whole point of the story He's telling us.

 

[journeyman]

God doesn't say so.

If you think the difference in intellect between H. erectus and H.sapiens is significant in relation to God, then you are grossly underestimating God.
That would go a long way back. Humans appeared a few million years ago. Not our own species, but humans.


Use whatever terms you want; the facts remain. Humans appeared a few million years ago.


DNA evidence, fossil transitionals, and anatomical data show that they have a common ancestor. It's just a lot more distant than apes and humans. Genetically, humans and whales are boreoeutherians.

See what I mean? Just because some animals are born and breast feed they're related. They're "boreceutherians".
And here's the good news...humans are in that category so they're related to whales because humans give birth and breast feed.
I have the same uncle as whales. Monkeys too. Sea monkeys.

 

[Barbarian]

See what I mean? Just because some animals are born and breast feed they're related.

That and genetic data and transitional fossils and... you know. What YE creationist Dr. Wise says is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. The phylogeny I showed you is based on DNA. But you can do the same thing on highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C. Here:

And all this was first noted by Linnaeus on anatomical data, hundreds of years ago. He didn't know what to make of it, but he recognized it was important:

And here's the good news...humans are in that category so they're related to whales because humans give birth and breast feed.

And DNA, transitional fossils, anatomical data, cytochrome C, etc. indicates humans are mammals, but whales are not boreoeutherians. They belong to the group that includes carnivores and ungulates.

I have the same uncle as whales.

Well both of you are placental mammals, anyway. Rather distantly, but still have a common mammalian ancestor.

Monkeys too.

More closely. Humans and monkeys differ by (IIRC) three amino acids in cytochrome C.

Sea monkeys.

Different phylum. Sorry.

 

[journeyman]

That and genetic data and transitional fossils and... you know. What YE creationist Dr. Wise says is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. The phylogeny I showed you is based on DNA. But you can do the same thing on highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C. Here:

And all this was first noted by Linnaeus on anatomical data, hundreds of years ago. He didn't know what to make of it, but he recognized it was important:

And DNA, transitional fossils, anatomical data, cytochrome C, etc. indicates humans are mammals, but whales are not boreoeutherians. They belong to the group that includes carnivores and ungulates.


Well both of you are placental mammals, anyway. Rather distantly, but still have a common mammalian ancestor.

More closely. Humans and monkeys differ by (IIRC) three amino acids in cytochrome C.


Different phylum. Sorry.

All responses of mine are from arguments I heard decades ago.
I remember someone saying people share a lot of dna with pineapples or something. A fruit.
What I'm really interested in and maybe you know, what wingding decided to classify humans as animals to begin with? And why If you know...put simply.
Is it because living things are physically composed of the same substance?

 

[Vaccine]

So far, he's failed the challenge. As you see, the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. Neither is the clotting cascade Behe cited. Would you like to see how we know that?

Miller's challenge was based on the idea the T3SS was the predecessor to the flagellum:

"We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems."

So Miller's challenge failed. Next is Millers challenge to irreducible complexity. Miller insists a multipart system was knocked out by Hall's experiment but he failed to address this:
"All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new B-galactosidase function." (Hall 1999)

Since much of the system remained in tact, Miller's assertion a multipart system was knocked out is misleading. Next, Miller claimed "a new galactosidase enzyme, second, a new lactose-sensitive control region, and third, a new way to switch on the lac permease gene. And, just as Futuyma and I pointed out, that's exactly what happened - all three parts eventually evolved."

Did a new system evolve? Hall says this about his experiment:
Even the unmutated ebg B-galactosidase can hydrolyze lactose at a level of about 10% that of a “Class II” mutant B-galactosidase that supports cell growth. (Hall 1999)

Miller swept that under the rug because he thinks 10% function isn't enough. However, the goalpost was "a new" system, not whether or not an existing system supported growth. An existing system with 10% function hardly qualifies as a new system.
Lastly:
The mutations reported by Hall simply enhance pre-existing activities of the proteins.

The bottom line is in Hall's experiment an existing system got enhanced. So not a challenge to IR at all. As if all that weren't bad enough, Hall said this of his experiment since the whole thing relied on artificial life support (IPTG):
"It is reasonable to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world outside the laboratory." -Hall

Those two examples, as well as the blood clotting challenge, were debunked over 10 years ago.

0. Proton pumps become more light-sensitive.

2. Cells with more pigment. More sensitive to light at all wavelengths.
3. Pigments become more light-sensitive:
By contrast, simpler retinal-based light-harvesting systems such as the haloarchaeal purple membrane protein bacteriorhodopsin show a strong well-defined peak of absorbance centred at 568 nm, which is complementary to that of chlorophyll pigments. We propose a scenario where simple retinal-based light-harvesting systems like that of the purple chromoprotein bacteriorhodopsin, originally discovered in halophilic Archaea,

Early evolution of purple retinal pigments on Earth and implications for exoplanet biosignatures | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core

Early evolution of purple retinal pigments on Earth and implications for exoplanet biosignatures - Volume 20 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

4 and 5 "Rhodopsins are light-sensitive proteins which universally exist in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Type I rhodopsins exist in microbes and are known as microbial rhodopsins, which include various kinds such as bacteriorhodopsins (BR), halorhodopsins (HR), and sensory rhodopsins (SR)."

Structure-based insights into evolution of rhodopsins - Communications Biology

Zabelskii et al. present a structural and functional analysis of the lightdriven proton pump LR (Mac) from the fungus Leptosphaeria maculans. Their findings indicate that the archaeal ancestry of eukaryotic type 1 rhodopsins, and that the archaeal host of the proto-mitochondrial endosymbiont was...

www.nature.com

It's worth noting that genetic analysis indicates that the archea are the ancestors of eukaryotes, so this evidence is consistent with existing phylogenies.

Proton pumps are electrically-driven and many of them (such as opsins) use light as a power source.

That is all just nonsense. Proton pumps can't become more light sensitive because they aren't sensitive to light in the first place. Proton pumps react to heat, not light. Skin pigments heat up due to UV light. Skin pigments don't sense anything.
If scientists have yet to come up with a step by step process to get a photoreceptive cell I don't see how some random person on the internet is going to fare any better.

Or engage in conjugation. Which happens between prokaryotes.

Bacterial conjugation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're confusing the type IV secretion system with the type III secretion system.

 

[Vaccine]

Sorry to butt in, but this is just too easy. The very first sentence of The Wedge Strategy: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."

You keep trying to get us to ignore what ID creationists have themselves said, but I don't that's going to happen.

Pointing out the difference between concepts is all I'm doing. Conflating The Wedge strategy, creationism, and ID theory is a losing proposition. As is a nominal fallacy.

 

[Barbarian]

Miller's challenge was based on the idea the T3SS

Behe's challenge was the mistaken idea that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. In fact, there's not one bacterial flagellum. There are several, none of which are irreducibly complex.

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

www.newscientist.com

The Discovery Institutes excuses about the evolved lac gene are debunked here:

A True Acid Test

millerandlevine.com

That is all just nonsense. Proton pumps can't become more light sensitive because they aren't sensitive to light in the first place. Proton pumps react to heat, not light.

Heat is in the spectrum of light. Infrared. Thought you knew.

Skin pigments heat up due to UV light.

No, although it might seem that way. Melanin heats up from visible light. UV damages skin in large doses, and inflammation makes it feel hot, because core temperature blood flow increases.

Those two examples, as well as the blood clotting challenge, were debunked over 10 years ago.

Nope. In fact, there are several different versions of the clotting cascade, each with a different level of complexity.

J Thromb Haemost
2003 Feb;1(2):227-30

Hemostasis and irreducible complexity ​

Abstract ​

Coagulation evolved as a means to stem the loss of blood and to defend against pathogens. The complexity of the clotting cascade has been cited as evidence for the existence of divine intervention. The objective of this review is to draw on the debate between creationists and evolutionary biologists to highlight important evolutionary principles that underlie the hemostatic mechanism. I propose the following: (a) as with all biological systems, the hemostatic mechanism displays non-linear complexity; (b) the cellular response represents primary hemostasis owing to its place in the evolutionary time scale and functional importance; and (c) the rapid evolution of the hemostatic mechanism in vertebrates is testimony to the power and versatility of gene duplications and exon shuffling.

Clotting is somewhat different in primitive vertebrates.

J Mol Evol
2015 Oct;81(3-4):121-30

Bioinformatic Characterization of Genes and Proteins Involved in Blood Clotting in Lampreys ​

Abstract ​

Lampreys and hagfish are the earliest diverging of extant vertebrates and are obvious targets for investigating the origins of complex biochemical systems found in mammals. Currently, the simplest approach for such inquiries is to search for the presence of relevant genes in whole genome sequence (WGS) assemblies. Unhappily, in the past a high-quality complete genome sequence has not been available for either lampreys or hagfish, precluding the possibility of proving gene absence. Recently, improved but still incomplete genome assemblies for two species of lamprey have been posted, and, taken together with an extensive collection of short sequences in the NCBI trace archive, they have made it possible to make reliable counts for specific gene families. Particularly, a multi-source tactic has been used to study the lamprey blood clotting system with regard to the presence and absence of genes known to occur in higher vertebrates. As was suggested in earlier studies, lampreys lack genes for coagulation factors VIII and IX, both of which are critical for the "intrinsic" clotting system and responsible for hemophilia in humans. On the other hand, they have three each of genes for factors VII and X, participants in the "extrinsic" clotting system. The strategy of using raw trace sequence "reads" together with partial WGS assemblies for lampreys can be used in studies on the early evolution of other biochemical systems in vertebrates.

It's obvious that a system for which simpler forms exist, cannot be irreducibly complex.

 

[Barbarian]

Pointing out the difference between concepts is all I'm doing. Conflating The Wedge strategy, creationism, and ID theory is a losing proposition. As is a nominal fallacy.

The Wedge Document clearly sets out the objectives of ID. To advance the believe in a god. That's what it's for.

It was published by the Discovery Institute, and "intelligent design" is their doctrine. In the Dover trial, the "ID textbook Of Pandas and People was shown to be, due to a sloppy cut and paste job, a creationist work, slightly modified to remove "creationist" and insert "design proponent." It was as IDer Philip Johnson remarked a "train wreck" for ID.

 

[Barbarian]

All responses of mine are from arguments I heard decades ago.

Yes, I'm surprised to hear any creationists still using them.

I remember someone saying people share a lot of dna with pineapples or something. A fruit.

Eukaryotes do share some DNA, but the amount that two eukaryotes share, depends on how long ago there was a common ancestor for them. This is why humans and pineapples share a lot less DNA than say humans and rabbits. Not hard to figure out.
Look here:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dd/31/9c/dd319c7b74623401fe573b17071d1c9e.jpg

Click on it to get a large readable look.

 

[journeyman]

Yes, I'm surprised to hear any creationists still using them.

As i said it has been decades since I read anything about this stuff.

Eukaryotes do share some DNA, but the amount that two eukaryotes share, depends on how long ago there was a common ancestor for them. This is why humans and pineapples share a lot less DNA than say humans and rabbits. Not hard to figure out.

It doesn't seem hard, unless you wonder why a monkey with almost identical dna to your own doesn't look more like your brother.

I wasn't aware that when scientists say human and ape dna is practically the same, they mean only about 2% of their total dna. They say the other 98% is junk"
Apparently it has no function, but they don't really know.

They call it non-coded dna now. Sounded like science is discovering how humans and their nearest relatives aren't really related.

Pbs had another program abour rock formation, but this one was in Europe. The geologist examined cliff walls in a lake near England, hundreds of feet deep and wide and miles long, carved by water.

It made me think about how fossils buried down there will never be found. Like whatever fossils are buried in the worlds oceans.

Do you know what % of land has been excavated by fossil hunters?

 

[Barbarian]

It doesn't seem hard, unless you wonder why a monkey with almost identical dna to your own doesn't look more like your brother.

Actually, relatively to a chimpanzee, the monkey DNA is very different than that of a human. Do you remember why this is so? DNA differences reflect the time for which the two organisms last had a common ancestor. So...

I wasn't aware that when scientists say human and ape dna is practically the same, they mean only about 2% of their total dna. They say the other 98% is junk"

No. What creationists say is "junk" is properly called "non-coding DNA". The coding DNA is the stuff that determines how your body develops and operates, but a lot of non-coding DNA haas other functions. Some is junk, of course, like the broken human vitamin C gene.

Apparently it has no function, but they don't really know.

No, you're a bit behind the curve on that. It serves regulatory functions, and recently, it was discovered to be a common source of new genes via mutation.

New genes spring and spread from non-coding DNA
January 23 2014
"Where do new genes come from?" is a long-standing question in
genetics and evolutionary biology. A new study from researchers at the
University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express,
shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly
than expected.
When I was an undergraduate, in the 60s, there were articles on the functions of non-coding DNA.

Pbs had another program abour rock formation, but this one was in Europe. The geologist examined cliff walls in a lake near England, hundreds of feet deep and wide and miles long, carved by water.

It made me think about how fossils buried down there will never be found. Like whatever fossils are buried in the worlds oceans.

No, that's wrong. Just north of where I live, Cambrian Sea bottom is upthrust and rock cuts show many of those Cambrian fossils.

The vast majority of fossils are never found, but Darwin's predictions about what we would find have been repeatedly confirmed by such deposits.

Only a tiny amount of the earth has been properly investigated for fossils. The key is that geologists can tip off paleontologists as to where rocks of a particular age are exposed. So that's where the activity is.

 

[journeyman]

Actually, relatively to a chimpanzee, the monkey DNA is very different than that of a human.

Until yesterday, I never knew that lol. I only have a hs education and most of that back in the 70s' was through a haze of marajuana smoke.
The point is, scientists loudly boast about how other life forms are 90% closely related, but they're not.

Do you remember why this is so? DNA differences reflect the time for which the two organisms last had a common ancestor. So...

No. What creationists say is "junk" is properly called "non-coding DNA".

I never said it was junk. The scientists said it decades ago. They thought it had no purpose.

The coding DNA is the stuff that determines how your body develops and operates, but a lot of non-coding DNA haas other functions. Some is junk, of course, like the broken human vitamin C gene.


No, you're a bit behind the curve on that. It serves regulatory functions, and recently, it was discovered to be a common source of new genes via mutation.

New genes spring and spread from non-coding DNA
January 23 2014
"Where do new genes come from?" is a long-standing question in
genetics and evolutionary biology. A new study from researchers at the
University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express,
shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly
than expected.
When I was an undergraduate, in the 60s, there were articles on the functions of non-coding DNA.

After reading your statement a few times here, it seems like scientists are saying only 2% of dna determines what type of creature you become, but it can be altered by the other 98% dna, so the 2% alone doesn't determine what we are. It's double talk. Babble.

No, that's wrong. Just north of where I live, Cambrian Sea bottom is upthrust and rock cuts show many of those Cambrian fossils.

The vast majority of fossils are never found, but Darwin's predictions about what we would find have been repeatedly confirmed by such deposits.

Only a tiny amount of the earth has been properly investigated for fossils. The key is that geologists can tip off paleontologists as to where rocks of a particular age are exposed. So that's where the activity is.

How far below the Carribean sea was that fossil found? My daughter lives in Pennsylvaina and we found marine fossils, but they were high up a on a mountain. We were just going for a walk and found them in a shale formation. I was stunned, because we were pretty high up.

Brother, I want you to know that although I'm not well educated, I'm not stupid.
Telling people half truths is nothing more than lying. And making it seem like the fossil record is rock solid when 90% of it is unknown is dishonest. But that's the thing. Scientists talk like gospel, but it's far from that.

And you never answered my question about why I'm "catagrized" as an animal to begin with.

 

[Barbarian]

The point is, scientists loudly boast about how other life forms are 90% closely related, but they're not.

Never heard that. And I hang out with a lot of biologists.

After reading your statement a few times here, it seems like scientists are saying only 2% of dna determines what type of creature you become, but it can be altered by the other 98% dna, so the 2% alone doesn't determine what we are. It's double talk. Babble.

A small part of DNA codes for proteins that determine our characteristics. New genes form by gene duplication or by mutation of non-coding DNA. But then it becomes coding DNA. There's more. Some of them are regulatory in that they affect how parts of coding DNA are expressed. Some of it is truly junk. Learn here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

How far below the Carribean sea was that fossil found?

No, it came from a Cambrian time. Later it was uplifted to form what are now the (very eroded) Arbuckle Mountains. And now we see these ancient fossils.

My daughter lives in Pennsylvaina and we found marine fossils, but they were high up a on a mountain. We were just going for a walk and found them in a shale formation. I was stunned, because we were pretty high up.

The Appalachians are ancient folded sea floor:
During the earliest part of the Paleozoic Era, the continent that would later become North America straddled the equator. The Appalachian region was a passive plate margin, not unlike today's Atlantic Coastal Plain Province. During this interval, the region was periodically submerged beneath shallow seas. Thick layers of sediment and carbonate rock were deposited on the shallow sea bottom when the region was submerged. When seas receded, terrestrial sedimentary deposits and erosion dominated.[4]

Geology of the Appalachians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brother, I want you to know that although I'm not well educated, I'm not stupid.

Never thought you were. We all have things we don't know about. This is stuff I know about.

Telling people half truths is nothing more than lying. And making it seem like the fossil record is rock solid when 90% of it is unknown is dishonest.

No paleontologist would tell you that. Darwin, in his book, spent an entire chapter on the spotty data from fossils. When I was just a young biologist we had little or no fossil evidence for the following predicted transitions:
Hoofed mammals to whales
Primitive amphibians to frogs
Early anapsids to turtles
Dinosaurs to birds
Reptiles to mammals
Wasps to ants
(long list)

Now we have all of those and more. Important new fossils turn up about monthly. But we'll never find them all.

And you never answered my question about why I'm "catagrized" as an animal to begin with.

From the Dictionary of Biology:

Animal Definition​

An animal (plural: animals) refers to any of the eukaryotic multicellular organisms of the biological kingdom Animalia. Animals of this kingdom are generally characterized to be heterotrophic, motile, having specialized sensory organs, lacking a cell wall, and growing from a blastula during embryonic development.

That's us. Yeah, it's technical. But that's how science is.

 

[Vaccine]

I don't know what to tell ya....he literally said that the plausibility of ID creationism is affected by one's belief in God. That he later contradicted that is irrelevant to the fact that he said it.

Behe was talking about the plausibility of an argument of design, not ID theory itself. In context, Behe is talking about the inferences that are drawn from ID theory. Whether those inference's are plausible. Here's what Behe says about the plausibility of ID theory itself:

"The conclusion of intelligent design in biochemistry rests exclusively on empirical evidence – the structures and functions of the biochemical systems – plus principles of logic. No particular tenet of faith is involved." -Behe answers his critics

In Behe's book, testimony at the Dover trial, and in the very document being quoted his position is clear. That the plausibility of ID theory rests on the empirical evidence. The quote about the plausibility of the design inference doesn't erase the majority of what Behe says. Especially considering the context shows Behe is talking about inference of design, not the scientific evidence of design.

What is it called it when a quote out of context is used to distort someone's position?

Take Biden's quote about poor kids and white kids. That he later contradicted that is irrelevant to the fact that he said it, right? Biden's record speaks for itself, he isn't racist. It doesn't matter how much evidence points to Biden's true position, all it takes is one quote to confirm their bias. These "critical thinkers" are going to throw up the blinders, ignore truth, and cling to that one quote for all it's worth.

 

[Vaccine]

Sorry to butt in, but this is just too easy. The very first sentence of The Wedge Strategy: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."

You keep trying to get us to ignore what ID creationists have themselves said, but I don't that's going to happen.

This was a response to "the whole point of ID is to show that nature and people are created by God."
While that implication is certainly part of it, this quote from Behe sums up the whole point of ID theory:
"I don t want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation." -Behe

I'm pointing out that distorting a scientific theory with quotes from the Wedge Strategy isn't proper criticism. But I agree, repeatedly pointing this out has no effect.

Nobody is ignoring what the Wedge Strategy says, just that it somehow defines ID theory. For the record, I happen to agree with most of it, especially this quote:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.

 

[Vaccine]

Behe's challenge was the mistaken idea that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. In fact, there's not one bacterial flagellum. There are several, none of which are irreducibly complex.

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

www.newscientist.com

The Discovery Institutes excuses about the evolved lac gene are debunked here:

A True Acid Test

millerandlevine.com

I get you don't agree with the flagellum being irreducibly complex. But Behe pointed out:
"To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum – or any equally complex system – was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven." -Behe answers his critics

This has yet to be done. So any claims of victory are premature. That goes for both sides. It comes down to which is more convincing, that the flagellum is the result of design or random mutations.

Heat is in the spectrum of light. Infrared. Thought you knew.


No, although it might seem that way. Melanin heats up from visible light. UV damages skin in large doses, and inflammation makes it feel hot, because core temperature blood flow increases.

Originally I pointed out scientists have yet to provide a step by step Darwinian process of getting from a skin cell to a photoreceptor cell. Going off on a tangent about infrared light or melanin sounds like a smoke screen.

Nope. In fact, there are several different versions of the clotting cascade, each with a different level of complexity.

J Thromb Haemost
2003 Feb;1(2):227-30

Hemostasis and irreducible complexity ​

Abstract ​

Coagulation evolved as a means to stem the loss of blood and to defend against pathogens. The complexity of the clotting cascade has been cited as evidence for the existence of divine intervention. The objective of this review is to draw on the debate between creationists and evolutionary biologists to highlight important evolutionary principles that underlie the hemostatic mechanism. I propose the following: (a) as with all biological systems, the hemostatic mechanism displays non-linear complexity; (b) the cellular response represents primary hemostasis owing to its place in the evolutionary time scale and functional importance; and (c) the rapid evolution of the hemostatic mechanism in vertebrates is testimony to the power and versatility of gene duplications and exon shuffling.

Clotting is somewhat different in primitive vertebrates.

J Mol Evol
2015 Oct;81(3-4):121-30

That article has nothing to do with addressing irreducibly complexity and everything to do with reiterating Darwinian processes.
"Since the coagulation mechanism does not fossilize, we are forced to examine other living creatures with the assumption that what works for them should have worked for ancestral forms."

Assuming the very thing being debated is not an argument.

Bioinformatic Characterization of Genes and Proteins Involved in Blood Clotting in Lampreys ​

Abstract ​

Lampreys and hagfish are the earliest diverging of extant vertebrates and are obvious targets for investigating the origins of complex biochemical systems found in mammals. Currently, the simplest approach for such inquiries is to search for the presence of relevant genes in whole genome sequence (WGS) assemblies. Unhappily, in the past a high-quality complete genome sequence has not been available for either lampreys or hagfish, precluding the possibility of proving gene absence. Recently, improved but still incomplete genome assemblies for two species of lamprey have been posted, and, taken together with an extensive collection of short sequences in the NCBI trace archive, they have made it possible to make reliable counts for specific gene families. Particularly, a multi-source tactic has been used to study the lamprey blood clotting system with regard to the presence and absence of genes known to occur in higher vertebrates. As was suggested in earlier studies, lampreys lack genes for coagulation factors VIII and IX, both of which are critical for the "intrinsic" clotting system and responsible for hemophilia in humans. On the other hand, they have three each of genes for factors VII and X, participants in the "extrinsic" clotting system. The strategy of using raw trace sequence "reads" together with partial WGS assemblies for lampreys can be used in studies on the early evolution of other biochemical systems in vertebrates.

It's obvious that a system for which simpler forms exist, cannot be irreducibly complex.

This describes the genes and proteins involved in blood clotting. Like the flagellum link you provided, a mere description is neither an argument for or against irreducible complexity.
He straight up says so in the paper:
"Certainly there is uniform agreement that the vertebrate blood coagulation pathway is the result of a series of gene
duplications; it is the timing of those duplications that is an issue."
A few sentences later:
"We have no wish to become embroiled in the debate about the timing of the two rounds of duplication and whether or not one or both preceded the divergence of Agnatha except to note that our findings are in complete accord with an early proposal of one round of whole genome duplication occurring before the advent of cyclostomes and another after their appearance."

So that paper doesn't answer how the blood clotting cascade is regulated. Indeed the fortuitous timing of TWO rounds of duplication is at the heart of the debate, which they wish to avoid. As Behe points out:
"Any Darwinian scheme purporting to account for clotting, therefore, would have to demonstrate how an incipient cascade would be regulated." -Behe answers his critics