Although there is some great input in the first 2+ pages of the thread, by the middle of the third page it has largely "devolved" (*snicker*) to Merrill defending himself against me as well as super-scientist RBH.
Here are some quick highlights, for those who don't want to wade through 140 posts of biochemistry jargon.
A big kudos to "Flint" who posted a great library analogy/parody of Merrill's/Behe's standpoint. This post is a must read, and is easily comprehendable by most anyone.
It is this idea that has gotten Lee into huge trouble with me around post 140.
Lee continually harped on "genetic drift," despite our suggestions that he look up what the term actually meant. After two other people telling him that he was wrong, a short explanation posted by me, a link posted by me, and half a dozen or so of my pleas, he finally looked it up. Lo and behold, in post #126, "Oops, you are right, I had the wrong name for what I was saying." Gee, and it only took you 'til the sixth page to figure it out...
What utterly amazes me is that I've explained to Merrill several times why it's not the least bit unreasonable for the "pre-existing components" that likely were coopted into a flagellum according to Matzke's model (.pdf) to coexist. He always shifts the goalposts to needing selection for a flagellum that doesn't exist; when I explain that there is no reason that selection for a nonexistent flagellum is required, he shifts the goalposts back to "improbable" coexistence of preexisting parts.
Ironically, RBH had already labeled Behe as suffering from "serial goal post moving syndrome (SGPM)," and Merrill demonstrates this beautifully.
Speaking of "improbability," this is Merrill's only remaining argument. Accordingly, this is what bites him in the ass, especially because he doesn't understand the fallacy of argument from incredulity.
Although RBH has repeatedly explained to Merrill that no "probability for the evolution of the flagellum" can reasonably be calculated, Merrill insists that if Miller cannot show that this probability is high, then the flagellum could not have evolved. Merrill insists upon this despite the impossibility of coming up with not only a numerator and a denominator for the calculation but also having no probability density function (or PDF) with which to do the calculation.
Now, let us rewind to earlier in the thread where I grilled Merrill on probability vs. plausibility. For example, it is not probable for you to be dealt four of a kind, but if people tell you that they were dealt four of a kind, you believe those people because being dealt four of a kind is plausible.
In order for Behe to be refuted, a plausible mechanism for the evolution of the flagellum must exist. But Merrill insists that a probable mechanism must exist. This, of course, is nonsense, and -- using these concepts -- I prove (by Merrill's reasoning only, of course) that I was placed in my chair at my keyboard by God for the express purpose of typing a reply to Merrill.
In post 137, I reply to Merrill's comment facetiously:
To which he replies,electrolyte wrote:[snip]lee_merrill wrote:I object to all I have heard so far, and if no probable sequence is presented, I shall of course believe this proposal improbable.
If you can't give a sequence of events that lead up to immediately prior to my starting this reply, does that mean you believe that I was magically plunked into my chair to type this response?
But of course, he can't give many probable scenarios. He knows not where I work, where I live, if I watch TV, if I have kids, etc. If I cooked dinner, did I use the stove or the oven? Or did I use both? At which temperatures/settings were the appliances? Did I use the microwave? What did I cook? Did I go out for dinner? Did I bring something in? Did I have something delivered? How much did I pay? How much did I tip?I can give many probable scenarios, though! That is just what is needed.
When requiring a step-by-step scenario, even the most mundane sequence becomes complex. The possibilities of what I did on that day leading up to my posting a reply are virtually endless. Accordingly, the probability of any one sequence of events is astronomically small. Necessarily, the probability of the sequence of events that actually did occur was astronomically small. Because Merrill cannot provide any "probable scenarios," I must have been magically plunked into my chair.
There you have it, folks. Your webmaster has been placed on Earth by the LORD himself, according to the self-proclaimed master of Biblical prophecy, Lee Merrill.
I'm curious to see how he'll respond next.