Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 14:56 (1872 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.[/b]

dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?

DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.

dhw: Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?

DAVID: Automaticity, which you just stated.

dhw: Wonderful! So let’s offer a million hungry humans a choice between their favourite food and their least favourite food, see which one they eat first, and if they all eat their favourite food first, we shall have proved that humans are automatons.

DAVID|: Quite a leap. Are we comparing human actions to bacteria as a means of argument or a fun comment?

dhw: As presented here, the experiment is daft. The bacteria were apparently offered two foods, and when they had finished the one they obviously liked best, they then started on the second. According to you, this proves they are automatons. According to me, this only proves they prefer glucose to lactose. I have offered you an analogy just to illustrate the point. But maybe the experiment was meant to prove something else – I can only comment on what you presented.

The 'daft' study won the Nobel prize. I've left out the complicated details. The bacteria are naturally programmed to prefer glucose. When it is gone, a series of molecular reactions automatically and immediately activate the lactose use mechanism in the DNA. The switch in metabolism is automatic. The lack of glucose triggers the next steps. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer to you, but I think I was. You are of a mindset to not trust my original description of the study bolded above which to me says what I have said here. Buy the Behe book and read the long description of the automatic molecular steps for yourself. This is not at the same level that Shapiro describes where bacteria can reprogram DNA. Our debate is about automaticity at the reprogramming DNA level. All bacterial reactions to stimuli are automatic and are seen that way when fully studied as I've stated before.