Later Michael Behe would criticize Judge Jones' opinion on the grounds (among others) that that sort of lab work, while important, would produce results which would be simply be dismissed by critics as a failure to find the right conditions for evolution.
(13) As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)).
If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong and ID is right?
Prophetic! Douglas Axe and Anne Gauger worked out just such an experiment, and only a prophet could have anticipated the response by the true believers in adaptationism.
|Myers' argument gone to pot|
At Panda's Thumb, P.Z. Myers dismisses Axe and Gauger's results as having a flawed protocol and points to a paper criticized in their work as succeeding where they failed:
Meanwhile, the paper P.Z. Myers swoons over is about postulating lineages from an ancestral lineage. How? By working against natural selection and de-optimizing the effectiveness of the proteins. (Note: Inventing a story about the improbable way the mushrooms must have grown is not the same as growing the mushrooms.) Why did the proteins get just the changes that would make them sub-optimal in the right (pre-adaptational) way without breaking them, but preparing them? Wouldn't the sub-optimality have made the organisms targeted for removal from the gene pool? I know, I know... only an evolution denier would see a problem with that. But why does natural selection stop doing its job precisely when Evolution needs it to?
Gauger and Axe are saying, "Ooh, we sh** in a pot and we couldn't even get mushrooms to grow in it,". . .