Hi.

> The idea of gradual steps following the rules of natural selection was all I
> was trying to accomplish. I think I have succeeded on that level. Don't you
> at least agree with that much?

Gee, I don't. The natural selection part seems okay (though I must admit I haven't really given it a hard look-see), but the "gradual" part doesn't.

> I know little of microbiology. So your guess as to what the structures are
> made of would be better than mine. That's why I chose the fictional world of
> an organic house and not a bacterial flagella.

I think one overarching problem is that you are envisioning the house as an animal, rather than as a cell. So you're thinking of walls and so on as so many limbs you can duplicate. But at the molecular cellular level you have to think in terms of nuts and bolts. That's where all the pieces are individual ones, not some amorphous conglomeration that one can imagine doing all sorts of things.

> I chose to pick the 10 main steps of the evolutionary process in order to
> make a point about irreducible complexity. I'll leave the details to the
> real scientists. But can't your rebuttal below be applied to any level of
> evolution? "What are the probabilities of a scale evolving into a feather? A
> flipper turning into a hand? An ape into a human? Beats me! It doesn't mean
> that it can't or it didn't happen. I know that you believe in evolution, so
> I know that you know I'm right about this much.

It doesn't mean that it can't happen, nor does it mean that it can. We have to attend in detail to the excruciatingly small steps that would have been needed to produce any of those to know if their Darwinian evolution is possible. For larger systems, above the size of a cell, this is in my opinion for all practical purposes impossible. That's why I stick to molecular systems. And, as I've written, when you look at molecular systems, things look pretty bleak for Darwinism.

> Yes, flaps occasionally pop up. Lot's of different things occasionally
> happen, that's what mutations are. It's just that sometimes they work to our
> advantage. That's the point of natural selection. Favorable mutations stay
> around, useless ones don't. Are you saying that mutations can not happen at
> the molecular level? If so, then I'm wrong. Is that the case? Was there no
> room for mutations in the development of a bacterial flagella?

Not only can mutations happen at the molecular level, they happen *only* at the molecular level. A mutation is necessarily a change in an organism's DNA, which is a molecular change. That's why it's important in biology to focus at the molecular level.

> Does it really matter how the flap is attached to the wall? Do I really need
> to show every step of the flap evolving? I can, if I have the time... but
> that's not the point. The point is to show a Darwinian process of a
> seemingly irreducibly complex mousetrap like device. Wasn't that the
> challenge?

Yes, it really does matter how the flap is attached, just as it would matter in real life. And yes, you would have to show every step of the flap evolving by random mutation and natural selection. I'm not trying to be unreasonable; it's simply that at the molecular level all details are crucial.

> When John McDonald presented you with the reducibly complex mousetrap, your
> response was, "Yes, he has succeeded in reducing it, but it would not have
> evolved that way because there is no benefit from step one to step two to
> step three". I regard that as a valid criticism (although that wasn't the
> point he was trying to make). So I took it from the ground up. Making sure
> that each step was an improvement on the last. Making sure it followed the
> rules of natural selection.
>
> Just answer me this, if you would be so kind: in your opinion, vagueness and
> all, do the ten steps I show obey the rules of natural selection? Yes or no?

Again, I haven't looked at the scheme really closely, but for purposes of argument I'll say that each step is an improvement, that as you say the ten steps "obey the rules of natural selection". The problem is going from step to step. I don't think your "steps" follow from each other, and you are unconsciously making a number of changes in each of what you call a single "step". What's more, I think you are using your intelligence (again, unintentionally) to direct the scenario where you want it to go. That might be guided evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution.

> Thanks again for responding! You made my day...

Sure, it's been nice corresponding with you. But, to tell the truth, my schedule is crazy and I won't be able to continue. Best wishes.

Mike Behe