Other Post Not all scientists are atheist

[Buster23]

See, you are doing it again, quoting the Mickey Mouse site of pseudoscience you venerate too much.

See Miller-Urey experiment (that had its share and rightly so of criticism but have been repeated several time successfuly since)

For the rest, read things about RNA world
It has just be demonstrated as possible : https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-primordial-life-earth-replicated.html

That doesn't mean that the primordial soup is what happened. Experimentaly, it works and could have been what happened. But as i stated earlier there are others hypotheses about how life appeared on Earth (like extraplanetary inputs through cometary impacts that are shown, again recently, to harbor organic chemical components : https://www.iflscience.com/space/bu...ounds-comet-67p-what-philae-discoveries-mean/)

Mickey mouse site really? Aren't you tired of the "if you cannot refute, throw insults and ad hominems" tactic?

Ah the Miller-Urey experiment, you do know that the atmospheric conditions they set for this experiment is not according to the believed atmosphere of the early earth, right? In other words, they designed the conditions to produce the amino acids....sounds like a good case for Intelligent Design. And of course this experiment is widely criticized and rightfully so even by evolutionists themselves.

"Likewise, an article in the journal Science stated: “Miller and Urey relied on a ‘reducing’ atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an ‘oxidizing’ atmosphere.” The article put it bluntly: “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation.”Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed."

"Chemical Evolution Is Dead in the Water"

Further reading on the above quotes are here >>>https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/

Problems in regard to "RNA world" are discussed here >>>https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_2_ungui/

 

[Buster23]

Best example is the basis of Behe ID hypothesis : bacterial flagellum. Behe emitted the hypothesis of an ID because he couldn't explain how a bacterial flagellum (made of two proteic components that cannot work one without the other) could appear through evolution. He just left aside the fact that recent (well recent, they are just dating from 20y ago) that some primitive bacteria flagellum are made of phages that have been replaced by proper bacterial proteins in more modern bacterias.
Your "brilliant" scientists are just pushing an agenda and are not so brilliant anymore if they are unable to do update their bibliogaphy

To answer your denigrating comments on the man (Dr. Behe) and his work, please see the article on the link below. I believe your objection/critique on bacterial flagellum (though not new and original) was also tackled in this article.

Michael Behe: A Man and His Critics | Evolution News

Behe is not in a defensive posture, despite his critics. He continues to advance.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Nancy]

Life is not based on evolution it's basis is it's existence. Science hasn't proven all life evolved because they've yet to prove how it began.

 

[Mordoror]

To answer your denigrating comments on the man (Dr. Behe) and his work, please see the article on the link below. I believe your objection/critique on bacterial flagellum (though not new and original) was also tackled in this article.

Michael Behe: A Man and His Critics | Evolution News

Behe is not in a defensive posture, despite his critics. He continues to advance.

evolutionnews.org

Oh FFS
Stop refering to the Discovery Institute offsets as your only source.
I get it, you want to swallow all what they write. It's OK but then say it and say that all other arguments have no value in your eyes, it would be more honest
And no my personal objection on bacterial flagellum is not even answered because i was talking about another mechanism of formation not even mentioned in the answer to Behe work
It is called phage integration i.e the bacteria has acquired and integrated foreign DNA (phage) that brings him a pathogenicity island (a group of gene coding for virulence factors) including flagellum and toxin encoding parts

Pathogenicity islands and phages in Vibrio cholerae evolution - PubMed

The identification of accessory genetic elements (plasmids, phages and chromosomal 'pathogenicity islands') encoding virulence-associated genes has facilitated our efforts to understand the origination of pathogenic microorganisms. Toxigenic Vibrio cholerae, the etiologic agent of cholera...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The issue is that all your sources are only superficial. They will work with people with limited understanding of the issues (like seemingly you)
They won't fool people that know (because they work in the mentioned areas or simply have done their share of homework). But, obviously, the people that know, don't need to be and won't be fooled. It's the average Joe like you that are fooled by neo-creationnists with their shortcuts, limited answers, selected presentation of things while wrapped in pseudoscience wording.

I'll ask you a simple question. Do you really understand in depth what is written and discussed about the flagellum issue or the eye issue or all petty attacks from the Discovery Institute ? Do you have the wide knowledge background to understand the shades and nuances of the topics that are discussed (knowledge that is not limited to science people but need a bit of homework so sweat on your side) ? Or are you only parotting and taking for fair value what is written in the site you are quoting over and over again ?

 

[Mordoror]

Mickey mouse site really? Aren't you tired of the "if you cannot refute, throw insults and ad hominems" tactic?

Ah the Miller-Urey experiment, you do know that the atmospheric conditions they set for this experiment is not according to the believed atmosphere of the early earth, right? In other words, they designed the conditions to produce the amino acids....sounds like a good case for Intelligent Design. And of course this experiment is widely criticized and rightfully so even by evolutionists themselves.

"Likewise, an article in the journal Science stated: “Miller and Urey relied on a ‘reducing’ atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an ‘oxidizing’ atmosphere.” The article put it bluntly: “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation.”Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed."

"Chemical Evolution Is Dead in the Water"

Further reading on the above quotes are here >>>https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/

Problems in regard to "RNA world" are discussed here >>>https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_2_ungui/

No i am tired of reading as only answer a shitty site owned by politicaly driven people that have an agenda to push
If you think it is an insult you need to get a a thicker skin
And i know well the criticism of the Miller-Urey experiment
You are funny, dude, you are doing exactly one of the thing listed in my quote (15 answers to creationnist BS), sorting the details that fit your narrative but avoiding the large scope.
Re-read my post about the origin and life and try to understand all the layers of ideas expressed
And answer my last question in my post above to know where you can be positioned (although from your posting history, it is all rethorical)

 

[Buster23]

Oh FFS
Stop refering to the Discovery Institute offsets as your only source.
I get it, you want to swallow all what they write. It's OK but then say it and say that all other arguments have no value in your eyes, it would be more honest
And no my personal objection on bacterial flagellum is not even answered because i was talking about another mechanism of formation not even mentioned in the answer to Behe work
It is called phage integration i.e the bacteria has acquired and integrated foreign DNA (phage) that brings him a pathogenicity island (a group of gene coding for virulence factors) including flagellum and toxin encoding parts

Pathogenicity islands and phages in Vibrio cholerae evolution - PubMed

The identification of accessory genetic elements (plasmids, phages and chromosomal 'pathogenicity islands') encoding virulence-associated genes has facilitated our efforts to understand the origination of pathogenic microorganisms. Toxigenic Vibrio cholerae, the etiologic agent of cholera...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The issue is that all your sources are only superficial. They will work with people with limited understanding of the issues (like seemingly you)
They won't fool people that know (because they work in the mentioned areas or simply have done their share of homework). But, obviously, the people that know, don't need to be and won't be fooled. It's the average Joe like you that are fooled by neo-creationnists with their shortcuts, limited answers, selected presentation of things while wrapped in pseudoscience wording.

I'll ask you a simple question. Do you really understand in depth what is written and discussed about the flagellum issue or the eye issue or all petty attacks from the Discovery Institute ? Do you have the wide knowledge background to understand the shades and nuances of the topics that are discussed (knowledge that is not limited to science people but need a bit of homework so sweat on your side) ? Or are you only parotting and taking for fair value what is written in the site you are quoting over and over again ?

I see you have a lot of beef with Discovery Institute, dude they are just presenting arguments/hypotheses, valid ones that is, so engage them in civilized and open debate, that's the only way you can make them go away and win folks over, by evidence and substance, not by intimidation/persecution and discrimination.

And the reason they are appealing to me because they explain their arguments in lay man's terms and not in condescending way, ordinary people could understand it, and they don't usually throw gibberish technical terms that would leave the readers confused and then just summarize it as something to the effect of "because we said so, therefore you have to believe it". So, to answer your question, I would say I have general/lay man's knowledge (not in-depth), and as I have mentioned before I am no scientist but I do have an engineering background, and as I have repeatedly said before I am no expert on these subjects, just a messenger I guess...so don't shoot the messenger.

So you have your own critique, that is great and I would love to see you (being a scientist yourself as you claim) publish your own review and engage Dr. Behe himself.

 

[Mordoror]

I see you have a lot of beef with Discovery Institute, dude they are just presenting arguments/hypotheses, valid ones that is, so engage them in civilized and open debate, that's the only way you can make them go away and win folks over, by evidence and substance, not by intimidation/persecution and discrimination.

And the reason they are appealing to me because they explain their arguments in lay man's terms and not in condescending way, ordinary people could understand it, and they don't usually throw gibberish technical terms that would leave the readers confused and then just summarize it as something to the effect of "because we said so, therefore you have to believe it". So, to answer your question, I would say I have general/lay man's knowledge (not in-depth), and as I have mentioned before I am no scientist but I do have an engineering background, and as I have repeatedly said before I am no expert on these subjects, just a messenger I guess...so don't shoot the messenger.

So you have your own critique, that is great and I would love to see you (being a scientist yourself as you claim) publish your own review and engage Dr. Behe himself.

valid ones ..... to you
by evidence and substance..........not at all
ordinary people could understand it, and they don't usually throw gibberish technical terms that would leave the readers confused............yes that's their strenght, that people not understanding what it is talked about swallow easy wording. You know what it has a name : populism

I have general/lay man's knowledge (not in-depth), and as I have mentioned before I am no scientist but I do have an engineering background, and as I have repeatedly said before I am no expert on these subjects, just a messenger I guess...so don't shoot the messenger.

Good. So you won't see me challenging you in your field. As for the rest, you may be the messenger but the message is corrupted.

So you have your own critique, that is great and I would love to see you (being a scientist yourself as you claim) publish your own review and engage Dr. Behe himself.

Well no matter what i say, given that your idea is already adamantly forged and that Behe 's words are God's words (pun intended) it would be a loss of time.
However it is 12;30 PM, i have 30 min to lose so here we go

This part in the article you quoted previously in particular :
I will pass over other controversies involving the other irreducibly complex systems that Behe describes in Darwin’s Black Box, and move on. Behe’s next book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, was published in 2008. In it, he explores the subject of his postdoctoral work, malaria.

Malaria is a dreadful disease, and the parasite that causes it is very good at evading anti-malarial drugs. The drug chloroquine, however, had a longer run of effectiveness than any other. Behe said that because of the number of malarial parasites in the human population, if all it took for a parasite to develop resistance to a certain medication were one mutation, such resistance would develop quickly. But if two mutations were required, it would take decades. And that is how long it took for chloroquine resistance to develop. Behe predicted that when the molecular basis for the resistance was discovered, it would be shown that two mutations were responsible.


He was right. A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which he quotes, says:

is laughable to the core. Bad luck it is much more my field of expertise as parasitologist than any other thing

point 1- what has it to do with the flagellum debate ? On a exam copy it would have been called off topic. It seems to be here only to put Behe on a pedestal

point 2-the link between the two parts in bold is BS. It is typical of the junk posted on the sites you like to quote. They make from a specific case a generality. Yes, one resistance mechanism to CQ need two cumulative separate mutations to appear. Unfortunately for the writer, CQ resistance is more complex than that, can appear through single occuring mutations in the gene encoding for the drug target protein (From memory, there are 23 or 25 points mutations possible in this gene), can appear through a single mutation in the untranslated area of the same gene or can appear through mutations on none target genes (detox pumps for example).
Some have more probabilities than others


3- i ll avoid to point all others approximations and nitpicking in the text. It is a classical way of dealing with things by neocreationnist (well explained in the text i quoted 2 or 3 previous posts)

We can assume than Behe himself didn't approved this article and that its author (Ann Gauger) is the only responsible for the fraudulent wording. I hope so because otherwise, Behe he would be a disgrace as a scientist but also a fraud. Let's guve him the doubt benefits on this. People are not responsible for their groupies deeds

In any case, you can jump against the wall as much as you want, but his work after 1998 is less than wonderful. I'll grant you however that he has published (in peer review , so it goes also against your melodramatic accusations of witch-hunt) a few papers

Addressing cumulative selection - PubMed

Addressing cumulative selection

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution - PubMed

Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues - PubMed

Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and "the first rule of adaptive evolution" - PubMed

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to examine the...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Read them, they are of better quality than the junk you quote from the site you use as a main source of discussion

 

[Buster23]

This part in the article you quoted previously in particular :
I will pass over other controversies involving the other irreducibly complex systems that Behe describes in Darwin’s Black Box, and move on. Behe’s next book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, was published in 2008. In it, he explores the subject of his postdoctoral work, malaria.


is laughable to the core. Bad luck it is much more my field of expertise as parasitologist than any other thing

point 1- what has it to do with the flagellum debate ? On a exam copy it would have been called off topic. It seems to be here only to put Behe on a pedestal

point 2-the link between the two parts in bold is BS. It is typical of the junk posted on the sites you like to quote. They make from a specific case a generality. Yes, one resistance mechanism to CQ need two cumulative separate mutations to appear. Unfortunately for the writer, CQ resistance is more complex than that, can appear through single occuring mutations in the gene encoding for the drug target protein (From memory, there are 23 or 25 points mutations possible in this gene), can appear through a single mutation in the untranslated area of the same gene or can appear through mutations on none target genes (detox pumps for example).
Some have more probabilities than others


3- i ll avoid to point all others approximations and nitpicking in the text. It is a classical way of dealing with things by neocreationnist (well explained in the text i quoted 2 or 3 previous posts)

We can assume than Behe himself didn't approved this article and that its author (Ann Gauger) is the only responsible for the fraudulent wording. I hope so because otherwise, Behe he would be a disgrace as a scientist but also a fraud. Let's guve him the doubt benefits on this. People are not responsible for their groupies deeds

I think you missed the point (your point 1) of the article and I also believe that your assumption is wrong, Anne Gauger who is also a scientist (biologist) by the way, was just presenting Behe's main arguments and how Behe defended it from his critics, namely:

1. The Concept of Irreducible Complexity & The Problem with Homology - where the bacterial flagellum was tackled
2. Evolution by Loss of Function (which Behe also calls devolution) - where the Chloroquine Resistance was tackled

In your point 2, I believe your objection (along with Lents', Swamidass' & Lenski's) in regard to Chloroquine Resistance was answered here:

Science Review Offers False Accusations about Chloroquine Resistance | Evolution News

In one paragraph Lents et al. twice cited sources they thought contradicted Behe, and twice suggested he ignored or dismissed contrary evidence.

evolutionnews.org

On Chloroquine Resistance, Nathan Lents Severely Misrepresents Behe’s Arguments | Evolution News

If you’re going to engage with an individual you disagree with, it’s important to know what that person argues and to state it accurately.

evolutionnews.org

From Swamidass on Chloroquine Resistance, a Response that Doesn’t Respond | Evolution News

Swamidass’s response doesn’t address our main arguments, but he indicates he is impressed by what Darwinian mechanisms accomplished in generating chloroquine resistance.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Mordoror]

I think you missed the point (your point 1) of the article and I also believe that your assumption is wrong, Anne Gauger who is also a scientist (biologist) by the way, was just presenting Behe's main arguments and how Behe defended it from his critics, namely:

1. The Concept of Irreducible Complexity & The Problem with Homology - where the bacterial flagellum was tackled
2. Evolution by Loss of Function (which Behe also calls devolution) - where the Chloroquine Resistance was tackled

In your point 2, I believe your objection (along with Lents', Swamidass' & Lenski's) in regard to Chloroquine Resistance was answered here:

Science Review Offers False Accusations about Chloroquine Resistance | Evolution News

In one paragraph Lents et al. twice cited sources they thought contradicted Behe, and twice suggested he ignored or dismissed contrary evidence.

evolutionnews.org

On Chloroquine Resistance, Nathan Lents Severely Misrepresents Behe’s Arguments | Evolution News

If you’re going to engage with an individual you disagree with, it’s important to know what that person argues and to state it accurately.

evolutionnews.org

From Swamidass on Chloroquine Resistance, a Response that Doesn’t Respond | Evolution News

Swamidass’s response doesn’t address our main arguments, but he indicates he is impressed by what Darwinian mechanisms accomplished in generating chloroquine resistance.

evolutionnews.org

Yes, and Anne Gauger presented it in a misleading wording that is factually false.
As for the answers, i browsed them quickly and even from an unexpert eyes, they are full of fallacy
I 'd give you just one (which is a basic in mathematics)

Behe called this a “chloroquine complexity cluster” or CCC. He noted that based upon empirical observations, such a trait would require about 1020 organisms to arise.

He then asked a hypothetical question:

What if a problem arose during the course of life on earth that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complex as a CCC? (Let’s call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? (The Edge of Evolution, pp. 62-63)

The answer, Behe argued, poses a serious problem for Darwinian evolution:

In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells.

Hmmm sorry but doubling 10exp20 is not leading to 10exp40 but to 2x10exp20
That's not even biology, that's mathematics and the prime example that people are making mistakes when they are trying too hard

On a more on topic field, the whole argument crumble by itself about that

The first major mistake the critics made was attacking Behe’s claim that malarial resistance arises once in every 1020 malarial parasites. Paul Gross ridiculed it as “a mere guess.” Yet the statistic actually came from a review article, “Antimalarial drug resistance,” by a top malaria expert Nicholas White in a well-respected medical journal, The Journal of Clinical Investigation. White deduced the following:
Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years. This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 1020 parasite multiplications. This seems like a completely legitimate number for Behe to cite. Behe didn’t conclude that the likelihood of evolving a CCC was 1 in 1020 organisms due to probability calculations; it is an empirically observed data point based upon public health data.

It IS not a legitimate guess. Behe has worked on malaria. He should have known that parasite multiplication (cycles) is =/= number of parasites
A single merozoite in a red cell by multiplication (cycle) can divide itself into 10 to 50 daughter elements
Which is dividing its guess number by as much -not a small number-
Or in other word, the resistance effect he is discussing about (and which i remind you is only ONE among many others) has an empiric probability of 1 on 10exp19 to 1 on 2 . 10exp 18

Maths again. Do them, like them
From there all the answers are melting like butter under heat

Echec et Mat ..................

 

[Buster23]

Yes, and Anne Gauger presented it in a misleading wording that is factually false.
As for the answers, i browsed them quickly and even from an unexpert eyes, they are full of fallacy
I 'd give you just one (which is a basic in mathematics)




Hmmm sorry but doubling 10exp20 is not leading to 10exp40 but to 2x10exp20
That's not even biology, that's mathematics and the prime example that people are making mistakes when they are trying too hard

On a more on topic field, the whole argument crumble by itself about that



It IS not a legitimate guess. Behe has worked on malaria. He should have known that parasite multiplication (cycles) is =/= number of parasites
A single merozoite in a red cell by multiplication (cycle) can divide itself into 10 to 50 daughter elements
Which is dividing its guess number by as much -not a small number-
Or in other word, the resistance effect he is discussing about (and which i remind you is only ONE among many others) has an empiric probability of 1 on 10exp19 to 1 on 2 . 10exp 18

Maths again. Do them, like them
From there all the answers are melting like butter under heat

Echec et Mat ..................

OMG dude....you should leave mathematics alone....I think you have just flushed your credibility down the toilet bowl.

"In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself "

CCC=10exp20

CCC times itself = CCC x CCC = 10exp20 x 10exp20 = 10exp40

 

[Mordoror]

OMG dude....you should leave mathematics alone....I think you have just flushed your credibility down the toilet bowl.

"In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself "

CCC=10exp20

CCC times itself = CCC x CCC = 10exp20 x 10exp20 = 10exp40

Let me requote it :

What if a problem arose during the course of life on earth that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complex as a CCC? (Let’s call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? (The Edge of Evolution, pp. 62-63)

Twice = two fold right ? or maybe you'll attack my english too
What you assess by multiplying CCC by each other is not a 2 fold event but two independant events with separate probabilities arising at the same time. Which is not exactly the same thing. As i said, maths (or in the instance, probabilities) do them, love them

For the record, it is not even working like that IRL, especially in resistance genes
There is a cumulative effect that increases the probability of occurence of a second mutation of resistance when the first one is already there when the cells are kept under selection pressure. That's a well known mechanism and this is what explains why bacterias with a Dose Dependant Suceptibility are quicker to reach the Full Resistance status than Sensitive bacterias
Or to page your calculation, it would rather be 10exp20 x 10exp10 or 10exp5
Because the events are statisticaly not independant anymore.

This is true in the antiobotic resistance field but not only. That's seems conviently brushed away

 

[Buster23]

Let me requote it :


Twice = two fold right ? or maybe you'll attack my english too
What you assess by multiplying CCC by each other is not a 2 fold event but two independant events with separate probabilities arising at the same time. Which is not exactly the same thing. As i said, maths (or in the instance, probabilities) do them, love them

For the record, it is not even working like that IRL, especially in resistance genes
There is a cumulative effect that increases the probability of occurence of a second mutation of resistance when the first one is already there when the cells are kept under selection pressure. That's a well known mechanism and this is what explains why bacterias with a Dose Dependant Suceptibility are quicker to reach the Full Resistance status than Sensitive bacterias
Or to page your calculation, it would rather be 10exp20 x 10exp10 or 10exp5
Because the events are statisticaly not independant anymore.

This is true in the antiobotic resistance field but not only. That's seems conviently brushed away

I think your interpretation is flawed.

Here he was asking himself a hypothetical (what if) question and then along that thought suggested a hypothetical ball park figure.

He then asked a hypothetical question:
What if a problem arose during the course of life on earth that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complex as a CCC? (Let’s call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? (The Edge of Evolution, pp. 62-63)

Here is his more precise answer to his hypothetical question

In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells.

And here (next paragraph to the above quote which you intentionally left out) where he qualifies the 10exp40 figure

Workers at the University of Georgia have estimated that about a billion billion trillion (1030) bacterial cells are formed on the earth each and every year. (Bacteria are by far the most numerous type of organisms on earth.) If that number has been the same over the entire several-billion-year history of the world, then throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we’d expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth. (The Edge of Evolution, p. 63)

 

[Mordoror]

In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells.

In that it case, it would be two independant mutational events (or two independant CCC). Sorry, but the wording is important (that's why over -simplification for common readers can be misleading ..... as it is in this very example)
For the rest i adressed the number issue
It wouldn't be 10 exp20 x 10exp20 because resistance mutations are not independant, the second cluster of mutations (CCC2) appearing more often/easily in a population harboring the first cluster of mutation (CCC1) than if CCC1 and CCC2 had to appear together in a naive population.
That's the very explanation why a midly resistant population goes to a full resistant population pretty quickly and why it is rare, indeed, to have a susceptible population go up to full resistance in a single row for multi-mutation based resistance mechanisms.

But let's answer to his hypothetical question in your sense

In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells.

1- a single mutation occuring on 10exp20 cells is a not seen thing. Usualy mutations are refered by probability by generation and/or by base numbers
And a 10exp10 single mutation is already considered to be a very very rare event (in fact almost the rarest event, i have never read of mutations with a lower probability but i admit that i may have missed them). As we are talking about a mutational cluster (2 mutations) it would be 10exp10 x 10exp10 so 10exp20 which is (roughly and to be refined) with the discussed empirical model (to be refined too).

2- a mutation with a probabiity of 10exp40/generation is even lower and indeed has no chance to appear at all. But (and there are big but)
A- probabilities are not conserved under selection pressure for cumulative mutational complexes (like i adressed above) so it is very unlikely to have such low prob in nature
B- spontaneous mutations (which is what we are talking about) are not the only mutational events occuring. UV radiation, absorption of a mutagen, X-ray radiation and a bunch of other mechanisms are known to increase mutational rate
C-as are some viral infections, longitudinal genetic material exchange, transposable elements (which are pretty frequent in bacterias etc)
D-concerning superior organisms, meiosis is also increasing genetic probability shuffling
E-decrease of efficiency of the DNA self repair mechanism (through aging for example) is also increasing mutational events probabilities
G-i forgot to previously mention it but it exists what are called hyper-mutators individuals for whom the mutational rate level is higher (sometimes several fold) than in average population
F-all those elements are cumulative

In any case, his hypothesis on a double event with a probability of 10exp40 is only mathematical and is ignoring all these phenomenas widely known that increase mutational probabilities. And it is an hypothetical question anyway as it was never described anywhere

A bit of reading : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836558/

The mutation rate of stable genomes is estimated to be 10−10/bp per cell generation (3). However, in certain physiologic conditions the rate of mutation increases dramatically. As one example, the immunoglobulin (Ig) genes can undergo mutation at a rate that exceeds the basal rate by more than a million-fold (1,4,5). In another example, a lac I transgene in mice (in the ‘Big Blue’ transgenic mouse) undergoes mutations more frequently than expected assuming a basal mutation rate (6,7). Cancer cells are thought to mutate at a high rate.

 

[BCNTM]

Young people are growing odd 'spikes' on their skulls from using phones too much

A new study has revealed the bizarre way in which mobile phones are having an impact on the human skull

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Buster23]

But let's answer to his hypothetical question in your sense


1- a single mutation occuring on 10exp20 cells is a not seen thing. Usualy mutations are refered by probability by generation and/or by base numbers
And a 10exp10 single mutation is already considered to be a very very rare event (in fact almost the rarest event, i have never read of mutations with a lower probability but i admit that i may have missed them). As we are talking about a mutational cluster (2 mutations) it would be 10exp10 x 10exp10 so 10exp20 which is (roughly and to be refined) with the discussed empirical model (to be refined too).

On your point 1 - Actually, the 10exp20 figure was not by Dr. Behe's calculations, it is an empirical value based on actual study, "This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 1020 parasite multiplications " quoted per link below

Antimalarial drug resistance - PMC

Malaria, the most prevalent and most pernicious parasitic disease of humans, is estimated to kill between one and two million people, mainly children, each year. Resistance has emerged to all classes of antimalarial drugs except the artemisinins and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dr. Behe further shed some explanation in below article

Best of Behe: Waiting Longer for Two Mutations | Evolution News

Durrett and Schmidt illustrate “my” mistake with an example about a lottery winner.

evolutionnews.org

As for your point 2 - although it is way beyond my comprehension/understanding, they seem valid and original points to me, hence I would rather suggest that you direct the said objections to Dr. Behe himself or perhaps publish your own review on Dr. Behe's works.

 

[Mordoror]

On your point 1 - Actually, the 10exp20 figure was not by Dr. Behe's calculations, it is an empirical value based on actual study, "This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 1020 parasite multiplications " quoted per link below

Yep i know
It is based on a model dating from 1997. While mathematicaly correct (i gave calculations that even not refined go in the same way) it is not up to date anymore. Because biology =/= mathematics

Chloroquine clinical failures in P. falciparum malaria are associated with mutant Pfmdr-1, not Pfcrt in Madagascar - PubMed

Molecular studies have demonstrated that mutations in the Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter gene (Pfcrt) play a major role in chloroquine resistance, while mutations in P. falciparum multidrug resistance gene (Pfmdr-1) act as modulator. In Madagascar, the high rate of...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Buster23]

Dr. James Tour, synthetic organic chemist, expert on nanotechnology, questions the origin of life through evolution/abiogenesis

On the Origin of Life, Why Listen to James Tour? | Evolution News

Tour is not one for mincing words: “The people who might disagree with me are biologists because they’ve never made anything.”…

evolutionnews.org

“The people who might disagree with me are biologists because they’ve never made anything.”

 

[Mordoror]

Dr. James Tour, synthetic organic chemist, expert on nanotechnology, questions the origin of life through evolution/abiogenesis

On the Origin of Life, Why Listen to James Tour? | Evolution News

Tour is not one for mincing words: “The people who might disagree with me are biologists because they’ve never made anything.”…

evolutionnews.org

“The people who might disagree with me are biologists because they’ve never made anything.”

LoL....

Scientists create first stable semisynthetic organism

Life's genetic code has only ever contained four natural bases. These bases pair up to form two "base pairs"—the rungs of the DNA ladder—and they have simply been rearranged to create bacteria and butterflies, penguins and people. Four bases make up all life as we know it.

phys.org

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created

Researchers create altered synthetic genome, in move with potential medical benefits

www.theguardian.com

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Buster23]

LoL....

Scientists create first stable semisynthetic organism

Life's genetic code has only ever contained four natural bases. These bases pair up to form two "base pairs"—the rungs of the DNA ladder—and they have simply been rearranged to create bacteria and butterflies, penguins and people. Four bases make up all life as we know it.

phys.org

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created

Researchers create altered synthetic genome, in move with potential medical benefits

www.theguardian.com

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Key words are "create" & "redesigned"...in the controlled environment of their laboratory, and not in the environment or atmospheric conditions of the early earth...therefore, there is still no answer to the big question of origins of life, still "Chemical Evolution Is Dead in the Water"

 

[Mordoror]

Key words are "create" & "redesigned"...in the controlled environment of their laboratory, and not in the environment or atmospheric conditions of the early earth...therefore, there is still no answer to the big question of origins of life, still "Chemical Evolution Is Dead in the Water"

Key words are James Tour is an idiot
The exact quoting is "“The people who might disagree with me are biologists because they’ve never made anything.” Which i just proved wrong.
Which is true also for chemists if you go there. Chemistry reactions are controled and with basic bricks that exist in Nature (see periodic table to go down to atoms)
Call me when somebody makes something totaly new outside of existing materials or chemical bricks.

For the rest of your argument, given that we will never be able go back 3 billions years back in the early earth conditions (outside laboratory , except if one day we build up a time machine which is unlikely to say the least) and given that outside that "proof" you discard lab experimentations (which are the basics or science) you won't get any answer to the question about origin of life.....not that it matters as you seem to have convinced yourself of what is acceptable and what is not. It was just to point the fallacy of your argumentation.

But because you are an engineer i will make a parallel :when you use mathematical models or informatic models before building anything you take them for accurate with a margin of error. Nobody sane will fly in a plane that didn't underwent lab simulations at least for material resistance, wind resistance, flying capabilities in various winds etc . It is the same with bridges, skyscrappers, nuclear powerplants etc and fortunately so.
But Let me ask ? because those models are done in a controled environment, they shouldn"t be accepted at all ? Right ? or Wrong ?

It is just a rethorical question, the answer is obvious. Personnaly, I won't be very comfortable in a building for which force calculations wouldn't have been done before built.