RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The limits of darwinism., Utunumsint's thread.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:18   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,12:04)
Here is a paraphrase of what Behe says in chapter 8.

The limits of darwinism are:

1-Three or more different proteins binding specifically to each other (not three copies of the same protein) is beyond the ability of darwinian evolution.
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

Hopefully I'm not over posting.... :)

Any comments?

Cheers,


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:24   

I'm not sure I understand Utunumsint's argument.

Is he disputing the idea that three newly created proteins can co-opt to a new function by binding together?

Has anyone asked this guy if he's ever taken a biology course?

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:26   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,10:10)
Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)

So anything that requires more than one or two mutations, e.g. three at a time, is beyong the reach of evolution, according to Behe.

That's Behe's confusion. The odds of mutations are fairly well known. Multiple rare events are rare, of course. But if each successive mutation confers a benefit, then it will become fixed in the population much faster than chance.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote
In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.

So they knew that such mutations could happen, but they didn't know how rare they would be. It, therefore takes trillions of e-coli to produce one such mutation. Of course, as one critique observed, there are 10 to the power of 16 e-coli in one ton of dirt. So such mutation, given this large population size, should be common....???

Sorry. That wasn't clearly expressed. Mutations rates are well-established. The rate a neutral mutation will fix is a matter of analysis. What isn't known is how often a neutral mutation will potentiate a beneficial mutation. And therefore, whether evolution is primarily contingent on happenstance or adaptation. In this case, it appears happenstance was important because the other lineages never discovered the adaptation. Generally, it seems there is more neutral evolution on the molecular level than with macroscopic structures, but even that is not known with certainty.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
But was it Behe's argument that the citrate utilizing capacity was not possible without the two mutiations? Therefore there is a whole class of functional developments that are not reachable by incrementatal adaptation?

That was the result. It took two mutations, the first of which was neutral and fixed by chance. His argument then is that this is the most evolution could accomplish. Of course, if a third mutation comes along that improves the mechanism, then there is no reason it can't be selected and fixed in the population. Or a fourth. Then a potentiating mutation, then a selectable one. As long as there is a selectable pathway, there is no Edge of Evolution.

By the way, there is no doubt that there are whole classes of functional developments beyond the reach of incremental adaptation. The vast majority of genomic sequences will never be searched by evolution.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:27   

Quote (RDK @ Jan. 28 2010,12:24)
I'm not sure I understand Utunumsint's argument.

Is he disputing the idea that three newly created proteins can co-opt to a new function by binding together?

Has anyone asked this guy if he's ever taken a biology course?

No, I am a technical writer with an arts degree. A professional pain in the ass to people with real science degrees, but I represent the people who need a dumbed down version of highly technical products. :)

If you read the last few posts here
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=2490

You can see where this is comming from.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:35   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:26)
However, all of this is a moot point if evolution happens in an incremental way. Which Behe admits happens, of course. He just thinks that some complex things cannot be created by evolution in incremental ways, but requires sometime two or more mutations to work in conjunction to have them happen.  

Then Behe isn't actually saying anything at all, at least nothing that isn't obvious.  

{edit} We know that evolution can't search every conceivable sequence. So saying it can't find some complex things doesn't say anything that isn't obvious. But Behe is actually saying that some existing complex things couldn't have evolved, saying "complexes of just three or more different proteins are beyond the edge of evolution. They are lost in shape space." But it is quite possible that complexes can evolve—even irreducible complexes, which is his real argument.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:46   

Thank you for your replies Zachriel. I have to return to my day job, but I'll respond tomorrow.

I've been invited to a movie viewing of "Expelled" tonight, so I'm preparing to be assaulted by vacuous propaganda al la Michael Moor. :) I'll bring up this conversation during the viewing and maybe insert some intelligence into the conversation.

Cheers,
Ut

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:54   

Obvious Poe is obvious.

However I figure I'll wait a few hundred pages for the FL-like apocalypse before I cast judgment.  Don't start the wailing and gnashing of teeth before I grab my popcorn!

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,13:49   

I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.



Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 28 2010,21:26

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,13:51   

Enjoy THIS for your amusement.

Nice handle, "Ut."

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:02   

Actually, I think that Lenski's study results are a black eye to Behe.

I am Catholic, and unashamed of it, that is why I called myself Utunumsint. Evolution does not threaten my faith at all. I don't even have to appeal to quantuum uncertainty to justify my belief in God. :)

I was originally impressed with ID around 5 years ago, but have since become disinterested in their arguments. I still think that Behe is basing his arguments on science, but I don't believe that science is confirming his conclusions. Especially given Lenski's results.

All the information I'm interested in right now is to get clarification on what Behe actually believes and is Lenski's results as big a hole in his theory as I think it is. Not being an expert, I thought I might find someone who knows about these things over here. www.catholic.com doesn't provide a balanced perspective on this topic. :)

God bless,
Ut

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:23   

Goalpost science. And yet it moves.



Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 28 2010,21:22

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:29   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 28 2010,14:23)
Goalpost science. And yet it moves.

I think you'd be right with Darwin's Black Box and maybe some of the other work from the Discovery Institute, but with The Edge of Evolution, Behe has drawn a line in the sand as indicated in the first post, and Lenski has come awful close to meeting that line.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:36   

Thank you, Ut, for jumping directly to level 6, Learning about Creationism.

Take a look at my stage 3.  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  There is no Framastat equation.  I stole the word "framastat" from a computer game.  Up-conversion is real but makes no sense in this context.  To a non-scientist, however, it sounds very grand.  Sciency.

Behe's work is not based on science at all.  There's no science, only science-sounding bafflegab. Behe's "work" is no different from a carnival barker.

Here's what Behe does.  You're walking in the rain in Houston and you're getting wet. Now, imagine that drop of rain that just hit your forehead.  I want you to calculate the probability of all of the molecules of water in that raindrop originating in the Gulf of Mexico, say, 200 miles off shore, evaporating, being transported to a location over Houston, coming together and nucleating into a drop, bouncing around in a cloud for a while and finally falling 30,000 feet in variable winds to hit you precisely on the forehead.

Got that?  Well, get your calculator and get busy.  Clock is ticking.

So, what's the probability?  Something like a ka-zillion to one?  Something like ten to the minus Juneteenth?

According to Behe you could never get wet because the probability of that particular raindrop hitting you at precisely that time and location is vanishingly small.  Of course, that's a gross misrepresentation of probability, or misuse, perhaps.  Anyway, it's gross.  And it's wrong.

Doesn't Behe know better, you ask?  Of course he does.  Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:39   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 28 2010,14:23)
Goalpost science. And yet it moves.

POTW

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:42   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:02)
I still think that Behe is basing his arguments on science, but I don't believe that science is confirming his conclusions. Especially given Lenski's results.

Well, you're wrong. He's basing his arguments on a preconceived conclusion, using sciencey terms and bogus math to disguise that fact.

Science moved past Behe's caricature of it decades ago. Lenski is only the latest to point that out.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:46   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,14:36)
Thank you, Ut, for jumping directly to level 6, Learning about Creationism.

Take a look at my stage 3.  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  There is no Framastat equation.  I stole the word "framastat" from a computer game.  Up-conversion is real but makes no sense in this context.  To a non-scientist, however, it sounds very grand.  Sciency.

Behe's work is not based on science at all.  There's no science, only science-sounding bafflegab. Behe's "work" is no different from a carnival barker.

Here's what Behe does.  You're walking in the rain in Houston and you're getting wet. Now, imagine that drop of rain that just hit your forehead.  I want you to calculate the probability of all of the molecules of water in that raindrop originating in the Gulf of Mexico, say, 200 miles off shore, evaporating, being transported to a location over Houston, coming together and nucleating into a drop, bouncing around in a cloud for a while and finally falling 30,000 feet in variable winds to hit you precisely on the forehead.

Got that?  Well, get your calculator and get busy.  Clock is ticking.

So, what's the probability?  Something like a ka-zillion to one?  Something like ten to the minus Juneteenth?

According to Behe you could never get wet because the probability of that particular raindrop hitting you at precisely that time and location is vanishingly small.  Of course, that's a gross misrepresentation of probability, or misuse, perhaps.  Anyway, it's gross.  And it's wrong.

Doesn't Behe know better, you ask?  Of course he does.  Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...

That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:58   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,13:49)
I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.

Well, it would save Wes a lot of work. As for the Framastat equation, those can be tricky. You have to remember to take the exponent of the components in the contraption by the incredibility index. A lot of people get that wrong.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:01   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,14:42)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:02)
I still think that Behe is basing his arguments on science, but I don't believe that science is confirming his conclusions. Especially given Lenski's results.

Well, you're wrong. He's basing his arguments on a preconceived conclusion, using sciencey terms and bogus math to disguise that fact.

No, you're wrong. He's basing his arguments on sciencey terms and bogus math using a preconceived conclusion to disguise that fact. Hmmrph.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:02   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:46)
That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.

Sure Michael, er, no problem.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:05   

You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:08   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:05)
You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

Hmm. Why don't you make your/his argument?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
MillstoneCam



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:08   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,20:46)
If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...

Here's what Lehigh say about him

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:09   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:05)
You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

Don't quit now. Wes has already typed up 600 pages.

Anyway, if you really have questions, ask away.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:11   

As a grad student I could never remember to apply Finagle's Factor to my Framastat calculation, so I was mixing Newtons and Murphys.

I mean, a Newton-Murphy makes no sense.

Now, Ut, you're not listening.  Pay attention or you'll get a time out.

Behe has his wonderful job at Leheigh because he secured tenure before stepping off the edge of the Earth.  Leheigh honors that and good for them.  There is, however, a disclaimer on the Biology Dept website stating that Behe's views are his and his alone and do not represent the views of the Dept, etc.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

There's no point in discussing Behe's "argument" because he doesn't have one.  Behe has a conclusion backed up by wrong math and misrepresentation of actual research.  It's been digested and spit out elsewhere.  Get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself.

You might as well discuss Doc Bill's Stage 3.  Hell of a good argument I presented, by the way.  If you're interested I could set you up with some used Framastats.  Mint condition.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:51   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,15:08)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:05)
You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

Hmm. Why don't you make your/his argument?

Why don't we start with the original post you started this thread with.

1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,16:02   

Quote
1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

1. Yes.

2. No, they are arbitrary.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,16:10   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:51)
1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

Behe:    
Quote
Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.

How many more did he "overlook"? So, even by his own words his criteria must be falsified. He's no expert in the field. Miss one, miss 100. Same difference when you don't allow comments on your books at amazon, after all it's only about separating $$ from the faithful.
 
Quote
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

So
 
Quote
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Perhaps. Define "destroy". Show that what happens when citrate becomes digestible is "destructive"? How? What was destroyed? How did you know the thing that was "destroyed" was not also "destroyed" itself previously? etc.

Oh, what's that? You could put the citrate digesting strain back into the original environment and see if it's beaten out by the "undamaged" bacteria you say?  :p

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,16:26   

I'm not a biologist but from my understanding, Lenski's experiment just displayed what was already known.

Now Behe says that the probability to get from point a to point b is a gazillion to one. What he overlooks is:


1. Evolution is not goal orientated and there could be a bazillion proteins that could perform the same function. He should take these into account.

2. Proteins are not binary as a near hit can have a partial effect.

3. there are a bazillion ways to go from a to b. Behe only looks at a single path straight from a to b.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,17:31   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,11:49)
I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.

LMAO!

POTW?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,17:49   

YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,18:35   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2010,17:49)
YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

HAHAHAHA this is Richard!

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,18:45   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,12:26)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,10:10)
Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)

So anything that requires more than one or two mutations, e.g. three at a time, is beyong the reach of evolution, according to Behe.

That's Behe's confusion. The odds of mutations are fairly well known. Multiple rare events are rare, of course. But if each successive mutation confers a benefit, then it will become fixed in the population much faster than chance.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote
In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.

So they knew that such mutations could happen, but they didn't know how rare they would be. It, therefore takes trillions of e-coli to produce one such mutation. Of course, as one critique observed, there are 10 to the power of 16 e-coli in one ton of dirt. So such mutation, given this large population size, should be common....???

Sorry. That wasn't clearly expressed. Mutations rates are well-established. The rate a neutral mutation will fix is a matter of analysis. What isn't known is how often a neutral mutation will potentiate a beneficial mutation. And therefore, whether evolution is primarily contingent on happenstance or adaptation. In this case, it appears happenstance was important because the other lineages never discovered the adaptation. Generally, it seems there is more neutral evolution on the molecular level than with macroscopic structures, but even that is not known with certainty.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
But was it Behe's argument that the citrate utilizing capacity was not possible without the two mutiations? Therefore there is a whole class of functional developments that are not reachable by incrementatal adaptation?

That was the result. It took two mutations, the first of which was neutral and fixed by chance. His argument then is that this is the most evolution could accomplish. Of course, if a third mutation comes along that improves the mechanism, then there is no reason it can't be selected and fixed in the population. Or a fourth. Then a potentiating mutation, then a selectable one. As long as there is a selectable pathway, there is no Edge of Evolution.

By the way, there is no doubt that there are whole classes of functional developments beyond the reach of incremental adaptation. The vast majority of genomic sequences will never be searched by evolution.

Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,19:39   

Screw Lenski, the piker!  Intelligently designing his experiment.  Some help he was promoting the atheist evolutionist agenda!

Now, take those bacteria who developed nylonase on their ownself.  Now, that's science!  And without scientists!

Oh, sorry, Ut, hate to bring up observed evolution in the wild.  Well, in any case, they're still bacteria, so you can go back to your wine and wafers and have a nice evening.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,20:24   

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)
Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

Quote
These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.


--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,20:34   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 28 2010,14:26)
I'm not a biologist but from my understanding, Lenski's experiment just displayed what was already known.

Now Behe says that the probability to get from point a to point b is a gazillion to one. What he overlooks is:


1. Evolution is not goal orientated and there could be a bazillion proteins that could perform the same function. He should take these into account.

2. Proteins are not binary as a near hit can have a partial effect.

3. there are a bazillion ways to go from a to b. Behe only looks at a single path straight from a to b.

Not only that, but if we consider "point b" as an island of reproductive advantage, there may be many, many points b.

Obvious, I know. But someone had to say it.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,21:04   

The only islands of reproductive advantage I know about are in the south Pacific.

  
Cubist



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,03:23   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:46)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,14:36)
Doesn't Behe know better, you ask?  Of course he does.  Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...
As has already been pointed out, Behe can't be canned because he's got tenure... but his university has explicitly disowned him with a "this guy's views are strictly his own, and have nothing to do with science as she is spoke by the rest of the faculty" disclaimer. Not exactly a common thing for universities to do, eh?
Quote
That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.
Okay by me! How about we start with Behe's arguments re: "irreducible complexity"? According to Behe, a system is "irreducibly complex" if every individual component in the system is required to be present in order for the system to perform its function. Thus, an irreducibly complex system which lacks any one of its components cannot function. So there is no way for evolution to produce an irreducibly complex system, because the immediate evolutionary precursor to an IC system would be lacking a component, hence would not function.
That's Behe's argument, as best I understand it. The problem is, his argument assumes that evolution can only add new parts to a system -- but evolution can also remove previously-existing parts from a system, and evolution can also modify a system's previously-existing parts.
So okay, Behe's IC argument ignores two of the three classes of change evolution can produce. Fine. Does that mean he's wrong? Well, sort of. Yes, Behe is correct that you can't get an IC system from any evolutionary process in which all the steps are "add a new part". But if you allow your evolutionary process to include "remove an old part" and/or "change an old part" steps in addition to "add a new part" steps, you can get an IC system in the following manner:
Step one: Add a new part to the system. At this point, the new part is not necessary for the system to function.
Step two: Modify one of the old parts so that said old part cannot function in the absence of the new part which was added in Step One.
For Behe's IC argument to be valid, it must not be possible for evolution to modify existing parts of a system... and it should be patently obvious that it bloody well is possible for evolution to modify existing parts of a system. To the best of my knowledge, Behe has never even acknowledged the existence of this counter-argument, let alone demonstrated that his argument survives said counter-argument.
What say you, Utunumsint?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,06:21   

At the risk  of jumping in over my head, might I point out that when evolution is confronted with a do or die necessity of getting from a to b, the odds favor die.

Hence extinctions.

B is not a goal. It is a result. The lottery winner.

Saying B couldn't be reached is a bit like saying any observed event couldn't happen because the cumulative odds against each and every preceding event are astronomical. (such as the odds against your parents meeting, and the odds against your particular sperm and egg meeting)

Behe's followers love him because he has found a couple of structures where we haven't found a complete chain of one step variations that obviously led to the structure.

Of course they ignore the inconvenient fact that since he first described these structures, a number of gap structures have been found. His whole house of cards is just another god of the gaps argument.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,08:54   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,20:24)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)
Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

Quote
These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

I had some time to look over your comments. So I gather that Behe and IDers are not bothered by Lenski's results because the results are within the parameters defined by Behe in the Edge for what falls within the possibility of Darwinian evolution. In other words, it hasn't crossed the edge.

They also cry foul because it took an artificially created ecological niche to make the transition happen.

I guess my follow up question, given that I can't understand the Zhang quote :), is how likely is it for the e-coli to develop a new functionality through three mutations, to reach a functional combination not accessible to single, or even double mutations? Whether it be two neutral mutations potentiating a third selectable mutation...

You may notice that I'm trying to use jargon that I barely understand, so bear with me if I'm being obtuse. :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,08:56   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,19:39)
Screw Lenski, the piker!  Intelligently designing his experiment.  Some help he was promoting the atheist evolutionist agenda!

Now, take those bacteria who developed nylonase on their ownself.  Now, that's science!  And without scientists!

Oh, sorry, Ut, hate to bring up observed evolution in the wild.  Well, in any case, they're still bacteria, so you can go back to your wine and wafers and have a nice evening.

We you beaten by albino monks at some point in your childhood? :)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:01   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)
They also cry foul because it took an artificially created ecological niche to make the transition happen.

Yes, the "but it took an Intelligent Designer to design the experiment so it does not count" line.

I'm sure you can see why that is preposterous. If not, then I'm sure it can be added to the discussion.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,16:10)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:51)
1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

Behe:    
Quote
Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.

How many more did he "overlook"? So, even by his own words his criteria must be falsified. He's no expert in the field. Miss one, miss 100. Same difference when you don't allow comments on your books at amazon, after all it's only about separating $$ from the faithful.


Ut-I'm not sure I understand the significance of this.... Can you dumb it down for me?

   
Quote
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

So
   
Quote
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Perhaps. Define "destroy". Show that what happens when citrate becomes digestible is "destructive"? How? What was destroyed? How did you know the thing that was "destroyed" was not also "destroyed" itself previously? etc.

Oh, what's that? You could put the citrate digesting strain back into the original environment and see if it's beaten out by the "undamaged" bacteria you say?  :p

Ut-I think when he made those comments, he was looking at the results of what he called the Trench warfare between malaria and the human immune system. Basically the human immune system was not able to combat malaria. It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence. But it did so at a dreadful cost to the functionality of hemaglobin. He also provides other examples of mutations involving the hemaglobin, showing the same results. No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Anyway, I don't know if the above helps to clarify things.... what do you think?

Cheers,
Ut

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:51)
1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

Behe:    
Quote
Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.

How many more did he "overlook"? So, even by his own words his criteria must be falsified. He's no expert in the field. Miss one, miss 100. Same difference when you don't allow comments on your books at amazon, after all it's only about separating $$ from the faithful.


Ut-I'm not sure I understand the significance of this.... Can you dumb it down for me?

   
Quote
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

So
   
Quote
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Perhaps. Define "destroy". Show that what happens when citrate becomes digestible is "destructive"? How? What was destroyed? How did you know the thing that was "destroyed" was not also "destroyed" itself previously? etc.

Oh, what's that? You could put the citrate digesting strain back into the original environment and see if it's beaten out by the "undamaged" bacteria you say?  :p

Ut-I think when he made those comments, he was looking at the results of what he called the Trench warfare between malaria and the human immune system. Basically the human immune system was not able to combat malaria. It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence. But it did so at a dreadful cost to the functionality of hemaglobin. He also provides other examples of mutations involving the hemaglobin, showing the same results. No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Anyway, I don't know if the above helps to clarify things.... what do you think?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:10   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)
You may notice that I'm trying to use jargon that I barely understand, so bear with me if I'm being obtuse. :)

I'm no expert, just an interested dabbler.

But when you have loads of people on one side, most with actual peer reviewed science to their name and on the other side a man (Behe) who has no interest in proving his own claims (see Dover transcripts where he's asked what he's doing to provide evidence and reply's that that is for others to provide) and who only seems to be interested in selling books (why not write a paper?) then I'm inclined to dismiss the lone guy as a crank. Sure, if he's right then he'll be proven right eventually. But as I've noted, he's not even right by his own admission. And he thinks it's not his job to provide evidence for his own arguments.

No, it's not "science by consensus" because Behe has had 20+ years to come up with experimental evidence to make his case. He has not. He just keeps on writing the books. And making blog posts at UD where nobody is allowed to comment.

He's not interested in science, he's interested in making his argument sound like science to the extent that it can impress non-scientists who then think he's making a scientific argument.

Actual scientists? Not so impressed.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/behe-replies-to.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/an-open-letter-3.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1150421
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/behe-versus-rib.html
http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/10/12/behe-jumps-shark/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....t_i.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng...._pa.php
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/behes-bad-math.html

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:14   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The question you have to ask yourself is could malaria be any more successful then it already is?

Malaria has had a very long time to evolve, yes. And yet it's still malaria.

 
Quote
Each year, there are approximately 350–500 million cases of malaria,[1] killing between one and three million people,

In what way would malaria need to step outside of it's niche to continue to be successful? Why would you expect it to change significantly given how successful it is? Seems to me this "still just malaria" is doing just fine.

Are you Dave Scot?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:17   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:21   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:14)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The question you have to ask yourself is could malaria be any more successful then it already is?

Malaria has had a very long time to evolve, yes. And yet it's still malaria.

Ut-From what Behe seems to say is that Malaria itself is losing functional parts of its DNA in its struggle to defeat the human countermeasures, and even more so in its battle with antibiotics. But whenever an antibiotic is removed from the population, then regular malaria returns in force....

 
Quote
Each year, there are approximately 350–500 million cases of malaria,[1] killing between one and three million people,

In what way would malaria need to step outside of it's niche to continue to be successful? Why would you expect it to change significantly given how successful it is? Seems to me this "still just malaria" is doing just fine.

Ut-Good point.

Are you Dave Scot?

Ut-No. Not sure who that is..

Cheers,
Ut

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The question you have to ask yourself is could malaria be any more successful then it already is?

Malaria has had a very long time to evolve, yes. And yet it's still malaria.

Ut-From what Behe seems to say is that Malaria itself is losing functional parts of its DNA in its struggle to defeat the human countermeasures, and even more so in its battle with antibiotics. But whenever an antibiotic is removed from the population, then regular malaria returns in force....

 
Quote
Each year, there are approximately 350–500 million cases of malaria,[1] killing between one and three million people,

In what way would malaria need to step outside of it's niche to continue to be successful? Why would you expect it to change significantly given how successful it is? Seems to me this "still just malaria" is doing just fine.

Ut-Good point.

Are you Dave Scot?

Ut-No. Not sure who that is..

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:21   

Quote
No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Sickle cell evolved did it not in response to malaria? How many "new evolutionary functions" do you want? 1 is more then none you know. Perhaps there are no other mutations within reach that provide better protection.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:17)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

Ut-Well it seems to be a trade off between one bad situation for another bad situation. SSA just kills you much more slowly. It also make  you much weaker. Do you see this as a net benefit?

Cheers,
Ut

I got to get back to my day job.... :) I'll check back in tonight....

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:26   

You're not being obtuse, Ut, you'd need an education for that.

No, you've simply snapped back to Stage 3.

Why don't be a nice creationist and just get on with blessing us and take a hike?

Or, if you're serious, and I know you're not because A) I'm a mind reader and B) I am an albino monk, answer this question.  It's simple.

Explain to me at the molecular level the difference between what Lenski has observed in his experiment and what happened in that waste pit in Japan where nylonase evolved?

(For your cryptic puzzle enthusiasts here's a clue:  There isn't any in nylonase!  (4)    )

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:21)

Quote
No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

Sickle cell evolved did it not in response to malaria? How many "new evolutionary functions" do you want? 1 is more then none you know. Perhaps there are no other mutations within reach that provide better protection.


Ut-I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:30   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 29 2010,09:26)
You're not being obtuse, Ut, you'd need an education for that.

No, you've simply snapped back to Stage 3.

Why don't be a nice creationist and just get on with blessing us and take a hike?

Or, if you're serious, and I know you're not because A) I'm a mind reader and B) I am an albino monk, answer this question.  It's simple.

Explain to me at the molecular level the difference between what Lenski has observed in his experiment and what happened in that waste pit in Japan where nylonase evolved?

(For your cryptic puzzle enthusiasts here's a clue:  There isn't any in nylonase!  (4)    )

I haven't a clue. :)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:37   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:28)
Ut-I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

If you don't count "ability to better survive malaria" as a beneficial mutation then sure, I guess Behe is right.

Use the preview button! Twice!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,09:48   

OK, I looked up Dave Scot. Really? Do I sound like that guy? :)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:02   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:28)
I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

No, it merely improved survival. Is that not a big deal to you?

Or is that small time on earth considered to be trivial when you think you have an immortal soul and an eternity in heaven (or hell).

[Please ignore the above rhetorical question. It's simply the best I can do when confronted with questions from someone who is clearly, and self-admittedly, ignorant about the basic mechanisms underlying his/her questions. It doesn't take a village, but it does take at least a minimal education in biology to get very far in this discussion. if you are frustrated with that progress, or lack thereof, I suggest you take an intro biology course, or read a real book (not an ID apologetics text like Edge of Evolution), or do something else that will allow you to understand that some of your assumptions and questions are merely ignorant. Ignorant is not a character flaw; it can be fixed. However, when you are willfully ignorant, like Behe, it is a character flaw.]

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:06   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 29 2010,10:02)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:28)
I guess Behe would say, no new beneficial mutations that actually improved the workings of the human host.... Does that make sense?

No, it merely improved survival. Is that not a big deal to you?

Or is that small time on earth considered to be trivial when you think you have an immortal soul and an eternity in heaven (or hell).

[Please ignore the above rhetorical question. It's simply the best I can do when confronted with questions from someone who is clearly, and self-admittedly, ignorant about the basic mechanisms underlying his/her questions. It doesn't take a village, but it does take at least a minimal education in biology to get very far in this discussion. if you are frustrated with that progress, or lack thereof, I suggest you take an intro biology course, or read a real book (not an ID apologetics text like Edge of Evolution), or do something else that will allow you to understand that some of your assumptions and questions are merely ignorant. Ignorant is not a character flaw; it can be fixed. However, when you are willfully ignorant, like Behe, it is a character flaw.]

Sounds good.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:11   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:48)
OK, I looked up Dave Scot. Really? Do I sound like that guy? :)

No, just the "malaria is still malaria" bit was something he used to go on about. So it got me thinking.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:14   

OK, so its obvious that I'm laking in education on this subject matter, so perhaps people could suggest to me some intro level reading that I can do on my own. I have three kids and very little time, but I am certainly interested in the subject.

Preferable, not something polemical, but a good intro series of books into the subject of evolution. Especially ones that deal with the microbiological issues.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:15   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)
I had some time to look over your comments. So I gather that Behe and IDers are not bothered by Lenski's results because the results are within the parameters defined by Behe in the Edge for what falls within the possibility of Darwinian evolution. In other words, it hasn't crossed the edge.

Mutations happen all the time. Pointing to multiple mutations with surprise is not much of an argument.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)
They also cry foul because it took an artificially created ecological niche to make the transition happen.

Natural environments and populations are far more complex than anything in Lenski's Lab.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,08:54)
I guess my follow up question, given that I can't understand the Zhang quote :), is how likely is it for the e-coli to develop a new functionality through three mutations, to reach a functional combination not accessible to single, or even double mutations? Whether it be two neutral mutations potentiating a third selectable mutation...

To reach a predefined goal, not very likely. But that's not how evolution works, of course. The mouth might evolve into all sorts of shapes and sizes, neutral evolution, hundreds or thousands of meanderings. Then selection might grab hold, and adapt it into a complex organ for communication. In retrospect, you might wonder how all those changes occurred just as they did, but the wonderment is a result of retrospection.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:29   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
Ut-I think when he made those comments, he was looking at the results of what he called the Trench warfare between malaria and the human immune system. Basically the human immune system was not able to combat malaria. It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence. But it did so at a dreadful cost to the functionality of hemaglobin. He also provides other examples of mutations involving the hemaglobin, showing the same results. No new evolutionary function over this very prolongued conflict with malaria has evolved on the human side....

The human immune system is not helpless against malaria, and can build immunity over time. That why children are in the most danger from infection. Malaria has evolved in response to the immune system. That's why it comes in bouts, doesn't always kill the host, and attacks the immune system itself. Also, like most diseases, it is successful only when at a high enough prevalence to ensure propagation. In this case, that also includes the prevalence of its vector, the mosquito. It's a rough standoff where malaria has an upper hand in some areas, humans in others.

Humans persist. Malaria persists. Mosquitoes persist. What did you expect?

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:29   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,10:14)
OK, so its obvious that I'm laking in education on this subject matter, so perhaps people could suggest to me some intro level reading that I can do on my own. I have three kids and very little time, but I am certainly interested in the subject.

Preferable, not something polemical, but a good intro series of books into the subject of evolution. Especially ones that deal with the microbiological issues.

Cheers,
Ut

Read Dawkin's latest? It's very good, apparently, and I'll shortly be making a start on it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,10:41   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,10:14)
OK, so its obvious that I'm laking in education on this subject matter, so perhaps people could suggest to me some intro level reading that I can do on my own. I have three kids and very little time, but I am certainly interested in the subject.

Preferable, not something polemical, but a good intro series of books into the subject of evolution. Especially ones that deal with the microbiological issues.

Cheers,
Ut

Carl Zimmer's Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Eminently readable, not polemical.

For microbiological issues, see Microcosm, also by Zimmer.

Enjoy.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,11:09   

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:35)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2010,17:49)
YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

HAHAHAHA this is Richard!

I found our boy FL:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Byers would fit nicely here too.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,11:42   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 29 2010,08:41)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,10:14)
OK, so its obvious that I'm laking in education on this subject matter, so perhaps people could suggest to me some intro level reading that I can do on my own. I have three kids and very little time, but I am certainly interested in the subject.

Preferable, not something polemical, but a good intro series of books into the subject of evolution. Especially ones that deal with the microbiological issues.

Cheers,
Ut

Carl Zimmer's Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Eminently readable, not polemical.

For microbiological issues, see Microcosm, also by Zimmer.

Enjoy.

I also recommend Microcosm, well-written and very engaging. Not pedantic but still a wealth of information.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,12:10   

OK. Thanks all.

How about some good books against ID, without too much rankor?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,12:47   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,12:10)
OK. Thanks all.

How about some good books against ID, without too much rankor?

Cheers,
Ut

If you've not already, check out the Dover trial transcripts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Quote

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A [Behe] Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

If ID could make a case, it would have made it there. It was not made.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,12:48   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,12:10)
OK. Thanks all.

How about some good books against ID, without too much rankor?

Cheers,
Ut

If you read those other books, and gain a good understanding of how science (and particularly evolution) works, you won't need a book to show you how ID fails.

You will easily figure it out for yourself.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,15:52   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:26)

[/quote]
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:17)
[/quote]
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

Ut-Well it seems to be a trade off between one bad situation for another bad situation. SSA just kills you much more slowly. It also make  you much weaker. Do you see this as a net benefit?

Cheers,
Ut

I got to get back to my day job.... :) I'll check back in tonight....


Hmmm...perhaps an analogy will provide a different framework to evaluate the concept of 'positive' vs 'negative' mutation.

There are a very large number of folk in the US with End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD). The specific statistics for ESRD are not pertinent to this analogy, but I'll be happy to provide them if you wish. At any rate, lots - in the 300,000-400,000 person range - in the US with ESRD. ESRD used to be an automatic cause of death; No functioning kidneys = not long to live. Dialysis, a mechanical process that takes the blood out and takes out many of the impurities (but not all) was developed and people no longer died immediately* from ESRD. However, they were extremely tired due to the chemical effects of the dialysate used to filter the blood and over time doctors discovered that dialysis lead to heart failure in many, if not most, patients due to stress. Now, it was still used - those with ESRD didn't die immediately, so it was better than nothing.

Even the transplantation we have today has fairly severe drawbacks. The drugs one takes for immuno-suppression, which is required to prevent the body from rejecting the foreign organ, happen to be nephrotoxic - that means 'kidney damaging' to the layman.

The point is, while certainly the best solution from our perspective to issues that result in death would be one that has no downsides, that isn't always feasible or the first thing discovered. When faced with the alternative of issue with death vs ehhh solution with not so hot side-effects, most times the latter is preferencial since it buys some time to do a few more things. And what you need to keep in mind is that evolution *does not have the foresight* that humans do. It doesn't 'know' about the concept of death or even illness or inconvenience. The only thing propelling it along is survival. So, if someone lives longer with SSA than with malaria, those folks - and here's the crux of evolution - [/i]have a better chance[/i] of producing offspring who will survive than those who do not have SSA in a malaria area.

So is SSA a 'negative' mutation? Not by my standards.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,17:37   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,12:10)
OK. Thanks all.

How about some good books against ID, without too much rankor?

Cheers,
Ut

There is a link at the bottom of each page here called Useful Links. There are a number of books linked to their Amazon pages. You owe it to yourself to read "Why Intelligent Design Fails", but many of the books deserve your attention.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2010,19:45   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,20:24)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)
Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

Quote
These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

Well, yes. But I was thinking of the nine mutations that occured in the pancreatic Rnase. Several of which allowed it to work in a low PH environment and several more of which helped it extract nitrogen from the plant digesting bacteria of course the ability of the Rnase to process double stranded RNA was reduced but overall the trade off was beneficial. Incidentally, Zhang calculated the number of different paths that could be taken to achieve these results - I'm not sure if it was in this paper or one of his others on the same subject. Turns out there are over forty ways to get from the initial pancreatic Rnase to the digestive one. One can see something kind of similar in some of the pesticide resistance stuff in flies. Some of the initial mutations, although they provide some resistance to pesticides, lower fitness. But then other mutations happen, mutations that moderate the detrimental effects and enhance the beneficial. So Behe's contention that that evolution runs up against an edge after one or two mutations is pure BS.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,08:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 29 2010,10:41)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,10:14)
OK, so its obvious that I'm laking in education on this subject matter, so perhaps people could suggest to me some intro level reading that I can do on my own. I have three kids and very little time, but I am certainly interested in the subject.

Preferable, not something polemical, but a good intro series of books into the subject of evolution. Especially ones that deal with the microbiological issues.

Cheers,
Ut

Carl Zimmer's Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Eminently readable, not polemical.

For microbiological issues, see Microcosm, also by Zimmer.

Enjoy.

I bought an audio version of Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest. I'll be listening to it as soon as I'm done absorbing Behe's Edge of Evolution. Carroll claims to vapourize creationist arguments, and specifically IDers.

Do you know if the Zimmer books are available in audio? I couldn't find them on Audible.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,08:33   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:29)
Do you know if the Zimmer books are available in audio? I couldn't find them on Audible.

Don't have a clue. I don't learn well by listening to audio (or lectures, or phone conversation), so I don't pay attention to audio book matters. I learn best by reading, so I read books.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,08:35   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 29 2010,15:52)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:26)
[/quote]
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:17)
[/quote]
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

Ut-Well it seems to be a trade off between one bad situation for another bad situation. SSA just kills you much more slowly. It also make  you much weaker. Do you see this as a net benefit?

Cheers,
Ut

I got to get back to my day job.... :) I'll check back in tonight....


Hmmm...perhaps an analogy will provide a different framework to evaluate the concept of 'positive' vs 'negative' mutation.

There are a very large number of folk in the US with End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD). The specific statistics for ESRD are not pertinent to this analogy, but I'll be happy to provide them if you wish. At any rate, lots - in the 300,000-400,000 person range - in the US with ESRD. ESRD used to be an automatic cause of death; No functioning kidneys = not long to live. Dialysis, a mechanical process that takes the blood out and takes out many of the impurities (but not all) was developed and people no longer died immediately* from ESRD. However, they were extremely tired due to the chemical effects of the dialysate used to filter the blood and over time doctors discovered that dialysis lead to heart failure in many, if not most, patients due to stress. Now, it was still used - those with ESRD didn't die immediately, so it was better than nothing.

Even the transplantation we have today has fairly severe drawbacks. The drugs one takes for immuno-suppression, which is required to prevent the body from rejecting the foreign organ, happen to be nephrotoxic - that means 'kidney damaging' to the layman.

The point is, while certainly the best solution from our perspective to issues that result in death would be one that has no downsides, that isn't always feasible or the first thing discovered. When faced with the alternative of issue with death vs ehhh solution with not so hot side-effects, most times the latter is preferencial since it buys some time to do a few more things. And what you need to keep in mind is that evolution *does not have the foresight* that humans do. It doesn't 'know' about the concept of death or even illness or inconvenience. The only thing propelling it along is survival. So, if someone lives longer with SSA than with malaria, those folks - and here's the crux of evolution - [/i]have a better chance[/i] of producing offspring who will survive than those who do not have SSA in a malaria area.

So is SSA a 'negative' mutation? Not by my standards.

I think I misrepresented Behe's arguments. In the book, he describes how sickle cell anemia is a clear example of evolution in action. It did work and still works in providing malaria resistance. He also describes the benefits and limitations of the various types of sickle cell anaemias, such as Haemoglobin C, sickle cell, Harlem C, as well asl other blook disorders, such as Thallesemias, and a few others that I forget for the moment.

The bottom line is that they are evolutionary success stories, according to Behe. But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease. And they do not occur in the immune system.

But from what I can tell, no one in evolutionary circles would see that as an argument against evolution. Neither does Behe. But perhaps he sees it as an argument against evolution's ability to create complex micro machines?

Cheers,
Ut

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,08:39   

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 29 2010,19:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,20:24)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)
Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

 
Quote
These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

Well, yes. But I was thinking of the nine mutations that occured in the pancreatic Rnase. Several of which allowed it to work in a low PH environment and several more of which helped it extract nitrogen from the plant digesting bacteria of course the ability of the Rnase to process double stranded RNA was reduced but overall the trade off was beneficial. Incidentally, Zhang calculated the number of different paths that could be taken to achieve these results - I'm not sure if it was in this paper or one of his others on the same subject. Turns out there are over forty ways to get from the initial pancreatic Rnase to the digestive one. One can see something kind of similar in some of the pesticide resistance stuff in flies. Some of the initial mutations, although they provide some resistance to pesticides, lower fitness. But then other mutations happen, mutations that moderate the detrimental effects and enhance the beneficial. So Behe's contention that that evolution runs up against an edge after one or two mutations is pure BS.

Interesting. Thanks for this. Do you have a link to the study?

Another issue that has been gnawing at me as I read Behe's book is that he makes a one to one comparison between the evolution rate of Malaria in developing Chloroquine resistance, to that of human beings developing similar complex mutations over time.

My issue with this is that it seems to be overlooking the fact that each human beings are made up of trillions of microorganisms that alre also replicating within each person. Isn't it oversimplistic to make a one to one comparison between a microorganism's rate of evolution and that of a human being, made of of trillions of microorganisms?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,09:18   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)
But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,09:24   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:18)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)
But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

Definitly better, from an evolutionary perspective. And Aferensis provided that study that showed that even though there may be an initial weakening, evolution can also just as easily provide mittigating mutations to strengthen the organism.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,09:53   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,09:24)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:18)
   
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)
But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

Definitly better, from an evolutionary perspective. And Aferensis provided that study that showed that even though there may be an initial weakening, evolution can also just as easily provide mittigating mutations to strengthen the organism.

Evolution stops working when things die before they can replicate! So there might be an "initial weakening" but compared to the rest of the group (who died) there really was no weakening at all.

Would you say that the loss of eyesight in blind cave fish was a "weakening"? Or could it only be seen as such if those blind fish were moved to a place where there was light and other fish could see? Sure, then perhaps the blind fish are worse off, but move the sighted fish to the black cave and who's "weakened" then?

However IANAB! So take what I say with a pinch of salt eh?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,09:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:53)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,09:24)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:18)
     
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)
But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

Definitly better, from an evolutionary perspective. And Aferensis provided that study that showed that even though there may be an initial weakening, evolution can also just as easily provide mittigating mutations to strengthen the organism.

Evolution stops working when things die before they can replicate! So there might be an "initial weakening" but compared to the rest of the group (who died) there really was no weakening at all.

Would you say that the loss of eyesight in blind cave fish was a "weakening"? Or could it only be seen as such if those blind fish were moved to a place where there was light and other fish could see? Sure, then perhaps the blind fish are worse off, but move the sighted fish to the black cave and who's "weakened" then?

However IANAB! So take what I say with a pinch of salt eh?

Well you seem to have read a great deal more than I have, so thanks.

Sean Carroll made the same kind of distinction when talking about the Notothenioidei fish that can survive in salt water that is as cold as -2 celcius (Behe also talks about these as clear examples of evolution). If global warming predictions were to happen, these fish would quickly die out because they can no longer survive in warmer temperatures. So their adaptation is beneficial, only so long as it provides them with a significan advantage in their environment.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,10:10   

Quote
So their adaptation is beneficial, only so long as it provides them with a significan advantage in their environment.

And that's true of every adaption. It's all environmentally dependent.

One of the common arguments used (by IDiots) is the "parent environment study".

1) A organism has been shown to have a mutation that benefits it (e.g. developing the ability to digest citrate).

2) The objection is made "but that ability comes from damaging part of the organism, it's been made "worse" by the mutation".

3) To prove that the IDiot says "put the mutated organism in the same envrioment as it's parent. If it cannot out compete it's parent it's "damaged". The form it was given at creation, in the garden of eden, has become degenerated and it's inability to out-compete it's parent proves that as it's parent is logically closer to perfection then the mutated descendant".

I hope you can see the fallacy here. And this argument, honestly, is used many times.

The "parent" cannot digest citrate so who's worse off? It depends on the environment.

I can't swim well, but all life came from the sea. If I take a fish and put it on land and it dies does that prove anything? If I got for a swim and drown, what does that prove? That the "parent" of me got damaged and so I lost my gills?

etc etc.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,11:21   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,10:10)
Quote
So their adaptation is beneficial, only so long as it provides them with a significan advantage in their environment.

And that's true of every adaption. It's all environmentally dependent.

One of the common arguments used (by IDiots) is the "parent environment study".

1) A organism has been shown to have a mutation that benefits it (e.g. developing the ability to digest citrate).

2) The objection is made "but that ability comes from damaging part of the organism, it's been made "worse" by the mutation".

3) To prove that the IDiot says "put the mutated organism in the same envrioment as it's parent. If it cannot out compete it's parent it's "damaged". The form it was given at creation, in the garden of eden, has become degenerated and it's inability to out-compete it's parent proves that as it's parent is logically closer to perfection then the mutated descendant".

I hope you can see the fallacy here. And this argument, honestly, is used many times.

The "parent" cannot digest citrate so who's worse off? It depends on the environment.

I can't swim well, but all life came from the sea. If I take a fish and put it on land and it dies does that prove anything? If I got for a swim and drown, what does that prove? That the "parent" of me got damaged and so I lost my gills?

etc etc.

Agreed. This strategy doesn't seem to make sense.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,11:23   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:39)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 29 2010,19:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,20:24)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:45)
Zhang's work on digestive Rnases in ruminants and colobines - such as this article - seems relevant here. Although I have never heard it mentioned.

Zhang provides a good summary of a few basic principles.

 
Quote
These results suggest that (1) an evolutionary problem can have multiple solutions, (2) the same amino acid substitution may have opposite functional effects in homologous proteins, (3) the stochastic processes of mutation and drift play an important role even at functionally important sites, and (4) protein sequences may diverge even when their functions converge.

Well, yes. But I was thinking of the nine mutations that occured in the pancreatic Rnase. Several of which allowed it to work in a low PH environment and several more of which helped it extract nitrogen from the plant digesting bacteria of course the ability of the Rnase to process double stranded RNA was reduced but overall the trade off was beneficial. Incidentally, Zhang calculated the number of different paths that could be taken to achieve these results - I'm not sure if it was in this paper or one of his others on the same subject. Turns out there are over forty ways to get from the initial pancreatic Rnase to the digestive one. One can see something kind of similar in some of the pesticide resistance stuff in flies. Some of the initial mutations, although they provide some resistance to pesticides, lower fitness. But then other mutations happen, mutations that moderate the detrimental effects and enhance the beneficial. So Behe's contention that that evolution runs up against an edge after one or two mutations is pure BS.

Interesting. Thanks for this. Do you have a link to the study?

Another issue that has been gnawing at me as I read Behe's book is that he makes a one to one comparison between the evolution rate of Malaria in developing Chloroquine resistance, to that of human beings developing similar complex mutations over time.

My issue with this is that it seems to be overlooking the fact that each human beings are made up of trillions of microorganisms that alre also replicating within each person. Isn't it oversimplistic to make a one to one comparison between a microorganism's rate of evolution and that of a human being, made of of trillions of microorganisms?

Cheers,
Ut

It seems, then, that this is the core of his argument, and the one part of his book that I need to have clarified before I can really put it down.

Quote
Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 1020. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans).

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,11:40   

[quote=Utunumsint,Feb. 01 2010,09:23]
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:39)

 
Quote
Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 1020. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans).

This is the kind of mathematical shenanigans that Behe and his crowd are famous for.

The quoted estimate would only be true if every human ever born comes with just 1 "mutation", wouldn't it?

And since every child is a mix of genomes from mother and father, even before factoring in imperfect replication during fertilization and embryonic development, you can count on slightly higher genetic variety than that.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,11:48   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,11:23)
It seems, then, that this is the core of his argument, and the one part of his book that I need to have clarified before I can really put it down.

Easy enough.

From Nick Matzke's http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....16b73ddreview of EoE

Quote


   [Behe] attempts to use the evolution of chloroquine resistance (CQR) in Plasmodium falciparum to establish that the origin of multiprotein complexes requires ID. First, Behe admits that CQR evolves naturally but contends that it requires a highly improbable simultaneous double mutation, occurring in only one in 1020 parasites. Second, he asserts that protein-protein binding sites require several simultaneous point mutations and that their occurrence is, therefore, even less probable than that of the alleged double mutation required for CQR. His last step is to square 1020 to produce 1040, the number of organisms required to evolve two binding sites linking three proteins. Given that fewer organisms than this have existed during the history of the Earth, any complex of three or more proteins is beyond the reach of mutations not guided by ID.

   The argument collapses at every step. Behe obtains the crucial 1020 number from an offhand estimate in the literature that considered only the few CQR alleles that have been detected because they have taken over regional populations. What is needed, however, is an estimate of how often any weak-but-selectable CQR originates. A study conducted in an area where CQR is actively evolving [5] showed that high-level CQR is more complex than just two substitutions but that it is preceded by CQR alleles having fewer substitutions; moreover, Behe’s two mutations do not always co-occur. As a result, CQR is both more complex and vastly more probable than Behe thinks. This sinks his one in 1020 estimate for CQR, in addition to his notion that protein-protein binding sites are more complex and, therefore, less probable than CQR. Behe’s decision to square the probability for two binding sites depends on the assumption that two binding sites would have to evolve at once; however, the assumption is false for the same reasons that his ‘irreducible complexity’ argument failed in the first place [1-3]. The squaring assumption is further contradicted by any experiment that accidentally evolves two proteins binding to different sites on a target protein instead of just one [6].

   […]

   1 A. Bottaro et al., Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ‘Intelligent Design’ trial, Nat. Immunol. 7 (2006), pp. 433–435.

   2 M.J. Pallen and N.J. Matzke, From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4 (2006), pp. 784–790.

   3 E.C. Scott and N.J. Matzke, Biological design in science classrooms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (suppl. 1) (2007), pp. 8669–8676.

   4 L.J. Briggs et al., More than one way to build a flagellum: comparative genomics of parasitic protozoa, Curr. Biol. 14 (2004), pp. R611–R612.

   5 P. Mittra et al., Progressive increase in point mutations associated with chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum isolates from India, J. Infect. Dis. 193 (2006), pp. 1304–1312.

   6 V.A. Petrenko et al., Alpha-helically constrained phage display library, Protein Eng. 15 (2002), pp. 943–950.



--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,11:48   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,11:23)
It seems, then, that this is the core of his argument, and the one part of his book that I need to have clarified before I can really put it down.

http://findarticles.com/p....ntagged
 
Quote
Finally, Behe notes that for one prespecified pair of mutations in one gene in humans with the first one neutral, we obtain a "prohibitively long waiting time" of 216 million years. However, there are at least 20,000 genes in the human genome and for each gene tens if not hundreds of pairs of mutations that can occur in each one. Our results show that the waiting time for one pair of mutations is well approximated by an exponential distribution. If there are k nonoverlapping possibilities for double mutations, then by an elementary result in probability, the waiting time for the first occurrence is theminimum of k independent exponentials and hence has an exponential distribution with a mean that is divided by k. From this we see that, in the case in which the first mutant is neutral or mildy deleterious, double mutations can easily have caused a large number of changes in the human genome since our divergence from chimpanzees. Of course, if the first mutant already confers an advantage, then such changes are easier.


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,12:01   

Utunumsint,
What you'll find, I believe, the more you look into Behe et al is that they are not interested in progressing their "science". If they were they would be publishing their work where other scientists could comment on it, tear it apart, reproduce it and improve it. I.E. the peer reviewed literature.

But you don't need to engage with your critics when you publish a book. You just need to sound "sciency" enough that people read your book and think "my viewpoint is supported by science. I might not understand all the details but Behe has done that for me already".

The back and forth I linked to is the exception rather then the rule.

Just ask yourself. Why is he publishing books instead of papers? Why are comments disabled on his blogs? Why does he never join in the comment wars at UncommonDescent, where he is name checked daily?

Why? I doubt he believes more then a fraction of what he writes. He's already said that he 100% believes in common descent.
Quote
Michael Behe
Not all intelligent-design advocates are like Nelson. Michael Behe (1996, 176 1) claims to accept the common descent of all life:

   "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent."

He repeated this statement in a later publication (Behe 2001, 697 2):

   ". . . since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent."


http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof84.htm

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If it was not, where is the science? They've had 20 years+ to show some "intelligent design" science, some positive evidence. But no, it's all "XYZ is too improbable" when we don't even know a fraction of all we could know about life.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,12:02   

Quote
Behe attempts to use the evolution of chloroquine resistance (CQR) in Plasmodium falciparum to establish that the origin of multiprotein complexes requires ID. First, Behe admits that CQR evolves naturally but contends that it requires a highly improbable simultaneous double mutation, occurring in only one in 1020 parasites. Second, he asserts that protein-protein binding sites require several simultaneous point mutations and that their occurrence is, therefore, even less probable than that of the alleged double mutation required for CQR. His last step is to square 1020 to produce 1040, the number of organisms required to evolve two binding sites linking three proteins. Given that fewer organisms than this have existed during the history of the Earth, any complex of three or more proteins is beyond the reach of mutations not guided by ID.

  The argument collapses at every step. Behe obtains the crucial 1020 number from an offhand estimate in the literature that considered only the few CQR alleles that have been detected because they have taken over regional populations. What is needed, however, is an estimate of how often any weak-but-selectable CQR originates. A study conducted in an area where CQR is actively evolving [5] showed that high-level CQR is more complex than just two substitutions but that it is preceded by CQR alleles having fewer substitutions;


So basically, there is a step by step path to the two mutations Behe talks about with regard to Malaria, slowly increasing the CQR. But only the full blown version of CQR really takes off. So Behe's mathematical model does not take into account weaker mutation, and therefore his application of the model to our own evolution is flawed from the start.... Is this correct?

Quote
moreover, Behe’s two mutations do not always co-occur. As a result, CQR is both more complex and vastly more probable than Behe thinks. This sinks his one in 1020 estimate for CQR, in addition to his notion that protein-protein binding sites are more complex and, therefore, less probable than CQR. Behe’s decision to square the probability for two binding sites depends on the assumption that two binding sites would have to evolve at once; however, the assumption is false for the same reasons that his ‘irreducible complexity’ argument failed in the first place [1-3]. The squaring assumption is further contradicted by any experiment that accidentally evolves two proteins binding to different sites on a target protein instead of just one [6].


I think it might be time for me to put the book down and read something else.... Has he responded to this review anywhere?

Thanks for the info. :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,12:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,11:48)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,11:23)
It seems, then, that this is the core of his argument, and the one part of his book that I need to have clarified before I can really put it down.

http://findarticles.com/p....ntagged
 
Quote
Finally, Behe notes that for one prespecified pair of mutations in one gene in humans with the first one neutral, we obtain a "prohibitively long waiting time" of 216 million years. However, there are at least 20,000 genes in the human genome and for each gene tens if not hundreds of pairs of mutations that can occur in each one. Our results show that the waiting time for one pair of mutations is well approximated by an exponential distribution. If there are k nonoverlapping possibilities for double mutations, then by an elementary result in probability, the waiting time for the first occurrence is theminimum of k independent exponentials and hence has an exponential distribution with a mean that is divided by k. From this we see that, in the case in which the first mutant is neutral or mildy deleterious, double mutations can easily have caused a large number of changes in the human genome since our divergence from chimpanzees. Of course, if the first mutant already confers an advantage, then such changes are easier.

He has responded to this one, and does not agree with some of their assumptions in make their own calculations. Whether he is right or not, I don't know. But the other article posted by Albatrossity2 seems to nix his argument at the very root....

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,12:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,12:01)
Utunumsint,
What you'll find, I believe, the more you look into Behe et al is that they are not interested in progressing their "science". If they were they would be publishing their work where other scientists could comment on it, tear it apart, reproduce it and improve it. I.E. the peer reviewed literature.

But you don't need to engage with your critics when you publish a book. You just need to sound "sciency" enough that people read your book and think "my viewpoint is supported by science. I might not understand all the details but Behe has done that for me already".

The back and forth I linked to is the exception rather then the rule.

Just ask yourself. Why is he publishing books instead of papers? Why are comments disabled on his blogs? Why does he never join in the comment wars at UncommonDescent, where he is name checked daily?

Why? I doubt he believes more then a fraction of what he writes. He's already said that he 100% believes in common descent.
 
Quote
Michael Behe
Not all intelligent-design advocates are like Nelson. Michael Behe (1996, 176 1) claims to accept the common descent of all life:

   "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent."

He repeated this statement in a later publication (Behe 2001, 697 2):

   ". . . since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent."


http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof84.htm

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If it was not, where is the science? They've had 20 years+ to show some "intelligent design" science, some positive evidence. But no, it's all "XYZ is too improbable" when we don't even know a fraction of all we could know about life.

I don't know if I can be that cynical about their motivations, but perhaps it is their religious views that are clouding their judgement. I know that Behe was initially motivated by Denton's book. Still...

I know that IDers often claim that they are not even allowed to publish their findings in peer reviewed articles, and that they are systematically denied the chance.

But at the same time, their support from the religious right seems to have come at a price. Creationists want to highjack their (seemingly) legitimate academic studies to their own purposes, and often try to coopt their arguments for their own literalistic understanding of the Bible.

As a religious person myself, its kind of embarassing....

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,12:33   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,12:02)
Quote
Behe attempts to use the evolution of chloroquine resistance (CQR) in Plasmodium falciparum to establish that the origin of multiprotein complexes requires ID. First, Behe admits that CQR evolves naturally but contends that it requires a highly improbable simultaneous double mutation, occurring in only one in 1020 parasites. Second, he asserts that protein-protein binding sites require several simultaneous point mutations and that their occurrence is, therefore, even less probable than that of the alleged double mutation required for CQR. His last step is to square 1020 to produce 1040, the number of organisms required to evolve two binding sites linking three proteins. Given that fewer organisms than this have existed during the history of the Earth, any complex of three or more proteins is beyond the reach of mutations not guided by ID.

  The argument collapses at every step. Behe obtains the crucial 1020 number from an offhand estimate in the literature that considered only the few CQR alleles that have been detected because they have taken over regional populations. What is needed, however, is an estimate of how often any weak-but-selectable CQR originates. A study conducted in an area where CQR is actively evolving [5] showed that high-level CQR is more complex than just two substitutions but that it is preceded by CQR alleles having fewer substitutions;


So basically, there is a step by step path to the two mutations Behe talks about with regard to Malaria, slowly increasing the CQR. But only the full blown version of CQR really takes off. So Behe's mathematical model does not take into account weaker mutation, and therefore his application of the model to our own evolution is flawed from the start.... Is this correct?

Quote
moreover, Behe’s two mutations do not always co-occur. As a result, CQR is both more complex and vastly more probable than Behe thinks. This sinks his one in 1020 estimate for CQR, in addition to his notion that protein-protein binding sites are more complex and, therefore, less probable than CQR. Behe’s decision to square the probability for two binding sites depends on the assumption that two binding sites would have to evolve at once; however, the assumption is false for the same reasons that his ‘irreducible complexity’ argument failed in the first place [1-3]. The squaring assumption is further contradicted by any experiment that accidentally evolves two proteins binding to different sites on a target protein instead of just one [6].


I think it might be time for me to put the book down and read something else.... Has he responded to this review anywhere?

Thanks for the info. :)

Cheers,
Ut

Well I'm speechless....

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/behe-replies-to.html

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,12:45   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,12:16)
I know that IDers often claim that they are not even allowed to publish their findings in peer reviewed articles, and that they are systematically denied the chance.

Yet Dembski can publish "ID supporting" papers without a problem, and when IDers are asked for the rejection letters for the papers they've tried to publish they simply can't provide them.

I know this for a fact as I have personally asked several times at UD for such rejection letters.

Link
   
Quote

Would such papers, if submitted, have rejection letters detailing the reasons for rejection? Have ID advocates already attempted to do what you say (publish in Nature or Science?) and if not, how do you know for certain they would be rejected out of hand? A positive attitude in this regard may pay dividends, whereas you can be certain if no ID advocate attempts to publish a paper in Nature or Science none will ever be published in Nature or Science

As they say for the Lottery, “you’ve got to be in it, to win it”.


As before, this claim that "IDers are not even allowed to publish their findings in peer reviewed articles" is simply an unsupported claim until some actual evidence is provided. It's really a convenient excuse as to why no such papers have been published (*see footnote).

And the same people who make that claim also, somehow, manage to point to this list
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
   
Quote
In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design.

So, when it's convenient they cry "censorship" but depending on the audience they can flip over to "but there are so peer reviewed papers that support ID.

Which is it?

Show me a single rejection letter from a reputable journal  that says "We're not publishing this because it supports ID"

If IDers can't publish, what of this?
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA – October 2009, pp. 2647-2652.

*EDIT* I say no ID supporting paper exists, and if you look at Dembski's paper you'll find that despite him claiming that it supports ID I doubt you'll be able to determine how it does. I know what his claim entails at it's core but can you spot it? Nonetheless, the phrase "intelligent design" or the word "designer" does not appear once in the paper. And it's not even about biology in any case.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,15:12   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,12:01)
Utunumsint,
What you'll find, I believe, the more you look into Behe et al is that they are not interested in progressing their "science". If they were they would be publishing their work where other scientists could comment on it, tear it apart, reproduce it and improve it. I.E. the peer reviewed literature.

But you don't need to engage with your critics when you publish a book. You just need to sound "sciency" enough that people read your book and think "my viewpoint is supported by science. I might not understand all the details but Behe has done that for me already".

The back and forth I linked to is the exception rather then the rule.

Just ask yourself. Why is he publishing books instead of papers? Why are comments disabled on his blogs? Why does he never join in the comment wars at UncommonDescent, where he is name checked daily?

Why? I doubt he believes more then a fraction of what he writes. He's already said that he 100% believes in common descent.
     
Quote
Michael Behe
Not all intelligent-design advocates are like Nelson. Michael Behe (1996, 176 1) claims to accept the common descent of all life:

   "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent."

He repeated this statement in a later publication (Behe 2001, 697 2):

   ". . . since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent."


http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof84.htm

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If it was not, where is the science? They've had 20 years+ to show some "intelligent design" science, some positive evidence. But no, it's all "XYZ is too improbable" when we don't even know a fraction of all we could know about life.

IMHO it can't be stressed too often; not only WRT to life but WRT knowledge by and large about most aspects of 'reality'. Reading ID/creationist arguments it seems they are 100 years behind the times. While in reality, we realize we know much less than we once may have thought we did. And yet, that doesn't invalidate all that we after all do know. Am I on the right track?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,17:30   

I've been following creationists for 40 years, Ut.  Used to listen to Garner Ted Armstrong (The World Tomorrow!) on AM radio out of Flagstaff.  I was studying biology and GT said the craziest things, stuff that was easily refuted, but more difficult for the layperson to access unless they were studying biology.

Today with the Internet, Wikipedia, Google, PubMed and all the rest, there's no excuse.

It's not a religious argument, though.  Religion is only the vehicle.

The root is political and based in power.  Here in Texas we have Yertle the Turtle running the state school board.  No checks and balances.  What Yertle says, goes.  Same was in Kansas and in Dover. Power, power, power.  Even if it's a little, bitty power.

The DI does not adhere to any particular faith.  Behe's Catholic, Dembski's Baptist, Wells is a Moonie.

The only common mantra is "anti-science."  The big, anti-science tent.  The DI will laud the Pope and lambast the Pope based not on religious doctrine, but anti-science doctrine.

That's why "intelligent design" is so weird.  The IDiots accommodate YEC's, OEC's, theistic evolutionists.  Doesn't matter so long as they are anti-Darwin, anti-public school, anti-intellectual and especially anti-science.

Why anti-science?  My view is that anybody can do science and reach a common conclusion.  Water boils at what temperature?  The density of lead is what?  Anybody can figure it out.

Dogma is different.  My morals are "right" because I say so.  My view of history is "right" because I say so.  I control the vertical.  I control the horizontal.  I am right because I say so.

How do you like those dingleberries?  I love it so!

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2010,18:42   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,09:24)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,09:18)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 01 2010,08:35)
But from a functional perspective, they also weaken those with this desease.

Is being "weakened" better or worse then "dead"?

Definitly better, from an evolutionary perspective. And Aferensis provided that study that showed that even though there may be an initial weakening, evolution can also just as easily provide mittigating mutations to strengthen the organism.

Actually, I linked to Zhang's work on pancreatic and digestive Rnases. For the other you need to start with Labbe's work on the Ace gene and Weill and references therein.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,08:50   

So I found this list in one of PZ Myers' review of Edge.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....t_i.php

Quote
Beyond evolultion or showing evidence of intelligent fine tuning.

Laws of nature
Physical constants
Ratio of fundamental constants
Amount of matter in the universe
Speed of expansion in the universe
Properties of elements such as carbon
Properties of chemicals such as water
location of solar system in galaxy
location of planet in the solar system
origin and properties of Earth/Moon
properties of biochemicals such as DNA
origin of life
genetic code
multiprotein complexes
molecular machines
biological kingdoms
developmental genetic programs
integrated protein networks
phyloa
cell types
classes


Tentative edge of Random Evolution

Orders
Families
Genera

Contingency in Biology

Species
Varieties
Individuals
Random mutations
Environmental accidents


Regardless of what you believe about ID's opinion on the intelligent causation of those things listed that are beyond evolution or show signs of fine tunning, my question is as follows:

1-Are the items listed in the first part of Behe's list truly beyond what current research in evolution can prove?
2-If yes, are Darwinists invoking an evolutionary version of the God of the Gaps argument to explain these things, just as the IDer invoke an intelligent design God of the Gaps argument to explain these things?

I guess my question boils down to what is truly the edge of what Darwinistic evolution can definitely claim using their arguments, and what is purely speculation?

Based on my viewing of Expelled (a truly bad movie, I know) it seemed that Ruse and Dawkins couldn't provide a non speculative account for the origins of life, at the very least....

Before you jump to the conclusion that I'm trying to prove ID correct, let me just make it clear that I think ID is a God of the Gaps argument, and therefore will always remain in the realm of non-science and pure speculation.

Anyone want to take a crack at it?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:18   

Quote
it seemed that Ruse and Dawkins couldn't provide a non speculative account for the origins of life

Science proposes an account. Science tests the plausibility of that account. Science moves onto the next account. Rinse. Repeat. What has ID brought to the table? "A designer did it". Nothing else whatsoever. I imagine that there will always be some level of speculation in any account, no matter how well supported. We're talking about things that happened a long long time ago. If you want absolute certainty you know where that can be found - religion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
   
Quote
For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London. "We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent -- one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores."

Whereas for 2000+ years it's been accepted that "the designer" created life and nothing has progressed in that regard.

Also have a look at autocatalytic networks. We may have to settle for a plausible account.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:18   

Quote
Are the items listed in the first part of Behe's list truly beyond what current research in evolution can prove?


Everything down to and including "origin of life", certainly. The theory of evolution does not attempt to address any of them.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:23   

Notice the critical phrase in that text I quoted
Quote
We present the alternative

It's easy to say why something is wrong, not so easy to propose an alternative. ID has never presented an alternative that can be tested.  

So unless an account is available that is not speculative, you'll have to put up with a speculative one.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,09:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 03 2010,09:18)
Quote
it seemed that Ruse and Dawkins couldn't provide a non speculative account for the origins of life

Science proposes an account. Science tests the plausibility of that account. Science moves onto the next account. Rinse. Repeat. What has ID brought to the table? "A designer did it". Nothing else whatsoever. I imagine that there will always be some level of speculation in any account, no matter how well supported. We're talking about things that happened a long long time ago. If you want absolute certainty you know where that can be found - religion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
     
Quote
For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London. "We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent -- one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores."

Whereas for 2000+ years it's been accepted that "the designer" created life and nothing has progressed in that regard.

Also have a look at autocatalytic networks. We may have to settle for a plausible account.

I think that for as long as we have only plausible evidence for some biological structures, we will have creationists trying to plug the holes with God.

In other words, so long as their is a possibility that God did something, they will jump on that possible bandwagon, even though there is no way to test the plausibility of this kind of account.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,11:19   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,09:58)
I think that for as long as we have only plausible evidence for some biological structures, we will have creationists trying to plug the holes with God.

In other words, so long as their is a possibility that God did something, they will jump on that possible bandwagon, even though there is no way to test the plausibility of this kind of account.

Good work. You've discovered the reason that creationism (ID included) can't stand on its own as science. Once you allow for variables that can't be isolated and controlled, science goes out the window. There's a famous cartoon that illustrates the point perfectly:


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,12:06   

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,12:18   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

What if, indeed. It's not turtles all the way down, so you're still left with explaining E.T.

The point is that we can only use the tools and evidence we have to understand things. In that sense it doesn't matter if we're the result of some sort of panspermia, nor does it matter if jebus hisownself waved a wand at some point. If we can't see evidence of such things, we have to assume causes that exist within the framework of knowledge we have now.

IDers like to disingenuously claim that they don't need to identify their designer, and that what they see as evidence for design is enough. But it's clearly not enough, because it's impossible to tell the difference between the work of their designer and what they like to refer to as "nature working freely."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,12:32   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 03 2010,12:18)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

What if, indeed. It's not turtles all the way down, so you're still left with explaining E.T.

The point is that we can only use the tools and evidence we have to understand things. In that sense it doesn't matter if we're the result of some sort of panspermia, nor does it matter if jebus hisownself waved a wand at some point. If we can't see evidence of such things, we have to assume causes that exist within the framework of knowledge we have now.

IDers like to disingenuously claim that they don't need to identify their designer, and that what they see as evidence for design is enough. But it's clearly not enough, because it's impossible to tell the difference between the work of their designer and what they like to refer to as "nature working freely."

So until we find evidence of Jebus laboratory, or E.T.'s landing site, we can't invoke it as a possible explanation?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,13:03   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:32)
So until we find evidence of Jebus laboratory, or E.T.'s landing site, we can't invoke it as a possible explanation?

Cheers,
Ut

I refer you to the Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can invoke anything as a possible explanation, but if you've no actual evidence for it then you can fit anything at all into that gap, all with the same level of confidence.
 
Quote
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.


And I ask you, why Jebus anyway? There are many other deities worshipped around the world. Why does the Christian version have to be "the truth" when there are plenty of other competing religions out there, all with the same level of evidence.  I.E. None whatsoever.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,13:11   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)

At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

In the same way we would detect genetic engineering now.

Yet it so happens that "the designer" has, so far, made everything in such a way so that miracles are not required as an explanation for observed data. The same cannot be said for human genetic engineering, for example Jellyfish genes making glow in the dark cats. Not possible from an evolutionary framework, cats with Jellyfish genes exactly as they are in Jellyfish.

     
Quote
Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

What of it? You still have to explain where E.T came from. So it just pushes the problem back another level.

And anyway, when pushed IDiots often fall back to the "designed to evolve" idea. Which to my mind is essentially surrendering, accepting evolution happens but leaving open the question of how the first replicator came to be. And as I said earlier, there will probably never be a 100% exact answer to that, and that gap will probably last for ever.  If people want to pretend that is somehow evidence for a designer, more fool them.
     
Quote
How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

You would start from the data that leads you to believe that E.T intervened. Do you have such data? Until such appears I prefer to think that his noodly appendage reached through the clouds and created the first microbe. There's as much evidence for that as any other telic intervention. None whatsoever.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,13:14   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten

This place is not that bad!

And I would refer you to this thread

AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS.

And that's just part one!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,15:59   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,13:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

Seems to me that you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is up to those who hypothesize a particular causal account (miraculous intervention, E.T., etc.) to describe necessary and unique empirical consequences (entailments) of that account, such that the the account would be at risk of disconfirmation should we fail to observe those predicted consequences.

Should it prove to be the case that such testable empirical entailments cannot be devised, it follows that the hypothesis cannot be given tractable scientific meaning. That, frankly, isn't a problem for those who are disinterested in the hypothesis.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Cubist



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,16:24   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?
By proposing a hypothesis of exactly what happened -- a hypothesis which is sufficiently detailed that the proposer could work out what physical evidence was left by that 'miracle', and what to look for in order to confirm that said 'miracle' really was what happened.
If all you've got is "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intellegint did something"... well... how the heck do you test that?
Quote
Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?
That question doesn't quite follow from the paragraph you wrote just preeding; I think you meant to ask "How would we discover ET's genetic manipulations?"
Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

On an unrelated note, Utunumsint, a couple pages back I posted a takedown of Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution. You might want to look it over and see if you can find a way to salvage Behe's argument.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,16:32   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

AFAIK, the origins of microbes lie billions of years back at a time when the planet hardly would have been habitable for ET.

Further, AFAIK, evidence for nested hierarchies is strong against intervention by IT later that that.

While, still AFAIK, the ongoing studies of genetics, DNA and related issues are strong evidence for natural causes.  

I try to read as much relevant stuff as I can and I found this document very fascinating. There must be tons of interesting things to read out there.

I've found these books useful:

The Riddled Chain, Jeffrey McKee
Your Inner fish, Neil Shubin
Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean B. Carroll
The Emergence of Life on Earth, Iris Fry. (Though I don't think I'll recommend it.)

I have not read all of Darwin's but you should of course try some, I enjoy the Victorian style, we are invited into Darwin's thought process in a way not often (if ever?) found in modern books

Good luck, a lifetime won't be enough.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,17:59   

Darn, Ut, my truncheons are out being cleaned.  Report here Monday for your beating.

A couple of things.  First, regarding "speculation."  Creationists are fond of saying scientists "merely speculate" about origin of life chemistry.  This is speculation:  I think Denver will win the Super Bowl in 2011 because I like Colorado and the word "bronco" is cool.  That is mere speculation.  Based on nothing but an idea pulled out of my ass.

Origin of life chemistry is an entirely different level based on years of study, thermodynamic and kinetics calculations and experiments, observation and much deliberation.  It's not "mere speculation."  It's a plausible, supportable chain of events.

Second, dog breeding and intelligent design.  Dog breeding is evolution at work.  Artificial selection is an artificial term that only means that a human being provided the selection rather than Mother Nature.  Technically, what is the difference?  If humans select dogs with thick coats because they are pretty or Nature selects dogs with thick coats because it helps them survive cold conditions, what's the difference?  Selection is selection.

Humans are not manipulating the dog's genes, not determining which point mutations occur or not and where or not. It's just selection.

Now, jump to "intelligent design" designing DNA.  It's not just the DNA, but EVERYTHING in the cell that has to be designed.  The membranes, the transport mechanisms, reproduction mechanisms, all the chemistry and equilibria, all the bits and pieces that work in concert with DNA.  It's not just the DNA, it's EVERYTHING.

Finally, a bit of sleight of hand.  How long did life percolate in that "primordial soup" before multicellular organisms took off?  Let's see, using the Cambrian Explosion as a convenient marker, our lineage, the vertebrates have been going for about 500 million years, give or take.

Percolation, using very rough terms, went on for about 3000 million years.  

Think about that, Ut, 3000 million years is a long time for mechanisms to be built up step by step, reaction by reaction, component by component, structure by structure.

"Intelligent design" proponents would have you believe that the Designer came along, built the cell, DNA, structures and all that stuff, then TOOK A 3000 MILLION YEAR HOLIDAY, then came back to give it a little nudge.

Seriously?  Who's speculating, Ut?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2010,19:35   

Quote
Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

My guess is that with just one gene, no way. But maybe look for a statistical pattern from lots of genes that would be consistent with "something engineered stuff", but not expected under the current theory?

-----

Quote
If humans select dogs with thick coats because they are pretty or Nature selects dogs with thick coats because it helps them survive cold conditions, what's the difference???Selection is selection.

A thought on that: nature might select something besides thickness of coat, such as how good an insulator it is, or add chemicals that make it better at absorbing heat from the sun, or add a layer of insulating fat under the skin, or tinker with the internal thermostat, or something I haven't thought of.

Henry

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 03 2010,13:03)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:32)
So until we find evidence of Jebus laboratory, or E.T.'s landing site, we can't invoke it as a possible explanation?

Cheers,
Ut

I refer you to the Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can invoke anything as a possible explanation, but if you've no actual evidence for it then you can fit anything at all into that gap, all with the same level of confidence.
 
Quote
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.


And I ask you, why Jebus anyway? There are many other deities worshipped around the world. Why does the Christian version have to be "the truth" when there are plenty of other competing religions out there, all with the same level of evidence.  I.E. None whatsoever.

And the answer is, The Mormons. :)

Gatta propogate those spirit children.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:48   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2010,15:59)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,13:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

Seems to me that you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is up to those who hypothesize a particular causal account (miraculous intervention, E.T., etc.) to describe necessary and unique empirical consequences (entailments) of that account, such that the the account would be at risk of disconfirmation should we fail to observe those predicted consequences.

Should it prove to be the case that such testable empirical entailments cannot be devised, it follows that the hypothesis cannot be given tractable scientific meaning. That, frankly, isn't a problem for those who are disinterested in the hypothesis.

Well Behe's been pretty clear about where he thinks the edge of evolution is in his last book. And ironically, it is that book that is convincing me that ID is ultimatly incorrect.

Here is my thought process so far.

1-Behe seems to have stepped back from his innitial theory of ID that claimed it was impossible to evolve to one of his irreducibly complex machines. Now he seems to be saying that it is not impossible, only exceedingly unlikely.
2-He made the claim in the book that evolution ultimatly weakens an organism, but as oldmandidntdoit argued, and I agreed with is that this is only true when the new organism has to return to the old environment and compete head to head with the old organism. But bring in the old organism into the new environment, and the winner is clearly the new one. So Behe's claim doesn't work.
3-Behe claims that it took 50 or so years for malaria to evolve Chloroquine resistance. The theory is that it created a new protein pump to remove the poisonous haemozoines. Matke argued that there were many more mutations that we can still find here and there that have been removed from the evolutionary record, so to speak. So there were many more selectable mutations paths to CQR than just 10 to the 20th.
4-In a very small population of ecoli, over the space of 20 years, we have a selected sequence of mutations that lead to citrate digestion function. So it took around 20 years to evolve this function. Divide 10 000 years by 20, and you have 500 possible functions that could have evolved in the wild, where the selection pressures are undoubtebly diverse. Divide 3 million years by 20, and you have 150 000 possible functional mutations.....You can create a lot of complexity with those numbers.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that Behe and the IDers are simply wrong. And I have Behe to thank for getting so specific in his argument.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:53   

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 03 2010,16:24)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?
By proposing a hypothesis of exactly what happened -- a hypothesis which is sufficiently detailed that the proposer could work out what physical evidence was left by that 'miracle', and what to look for in order to confirm that said 'miracle' really was what happened.
If all you've got is "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intellegint did something"... well... how the heck do you test that?
Quote
Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?
That question doesn't quite follow from the paragraph you wrote just preeding; I think you meant to ask "How would we discover ET's genetic manipulations?"
Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

On an unrelated note, Utunumsint, a couple pages back I posted a takedown of Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution. You might want to look it over and see if you can find a way to salvage Behe's argument.

Hi Cubist,

Sorry I didn't respond to your previous post. I was never really convinced by IR anyway, so I didn't really feel like trying to salvage it. :)

As for ET's intervention in human history. I'm starting to agree with people that it wasn't really necessary, unless they did so in such a way as to be undetectable. In which case we will never know until they suddenly show up and tell us how they did it.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,08:55   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 03 2010,17:59)
Darn, Ut, my truncheons are out being cleaned.  Report here Monday for your beating.

A couple of things.  First, regarding "speculation."  Creationists are fond of saying scientists "merely speculate" about origin of life chemistry.  This is speculation:  I think Denver will win the Super Bowl in 2011 because I like Colorado and the word "bronco" is cool.  That is mere speculation.  Based on nothing but an idea pulled out of my ass.

Origin of life chemistry is an entirely different level based on years of study, thermodynamic and kinetics calculations and experiments, observation and much deliberation.  It's not "mere speculation."  It's a plausible, supportable chain of events.

Second, dog breeding and intelligent design.  Dog breeding is evolution at work.  Artificial selection is an artificial term that only means that a human being provided the selection rather than Mother Nature.  Technically, what is the difference?  If humans select dogs with thick coats because they are pretty or Nature selects dogs with thick coats because it helps them survive cold conditions, what's the difference?  Selection is selection.

Humans are not manipulating the dog's genes, not determining which point mutations occur or not and where or not. It's just selection.

Now, jump to "intelligent design" designing DNA.  It's not just the DNA, but EVERYTHING in the cell that has to be designed.  The membranes, the transport mechanisms, reproduction mechanisms, all the chemistry and equilibria, all the bits and pieces that work in concert with DNA.  It's not just the DNA, it's EVERYTHING.

Finally, a bit of sleight of hand.  How long did life percolate in that "primordial soup" before multicellular organisms took off?  Let's see, using the Cambrian Explosion as a convenient marker, our lineage, the vertebrates have been going for about 500 million years, give or take.

Percolation, using very rough terms, went on for about 3000 million years.  

Think about that, Ut, 3000 million years is a long time for mechanisms to be built up step by step, reaction by reaction, component by component, structure by structure.

"Intelligent design" proponents would have you believe that the Designer came along, built the cell, DNA, structures and all that stuff, then TOOK A 3000 MILLION YEAR HOLIDAY, then came back to give it a little nudge.

Seriously?  Who's speculating, Ut?

I see what you're saying Doc. From a theological perspective (if anyone cares about theology around here) I find evolution much more awe inspiring than a God who has to fix his creation every five seconds. :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:01   

Thanks to everyone who've helped educate me on these issue.

I feel like I need to test my newfound knowledge. Does anyone know of a forum where I can find IDers to argue the other side?

No offense, but it seems to me that there is no one here to provide any counter arguments for ID.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:13   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:01)
Thanks to everyone who've helped educate me on these issue.

I feel like I need to test my newfound knowledge. Does anyone know of a forum where I can find IDers to argue the other side?

No offense, but it seems to me that there is no one here to provide any counter arguments for ID.

Uncommon Descent

Telic Thoughts

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:18   

EDIT

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:24   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 04 2010,09:13)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:01)
Thanks to everyone who've helped educate me on these issue.

I feel like I need to test my newfound knowledge. Does anyone know of a forum where I can find IDers to argue the other side?

No offense, but it seems to me that there is no one here to provide any counter arguments for ID.

Uncommon Descent

Telic Thoughts

I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,09:33   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)
I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

The usage of the ban hammer at UD has been documented on this thread.

Jump to the end to see how the latest moderators (Clive, Barry) use deletion and banning as a tactic to make their case.

Yep, they complain about people being "expelled" but are happy to do it themselves, despite it being against their own stated moderation policy.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,10:22   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2010,09:33)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)
I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

Just don't say anything sensible. You'll be alright.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,11:37   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:48)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2010,15:59)
   
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,13:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

Seems to me that you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is up to those who hypothesize a particular causal account (miraculous intervention, E.T., etc.) to describe necessary and unique empirical consequences (entailments) of that account, such that the the account would be at risk of disconfirmation should we fail to observe those predicted consequences.

Should it prove to be the case that such testable empirical entailments cannot be devised, it follows that the hypothesis cannot be given tractable scientific meaning. That, frankly, isn't a problem for those who are disinterested in the hypothesis.

Well Behe's been pretty clear about where he thinks the edge of evolution is in his last book. And ironically, it is that book that is convincing me that ID is ultimatly incorrect...

Behe's specificity on that point has no bearing upon the question you raise, and to which I responded. He (and other advocates of ID) exhibit specificity when making claims vis the limits of current evolutionary theory (i.e., when claiming that entailments of evolutionary theory have been disconfirmed), but fall silent when asked for specific entailments of ID theory that generate empirical predictions that put ID at risk of disconfirmation.  

Witness the discussion on this UD thread, where I participated cleverly disguised as Reciprocating_Bill - until my bannination, that is. The discussion and its outcome captures both the scientific emptiness of ID and the fundamental dishonesty of UD vis moderation.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,13:32   

Man you guys are silly.

Nobody has noticed yet that Ut is clearly FL?  The pseudo-neutral, innocently disingenuous way he words his arguments are what made me suspicious at first, but the pedo-smile emoticons are what put the final nail in the coffin.

*SITS BACK AND EATS POPCORN*

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,13:43   

Quote (RDK @ Feb. 04 2010,13:32)
Man you guys are silly.

Nobody has noticed yet that Ut is clearly FL?  The pseudo-neutral, innocently disingenuous way he words his arguments are what made me suspicious at first, but the pedo-smile emoticons are what put the final nail in the coffin.

*SITS BACK AND EATS POPCORN*

What is FL?

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,13:54   

Quote (RDK @ Feb. 04 2010,13:32)
Man you guys are silly.

Nobody has noticed yet that Ut is clearly FL?  The pseudo-neutral, innocently disingenuous way he words his arguments are what made me suspicious at first, but the pedo-smile emoticons are what put the final nail in the coffin.

*SITS BACK AND EATS POPCORN*


What is FL?

I applogize if my I use emoticons too much. What is a pedo-smile?

Look, I'm a raging Roman Catholic, but I have a liberal education. Plus, I'm Canadian. As far as I can tell, Canada is fairly free of the political motivations behind ID.

If you can stomach it, you can find tones of my posts here.

http://forums.catholic.com/

I many have crossed posts a few times with Rossum. But usually I avoid evolution threads altogether.

My motivation in coming here was because I was invited to a showing of Expelled by some other religious friends of mine. Around five years ago, I was very much interested in ID literature. I read Demski, Behe, Meyer, Johnson. I even wrote and got published article for it in a small conservative catholic magazine.

That said, I had some friends with biology degrees who always went red faced whenever they heard these types of arguments. And the magazine got so many angry letters from conservative catholic scientists that I figured I must be missing something. I even asked a guy at my local museum of nature why he didn't have books by Behe or Demski. I waved the museum security guard over to have us kicked out.

Anyway, fastforward to now. I haven't done much reading on it since then (I got married, had three kids, had a job). I started reading Behe's latest book after getting the invite for Expelled. From the online reviews, I figured it would be a very one sided presentation. So the day before going to see Expelled, I started this thread.

No hidden agenda. I have the philosophical and theological background not to be threatened by Darwinian accounts for evolution.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,14:01   

Here is my thread on the papacy and eastern orthodoxy.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=422425

Cheers,
Ut

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,14:16   

Ut:

Have a lovely time at UD (should you choose to go there).  We'll be watching with great interest. Keep an eye on the peanut gallery for observations and encouragement.

And when they torch-'n'-pitchfork you out, do come back to join us here. It's not unlike the public passageway through Bedlam from which people could poke the inmates with sticks.

PS: While you're there, you could give them a bit of the Catholic view on evolution. An (ahem) acquaintance of mine goes all Tridentine on them every now and again, which has caused no small discomfort to the very Reformed management.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,14:32   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 04 2010,14:16)
Ut:

Have a lovely time at UD (should you choose to go there).  We'll be watching with great interest. Keep an eye on the peanut gallery for observations and encouragement.

And when they torch-'n'-pitchfork you out, do come back to join us here. It's not unlike the public passageway through Bedlam from which people could poke the inmates with sticks.

PS: While you're there, you could give them a bit of the Catholic view on evolution. An (ahem) acquaintance of mine goes all Tridentine on them every now and again, which has caused no small discomfort to the very Reformed management.

Gatta love those reformers. We have a lot of converts from them. Some of them get all loopy, like Sungenis, and his newest crackpot theory on geocentrism.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,15:23   

I'm not used to their format at all. I haven't a clue where to post....

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,16:16   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,15:23)
I'm not used to their format at all. I haven't a clue where to post....

UT - You just have to register, then find a thread where your comments will be appreciated. where you can comment, making sure you adhere to the UD/ID party line, so you don't get banninated.  

You might take a look at an O'Leary post*, and mention that you are also a Canuck and Catholic**, as she likes to rant on about being both.  

* If you can translate her ususal word salad into some sort of meaning.

** But longs for the good old days prior to Vatican II, when the mass was in Latin, and all Protestants, Jews and Muslims were going to burn in eternal hell-fire.

ps: FL is an old troll poster that refused to learn anything, and just kept recycling old arguments.  A bit very frustrating!

Good luck at UD!  Remember:  Don't dis the Dr. Dr., or let Gordon Mullins know that you know his name, and don't ask Denyse where her Pullitzer is.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2010,17:05   

There are so many rules for posting at UD!!

1.  Take your Stupid Pills every morning.  If you miss a dose, don't worry, take two the next morning.

2.  Never disagree with Joseph.  He's already right.  Simply post, "I took your advice, Joseph, and read those books and now I know what you mean."  That's it.  You'll be a hero.

3.  If the posters at UD seem to be uneducated morons, go to Step 1 and take 3 pills.

4.  If at any time you begin to think that ID is a scam perpetrated by intellectually dishonest dickwads, go to Step 1, take all the pills and order two more bottles.

Don't worry, Ut, you'll be fine "discussing" "intelligent design" with the "experts" over at Dembski's house.  And, please, while you're there don't embarrass us by drinking out of the toilet.  That's REALLY how RB got banninated.

Srsly.  I heard that from Densye her own self.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,12:07   

I guess they didn't like my post. It was deleted off a topic in the Biological Evolution section.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2722
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,12:24   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 04 2010,10:22)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2010,09:33)
     
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)
I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

Just don't say anything sensible. You'll be alright.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:07)
I guess they didn't like my post. It was deleted off a topic in the Biological Evolution section.

Did you try to say something sensible? Did you forget to take your pills? If you saved the comment, you can post it here.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,12:31   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 05 2010,12:24)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 04 2010,10:22)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2010,09:33)
     
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)
I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

Just don't say anything sensible. You'll be alright.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:07)
I guess they didn't like my post. It was deleted off a topic in the Biological Evolution section.

Did you try to say something sensible? Did you forget to take your pills? If you saved the comment, you can post it here.

It was just a link to this thread, asking for some counter arguments. I even added a pedo-smile.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,12:31   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:31)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 05 2010,12:24)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 04 2010,10:22)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2010,09:33)
       
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 04 2010,09:24)
I can't figure out how to start threads on these sites. I see you've been busy on the telic web site.

You can't, you can just respond to the posts. And over at UD you'll find that the moment you say something one of the moderators does not like you and your comments will be airbrushed from history.

Just don't say anything sensible. You'll be alright.

 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:07)
I guess they didn't like my post. It was deleted off a topic in the Biological Evolution section.

Did you try to say something sensible? Did you forget to take your pills? If you saved the comment, you can post it here.

It was just a link to this thread, asking for some counter arguments. I even added a pedo-smile.

Cheers,
Ut

Are there no IDer at all who post here?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,12:46   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:31)
It was just a link to this thread, asking for some counter arguments. I even added a pedo-smile.

Cheers,
Ut

Linking here is asking for instant bannination!!! :) (Plus eternal hell-fire and damnation!)

UD / ID does not allow for the voicing of dissention... plus, as they see it, "facts have a well-known liberal bias".

You have to toe the party line at UD.  You might be able to get them into a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but never, never, never discuss whether or not there are any angels.  Expecially because Dr. Dr. Dembski has gone on record to say that he believes in angels.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,12:59   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 05 2010,12:46)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:31)
It was just a link to this thread, asking for some counter arguments. I even added a pedo-smile.

Cheers,
Ut

Linking here is asking for instant bannination!!! :) (Plus eternal hell-fire and damnation!)

UD / ID does not allow for the voicing of dissention... plus, as they see it, "facts have a well-known liberal bias".

You have to toe the party line at UD.  You might be able to get them into a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but never, never, never discuss whether or not there are any angels.  Expecially because Dr. Dr. Dembski has gone on record to say that he believes in angels.

What's the point in posting then.

The only other place I can think of is catholic.com, but they've banned all evolution/atheism threads for being to contentious.

Its probably just a big waste of time anyway.

Its been fun.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,13:00   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 05 2010,12:31)
Are there no IDer at all who post here?

No, and if Clive finds out that you post here, he will also ban you at UD.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,14:20   

Quote
I guess they didn't like my post. It was deleted off a topic in the Biological Evolution section.


Obviously didn't follow your Doc's advice.  Order more pills.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,15:44   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,12:20)
Quote
I guess they didn't like my post. It was deleted off a topic in the Biological Evolution section.


Obviously didn't follow your Doc's advice.  Order more pills.

Too late, Doc.  He gave The Site Which Shall Not Be Named a mention.  The mark of the beast is upon him, and he's been cast forever into the darkness.  Nothing, not even afdave-strength stupid pills, can change his fate.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,16:26   

I should have suggested an Anti-Delusional supplement for Ut.

He actually thought  (get this, I am not kidding), he actually thought he was going to have a discussion about "intelligent design" at a discussion group dedicated to "intelligent design."  "Serving the intelligent design community" I believe they say.

I guess "How to Serve Man" was copyrighted.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2010,17:32   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,14:26)
I should have suggested an Anti-Delusional supplement for Ut.

He actually thought  (get this, I am not kidding), he actually thought he was going to have a discussion about "intelligent design" at a discussion group dedicated to "intelligent design."  "Serving the intelligent design community" I believe they say.

I guess "How to Serve Man" was copyrighted.

In retrospect, we should have been clearer about UD first-post protocol.

Unacceptable: I've been talking to some scientists, who think Behe's book is fatally flawed for the following reasons (...) Would you like to present a case for the defence?

Acceptable:  Dr Dr Dembski, you rule!  Jesus loves you!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2010,03:34   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,16:26)
I should have suggested an Anti-Delusional supplement for Ut.

He actually thought  (get this, I am not kidding), he actually thought he was going to have a discussion about "intelligent design" at a discussion group dedicated to "intelligent design."  "Serving the intelligent design community" I believe they say.

I guess "How to Serve Man" was copyrighted.

UD is all about preaching to the choir. The purpose is bolstering faith by making science and scientists look foolish. There's a famous precedent for being "vehemently suspect of heresy", that's why Voice Coil had to be banned. It is indeed all about serving the ID community.

I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2010,10:57   

Quote
I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.


In a word:  cannibalism


Let's do it!

  
Acipenser



Posts: 35
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2010,11:59   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 06 2010,10:57)
Quote
I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.


In a word:  cannibalism


Let's do it!

That sounds like a great idea!  I don't think I canhandle eating any more bottles of those pills but I was wondering if the pills are avaiable in a IV drip formulation for a continuous infusion of the stupid?  

How about a time-release implantable form?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2010,12:14   

Quote (Acipenser @ Feb. 06 2010,09:59)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 06 2010,10:57)
Quote
I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.


In a word:  cannibalism


Let's do it!

That sounds like a great idea!  I don't think I canhandle eating any more bottles of those pills but I was wondering if the pills are avaiable in a IV drip formulation for a continuous infusion of the stupid?  

How about a time-release implantable form?

Maybe a skin patch.  Or a huffer.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2010,12:28   

Or just go with what a great philosopher once said: "stupid is as stupid does".

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2010,13:03   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 06 2010,10:57)
 
Quote
I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.


In a word:  cannibalism


Let's do it!

Right, I should perhaps have said 'opposition from the opposition'

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2010,11:55   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 06 2010,03:34)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,16:26)
I should have suggested an Anti-Delusional supplement for Ut.

He actually thought  (get this, I am not kidding), he actually thought he was going to have a discussion about "intelligent design" at a discussion group dedicated to "intelligent design."  "Serving the intelligent design community" I believe they say.

I guess "How to Serve Man" was copyrighted.

UD is all about preaching to the choir. The purpose is bolstering faith by making science and scientists look foolish. There's a famous precedent for being "vehemently suspect of heresy", that's why Voice Coil had to be banned. It is indeed all about serving the ID community.

I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.

Hey Quack,

Thanks for the link a few pages back. It was interesting because they admit, along with IDer that regular evolution can't explain certain things, but unlike IDers, the article proposes an alternative solution. The science and theory behind it is beyond me, and I have no idea how it could be testable. Its certainly mysterious.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,03:10   

Quote
The science and theory behind it is beyond me, and I have no idea how it could be testable. Its certainly mysterious.


The theory is a veritable jigsaw puzzle and it takes time and effort to get enough pieces in place to begin to fathom the grandeur of the Theory of Evolution! I wish you the best of luck. All you need is out there, you supply the rest with your curiosity and a dedication to truth.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,04:55   

Quote
I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.


I've often advocated this in the past. In fact the pilot experiment at TT went well for a while until the pull of the tard proved too powerful for some of our weaker brethren!

*glares at Zachriel*

Come on, guys, let's do it. There'll be a time soon when there won't be any UD and ID worth experimenting with!

Failing that, why is not more use made of Sidewiki? Why not repost a few of the choicer PoTW's there, for example?

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,05:10   

Hmm. Two questions occur:

1. It is suspected that at least some of the UD squad lurk here. Does that mean we should take a vow of silence here too? Maybe we could just confine the discussion to important stuff like Danii Minogue's pregnancy (my daughter told me about it, honest. What copy of Hello? Oh that one. Must have picked it up on the bus, never seen it before)

2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?




* In the sense that, whatever intelligence may be, commenters on UD are definitely counter to it.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,06:17   

Quote
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,14:25   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17)
Quote
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover.

(As long as they PM 'Ras)

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,16:51   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2010,14:25)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17)
Quote
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover.

(As long as they PM 'Ras)

You mean like "jerry"?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,17:15   

Wow, Ut. I've been following your sojourn, am not the least bit surprised by the results.

All anybody need accept is that the questions for which telic design is 'the' answer are mostly philosophical and/or metaphysical. They are not questions that science can ever answer definitively, nor can religion offer anything that could compete in the scientific arena with objective physical evidence.

A matter of belief. We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them. Science doesn't deal in metaphysical "proofs," religion doesn't deal in physical "proofs." Debates like these are usually sideshow attractions, mere distractions from real life. Dueling Metaphysics, I like to call them. It's a perennial human pastime.

Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong!

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,17:22   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 08 2010,14:51)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2010,14:25)
     
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17)
     
Quote
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover.

(As long as they PM 'Ras)

You mean like "jerry"?

I'm thinking more like Joseph, or StephenB.  I mean, really! Nobody could be that dense, could they?

(Then again, I've learned from my time here and in the mines, never underestimate the prevalence of the stoopid.)

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,17:23   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,18:15)
We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them.  (snip)

Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong!

See what she did there, ut?

You're gonna love playing with Joy.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,18:03   

What, Lou? Are we not free to believe as we choose about metaphysical questions of final causation and/or meaning?

I've never had a problem with evolution. Seems entirely evident to me, even not being a biologist or microbiologist. I also see a continuum of relative consciousness in all living beings, from the meanest to the finest. To me, "alive" means more than some particular arrangement of atoms. I do not believe there is any such thing as "living matter."

No scientific finding of means or mechanisms will convince me that life is some sort of accidental 'poof' of magical matter. No religious belief will convince me there's tiny angels dancing on nuclear membranes to make it happen. All this back and forth is mostly sideshow to me, and I never pay good money to see freaks. They're way too common in real life, thanks... §;o)

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,20:45   

I would assume that Lou's problem is the comment about choosing to "believe" evidence that suits our worldview.  Morton's Demon, I assume?

How can we ever learn anything if we only admit the evidence that fits what we already "know"?

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,20:56   

And what do you "know," Hammer guy?

I'm pretty old, relatively speaking. All I "know" is what I've personally experienced [i.e., 'seen', figurative]. My conclusions about what I've experienced - how things fit into what I believe about life and the nature of It All - are shaped by my cultural milieu and education within it. But my choices are my own. As are yours. And everyone else's. A crossbeam here, a strut there, sometimes just a pile of sand to support the arch until there's a keystone...

I do not know what you believe. I don't know what your experience of life and death on planet earth has been. What I've said is that I do not believe in the existence of some crazy sh*t best described as "living matter." I've spent a lifetime around magicians and illusionists and mentalists and puppeteers and... clowns. I don't believe in that kind of magic, know too much about how it's done. So sue me.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,21:27   

And because I haven't seen you much around here, let me elucidate a bit...

I have some scientific 'knowledge' and experience. Not only did I pass advanced biology in high school (while concurrently taking physics-II and chemistry-III) back when advanced biology was the only way you'd get introduced to Darwinism, I was privileged in college to take an undergrad course in genetics under guest lecturer Isaac Asimov. Got to take it because I was then current in crystallography, but I didn't learn too much about genetics (it was the '70s. Who knew very much?). I did have a delightful time, though. Learned some other things... §;o)

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,03:12   

A:  
Quote
I'm thinking more like Joseph, or StephenB.  I mean, really! Nobody could be that dense, could they?

Would be nice, but I am afraid that's wishful thinking.

B:  
Quote
(Then again, I've learned from my time here and in the mines, never underestimate the prevalence of the stoopid.)

That regrettably most likely is what it is.

How I wish that it would be A:. That might help restore some of my lost faith in mankind.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,04:33   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,18:03)
No scientific finding of means or mechanisms will convince me that life is some sort of accidental 'poof' of magical matter.

That's right. Nothing magical about it. Nonetheless, best evidence is that normal matter became alive.

The only people bringing 'and then a miracle - poof - occurred' into the equation are the TTers. And you.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,08:53   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,17:15)
Wow, Ut. I've been following your sojourn, am not the least bit surprised by the results.

All anybody need accept is that the questions for which telic design is 'the' answer are mostly philosophical and/or metaphysical. They are not questions that science can ever answer definitively, nor can religion offer anything that could compete in the scientific arena with objective physical evidence.

A matter of belief. We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them. Science doesn't deal in metaphysical "proofs," religion doesn't deal in physical "proofs." Debates like these are usually sideshow attractions, mere distractions from real life. Dueling Metaphysics, I like to call them. It's a perennial human pastime.

Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong!

Hi Joy,

Well, you are the first person on this forum who seems remotely sympathetic to a religion. Welcome. :)

I certainly believe that the scientific method is a powerful way to learn about the physical universe, but it is not the only way to reason, or arrive at truth.

My church provides firm guidelines on what is attainable based solely on reason alone, and what requires faith in a revelation that although is beyond reason, does not contradict reason.

A good example of the dividing line between reason and faith is the resurection accounts. From a purely historical point of view, one cannot make any claims about the resurection because 1-there were no witnesses, 2-it was a miraculous event, and clearly beyond the normal parameters of nature, 3-it happened a very long time ago.

Now if you approach these facts from a purely historical point of view alone, you arrive at no religious conclusions, but only the isolated facts that a man preached, was killed for his doctrines, and his disciples claimed he resusitated by some kind of mystical power. This is in fact a good summary of the account of Christianity provided by a non believer, Pliny, to the Roman Emperor around 90 AD.

To understand these events from a religious perspective, one has to take into account prophetic texts, the religious understanding of the Jews of those days, and the philosophic and religious milieux. You have to accept that God is working in history and has a personal relationship with his people.

All of these things are clearly beyond the sphere of science. Is it invalid because science cannot provide a material explanation for the resurection, or a live video feed? Some people would say yes. Good for them. I personally see this as unreasonable, but I also believe that it is a personal choice.

All that being said, I did not come here to proselatize my religious point of view, but only to verify if there is any scientific merit to the Behe's arguments in the edge of evolution.

By the way, are you Christian?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,09:15   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 09 2010,08:53)
Well, you are the first person on this forum who seems remotely sympathetic to a religion. Welcome. :)

The owner / admin is religious.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,10:21   

I am a Gnostic. ("We" lost out to literalism.) 'Nuff said.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,10:49   

oldmanintheskydidntdoit:
Quote
Nonetheless, best evidence is that normal matter became alive.


Exactly what is the difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter? What is the physical difference between a carbon atom in a rock and a carbon atom in your femur? What is the physical difference between a molecule of water in a raindrop and a molecule of water in your liver?

Where does 'alive' matter go when it dies? How does its form or nature change?

Not to worry, oldman. I already know there is no physical difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter, because matter is neither alive nor dead. It is just matter.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:23   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,10:49)

Exactly what is the difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter?

The arrangement.
   
Quote
What is the physical difference between a carbon atom in a rock and a carbon atom in your femur?

Nothing. They are interchangeable.
   
Quote
What is the physical difference between a molecule of water in a raindrop and a molecule of water in your liver?

Nothing, they are interchangeable.
   
Quote

Where does 'alive' matter go when it dies? How does its form or nature change?

Nowhere. The specific arrangement changes.
   
Quote

Not to worry, oldman. I already know there is no physical difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter, because matter is neither alive nor dead. It is just matter.

Exactly. The arrangement is what's important, not the component pieces.

So I suppose you don't believe in "the breath of life" then?
 
Quote
Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person.

Good-o.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:35   

Ut:
Quote
All that being said, I did not come here to proselatize my religious point of view, but only to verify if there is any scientific merit to the Behe's arguments in the edge of evolution.


The weaknesses of the version of Darwinism promulgated by EA [Evangelical Atheist] culture warriors are many, and often require more faith than most normally held religious beliefs. It seems quite reasonable to me that something more is going on in the existence and evolution of life than accidental magical matter-poofs. But science needn't accept the direct intervention of deities, fairies, angels or any other disembodied tinkerer outside of life itself. That isn't science's purpose, and science has no means of demonstrating such things anyway.

I subscribe to a version of EAM [Endogenous Adaptive Mutation], though I'm not sure if that is an adequate descriptive title for it. I am fairly supportive of the theory that consciousness (of some description) is a fundamental parameter of our 4-D universe of manifestation, thus that manifestation naturally seeks greater concentration and expression of this quality. Life would be the most effective form of manifestation for this purpose, and evolution toward greater complexity and expression of consciousness would be its natural proclivity.

I do not consider the nuclear genome to be the whole story of life, inheritance and evolution, as there are other factors involved and of more immediate affect in the process than the static historical record contained in the genetic library. There are forms of life that can operate just fine without their nuclear templates, the handicap of that condition being merely an inability to reproduce. There is a mammal evolving so rapidly that all species display genetic/chromosomal chaos that even has males and females of the SAME species with different numbers of chromosomes! Yet they [voles] all look alike...

It is the anomalous in the living world which tends to point to more going on. I'm fond of anomalies - can't help it. There is a telic impetus across all forms of life that spurs living organisms to seek continuation of life, thus to adapt if possible to the changing conditions of its existence. I suspect that this is something biology (all pertinent fields) will eventually quantify and begin to understand. They are never going to quantify gods, angels, demons, etc.

Quote
By the way, are you Christian?


What my metaphysical beliefs may be is not relevant to what I strongly suspect about the nature of life and evolution. But FYI, I call myself a "Follower of Christ."

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:46   

oldman:
 
Quote
The arrangement is what's important, not the component pieces.


The arrangement of matter is obviously important to the process of living, but the mere arrangement of matter is not life. New forms of life do not spontaneously poof into existence from rotting meat or hay, nor in mud puddles or peat bogs or anywhere else on earth where matter is concentrated in arrangements that once functioned for some organism in its process of living.

You won't magically poof a life form into existence in your test tube either, no matter what pre-arranged matter you add to the stew. It is always a source of amusement to me how many self-professed scientists stubbornly cling to the idea of spontaneous generation more than a hundred years after it was demonstrated false by science/scientists.

Keep trying, though. If indeed life can spontaneously poof into existence from raw or prearranged matter, you may luck out someday.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:49   

ARGH! no edit function.

EAM = Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:54   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,11:49)
ARGH! no edit function.

EAM = Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis

Is this a good description of EAM?

http://telicthoughts.com/endogenous-adaptive-mutagenesis/

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:56   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,11:46)

The arrangement of matter is obviously important to the process of living, but the mere arrangement of matter is not life.

Define "life". And I think you'll find that the "mere" arrangement of matter is quite important to life. Change the arrangement enough then "life" dissipates.

The "mere" arrangement of matter *is* life. If not, what *is* Joy?
 
Quote
New forms of life do not spontaneously poof into existence from rotting meat or hay, nor in mud puddles or peat bogs or anywhere else on earth where matter is concentrated in arrangements that once functioned for some organism in its process of living.

Don't they? How do you know? Got a microscope on every rotting meat pile have you?
       
Quote
You won't magically poof a life form into existence in your test tube either, no matter what pre-arranged matter you add to the stew.

No, magically poofing life into existence requires an old bearded man in the sky.
       
Quote
It is always a source of amusement to me how many self-professed scientists stubbornly cling to the idea of spontaneous generation more than a hundred years after it was demonstrated false by science/scientists.

No, instead you stubbornly cling to ideas created by sheepherders thousands of years ago.
       
Quote
Keep trying, though. If indeed life can spontaneously poof into existence from raw or prearranged matter, you may luck out someday.

It did already. And here we are. If everybody believe what you are saying here nobody would even look. Science stopper or what!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:58   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,11:35)
I am fairly supportive of the theory that consciousness (of some description) is a fundamental parameter of our 4-D universe of manifestation, thus that manifestation naturally seeks greater concentration and expression of this quality.

I think you stole that idea from The Golden Compass....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:13   

Yes, Ut. That's the general gist of it.

oldman:
Quote
Don't they? How do you know? Got a microscope on every rotting meat pile have you?


LOL!!! Actually, I tend to accept the scientific evidence that spontaneous generation does not occur. Though I can see that your faith is strong regardless of the scientific evidence. As I said, keep on trying. You just might luck out someday and demonstrate Pasteur, et al. wrong.

Quote
No, magically poofing life into existence requires an old bearded man in the sky.


Really? Have you tried talking the old bearded man in the sky into helping you out with your spontaneous generation experiments?

Quote
No, instead you stubbornly cling to ideas created by sheepherders thousands of years ago.


So... you're a mind-reader too? Wow. There's a lot of talent around here!

Quote
If everybody believe what you are saying here nobody would even look. Science stopper or what!


Oh, I imagine that curious people would still attempt to quantify and understand the natural world even if they did believe that consciousness is a natural parameter that seeks concentration and expression. But not to worry. I know some Ph.D.s who have made fine lives for themselves driving ski shuttles and/or tending bar. Enjoying life can be an adequate substitution for sleeping on cold concrete behind the shield wall in the accelerator target zone when the budgets are tight... §;o)

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:39   

oldman:
Quote
The "mere" arrangement of matter *is* life. If not, what *is* Joy?


If you were ever to meet me, you might believe that the skin and bones you see at that moment *is* me. Though I've noticed quite a lot of rearrangement of skin and bones over the course of my decades of life, and am not all that delighted with their condition at present (it was all in much better shape when I was 18). If I live a good while longer, though, I'll probably look back on the wrinkles and sags of 'now' wistfully...

I, like most other people, am constantly replacing pieces-parts of cells and organs, even while wearing some entire layers of already dead cells around. I ingest some pre-arranged organic matter that used to be alive, digest it into pieces-parts, and use those for replacement and to power the various dynamic processes of life that allow me this fairly functional body. When I'm done with it the pieces-parts will be left in this universe of manifestation and may even be recycled into pieces-parts for some other life forms in a future I won't be living in. Matter is cheap - all around us all the time.

It's kind of funny how I don't seem to myself to be much different than I was when I was four (or eighteen, or thirty, or...). I constantly add to my store of experience, I learn new things fairly regularly, I think new thoughts quite often. But it's still the same *me* even if that reflection in the mirror doesn't fit my self-image very well these days. Mostly I just avoid mirrors...

I like to think I am my consciousness - my awareness and sensory abilities and experience of life on planet earth, my thoughts and beliefs,  my several abilities to work with the materials of the world and shape them to my desires, my understandings of what I experience and what I do with my time in time. Small as that understanding may be.

I do not know why you'd want to believe that you're just a collection of cells and chemicals. But since that appears to be so, I'll just wish you the best of luck keeping it all together for as long as possible before you have to leave parts or all of it behind for someone else to use for awhile.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:51   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,12:13)

LOL!!! Actually, I tend to accept the scientific evidence that spontaneous generation does not occur.

I think we both know to what we are really taking about.
   
Quote
Though I can see that your faith is strong regardless of the scientific evidence.

No scientific evidence for any sort of deity. Yet you believe.

And I don't have "faith". You don't need "faith" in science. It just is.
   
Quote
As I said, keep on trying. You just might luck out someday and demonstrate Pasteur, et al. wrong.

Life arose from non-life at least once. Proving that happens would not prove Pasteur wrong, and you know it. You are just being contrary.  
   
Quote
Really? Have you tried talking the old bearded man in the sky into helping you out with your spontaneous generation experiments?

No, that's because it does not exist. And I don't find it productive to talk to things that don't exist.
   
Quote
So... you're a mind-reader too? Wow. There's a lot of talent around here!

Whatever.
   
Quote
Oh, I imagine that curious people would still attempt to quantify and understand the natural world even if they did believe that consciousness is a natural parameter that seeks concentration and expression.

Having fun under that pyramid are you? What on earth does "natural parameter" mean?

As you seem to know what consciousness is please do explain to us precisely what it is and how exactly you know that?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:56   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,12:39)
I do not know why you'd want to believe that you're just a collection of cells and chemicals. But since that appears to be so, I'll just wish you the best of luck keeping it all together for as long as possible before you have to leave parts or all of it behind for someone else to use for awhile.

You claim to be something other then "just" a collection of cells and chemicals (what are cells made of if not chemicals btw? ). Yet you cannot specify what that something else is.

You just have faith that it is something else. And that it exists. I've a unicorn I'd like to sell you, and it lives in a teapot.

Personally I prefer to not to pretend that there is a "magical something else". Yet I can understand why that idea is attractive. After all, if you believe one thing with no evidence whatsoever then why not believe 10.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,13:21   

Quote
You won't magically poof a life form into existence in your test tube either, no matter what pre-arranged matter you add to the stew.


Therefore I can tell you with 100% certainty a specific fact about the deity you claim to worship.

The deity in question is not sufficiently powerful to create a universe that could generate life without specific intervention.

You see, the thing that makes me laugh about people like you is that you claim that life's origin required intervention. But when pressed "well, where did the entity that did the intervening come from" you simply say "ah, it was always there" or "it did not have a beginning".

So life as we know it had to have a beginning. Yet you claim some special exception to your particular deity.

"Oh, yes *All* life had a manual start *apart* from the deity I happen to worship. It was *always* there".

And therefore you dodge the exact same question that you are trying to poke back at me. You make a big fuss about how "science" is inadequate to answer questions about the origin of life but fail to realise that the answers you have given yourself fail at the first examination.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,13:59   

oldman:
   
Quote
I think we both know to what we are really taking about.


I think this conversation would proceed much smoother if you stopped pretending to be some kind of mentalist or psychic and just dealt with what I actually write.

   
Quote
Life arose from non-life at least once.


Where? When? How? Please do tell...

   
Quote
No, that's because it does not exist. And I don't find it productive to talk to things that don't exist.


Me either. You're the one who brought it up, I just made a suggestion as to how you might use your knowledge to demonstrate the veracity of your belief. Perhaps you could avoid asserting things you 'know' to be untrue or nonexistent while not pretending to skills and talents you don't have. It would help a lot to avoid pointless sidetracks.

   
Quote
Having fun under that pyramid are you? What on earth does "natural parameter" mean?


Actually, the roof here is plainly pitched rather than pyramidal. I would have thought you have some conception of what is meant by a "natural parameter." Your basic forces of the universe, the number of dimensions we observe and/or experience directly or which affect the actions/interactions of forces, physical constants and their constructs, etc.

   
Quote
As you seem to know what consciousness is please do explain to us precisely what it is and how exactly you know that?


If you do not experience consciousness there is no way anybody can explain to you what it is. If you do experience consciousness then you don't need anyone to explain to you what it is. There are some basic concepts and definitions out there that you could access if you were conscious and able to use a computer to search on "consciousness," look around at the ongoing scientific projects to quantify it and philosophical projects to authoritatively define what they're attempting to quantify.

All we 'know' is that which we perceive and/or experience. We have developed symbolic communicative technologies that allow us to share what we 'know' with other conscious human beings, even to accumulating knowledge over generations so that everything doesn't have to be learned from scratch as generations pass into history. Very handy. But when you tell me you 'know' that life spontaneously generates from non-organic matter, I get to weigh that against my own experience and observations of the world, what others in history who have tested that supposition say about it, and choose whether or not I believe you actually 'know' what you claim to know.

Thus far I remain unconvinced. You'll have this from time to time. A pertinent question I can ask that will help me figure out how certain concepts can best be communicated to you would be how many dimensions you suspect exist in the totality of "reality." Not just the ones our physical equipment has evolved to perceive and/or experience directly, but as many as you think may exist in toto.

Care to offer your guess?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,14:27   

Quote

I think this conversation would proceed much smoother if you stopped pretending to be some kind of mentalist or psychic and just dealt with what I actually write.

Fine. Whatever. It's all there for anybody to read.
     
Quote
Where? When? How? Please do tell...

Link Link
The where and when is ongoing. Some specific details are missing. I realise that's not as satisfying as the first few chapters of your book, but...

What we can say is that so far there is no evidence whatsoever of any "designers" involvement, nor any need for such.

 
Quote
Perhaps you could avoid asserting things you 'know' to be untrue or nonexistent while not pretending to skills and talents you don't have. It would help a lot to avoid pointless sidetracks.

Whatever.
 
Quote
I would have thought you have some conception of what is meant by a "natural parameter." Your basic forces of the universe, the number of dimensions we observe and/or experience directly or which affect the actions/interactions of forces, physical constants and their constructs, etc.

What's your point?
 
Quote
If you do not experience consciousness there is no way anybody can explain to you what it is.

Cop out.
 
Quote
If you do experience consciousness then you don't need anyone to explain to you what it is.

Another cop out. Any evidence that consciousness is not a product of "just cells and chemicals"?
 
Quote
There are some basic concepts and definitions out there that you could access if you were conscious and able to use a computer to search on "consciousness," look around at the ongoing scientific projects to quantify it and philosophical projects to authoritatively define what they're attempting to quantify.

Why are they bothering eh? If they are looking at the "cells and chemical" level they'll never find what they are looking for, right?
 
Quote
But when you tell me you 'know' that life spontaneously generates from non-organic matter, I get to weigh that against my own experience and observations of the world, what others in history who have tested that supposition say about it, and choose whether or not I believe you actually 'know' what you claim to know.

Yet you claim to 'know' that life did not have a natural origin on what basis?

Tell me Joy, in your own experience and observations of the world, how many times have you seen a god create life?

None?

Yet you 'know' it happened. At least the reasons that leave me to believe that it happened have a basis in rationality and empirical fact.
 
Quote
Thus far I remain unconvinced.

Yes, the intense scientific research into abiogenesis can't compete with an old book written by goat herders. I can see why you believe that case is far more convincing.
 
Quote
A pertinent question I can ask that will help me figure out how certain concepts can best be communicated to you would be how many dimensions you suspect exist in the totality of "reality."

The jury is out on that. It looks like more then the ones we can easily perceive, for sure.

However, it seems that that eleven-dimensional supergravity arises as a low energy limit of the ten-dimensional Type IIA superstring, and that a recently conjectured duality between the heterotic string and Type IIA superstrings controls the strong coupling dynamics of the heterotic string in five, six, and seven dimensions and implies duality for both heterotic and Type II strings.

So lets split the difference and say eight.
 
Quote
Not just the ones our physical equipment has evolved to perceive and/or experience directly, but as many as you think may exist in toto.

What possible difference would it make to anything you might say to me?
 
Quote
Care to offer your guess?

I'm not equipped to make such a guess. It's not my field of expertise. I prefer to leave the "guessing" to the experts, like the one I cribbed that paragraph from.

And the "experts" all agree (with some notable exceptions) that unassisted abiogenesis is at least possible, and perhaps even likely given the right conditions.

No serious "expert" is making any sort of case for "god did it". Are they?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,14:31   

So, Joy, please do tell me about how *you* believe life originated.

And if it's got any level of detail comparable to even the slimmest paper on abiogenesis then perhaps we can talk about that instead?

Oh, got to go? Ok, no problem.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,14:35   

And as I'm answering your questions, please do answer this.

Is your chosen deity sufficiently powerful that it is capable of creating a universe where life can originate via "chance" alone?

Or not?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,15:17   

oldman:
 
Quote
The where and when is ongoing. Some specific details are missing. I realise that's not as satisfying as the first few chapters of your book, but...


So you believe that life arose from non-life at least once, but do not know where or when or precisely how. That's what I suspected. You are in the same boat as everybody else, it seems.

It's somewhat amazing that you have read the first few chapters of my book, since it was never published and made generally available to the public. Though there were a few copies making the rounds. Quite exciting, wasn't it? Perhaps one of these years it finally will be published...

 
Quote
Any evidence that consciousness is not a product of "just cells and chemicals"?


Cells and chemicals (and biophysical processes) are of course surmised to be the means and mechanisms for the operations of consciousness, at least for so long as it is embodied in physical, organic form. I simply do not misconstrue the phenomenon itself with the physical correlates of its mechanical operation. And before you ask or offer yet another inane insult, yes. I do know that there are people who do equate phenomena with the physical processes of their operation. I am not one of them. You apparently are.

 
Quote
Why are they bothering eh? If they are looking at the "cells and chemical" level they'll never find what they are looking for, right?


What they are mostly looking for are the physical correlates of consciousness' expression in living organisms. The physical components, the mechanics and the processes. Originally the primary motivation was to determine if information technologists could hope to create an artificial machine-based consciousness. I don't know how many of those individuals with lots of money to invest in the projects may be transhumanists. There are no doubt some who would simply like to have a conscious machine. For whatever reason.

 
Quote
Yet you claim to 'know' that life did not have a natural origin on what basis?


Where did I claim that? Nowhere have I asserted that life's origin was not entirely natural, even if it was a singular event. Again you are making things up out of whole cloth and projecting them onto me. Please stop it.

 
Quote
Yes, the intense scientific research into abiogenesis can't compete with an old book written by goat herders. I can see why you believe that case is far more convincing.


Oh, THAT's the book you're referring to. I've read it a few times. Good for what it is, and reliable as what it is (considering the care exerted to keep it accurate over many generations, which is what the treatment of such things as 'holy' is particularly good for). I find the slightly differing accounts of ancient Hebraic creation mythologies - no doubt regionally specific - as interesting as I've found the creation mythologies of the Pima and Tewa, the Inuit, the Chinese, the Norse and the several others I've investigated. Also interesting that they use a ceramic model, as do several other cultural origin stories. Probably indicating some common sociocultural development(s) undergirding the particular metaphors.

 
Quote
So lets split the difference and say eight.


Interesting that you'd pick that number. One of my current favorite models is 8-dimensional. I'd say it's 'easier' than 11, 22 or infinite dimensions, but it's really not. The mathematics is quite different from the current string models, difficult to grok. Thanks for the response.

 
Quote
What possible difference would it make to anything you might say to me?


I'd hoped that some grasp of the likely fact that there is more to reality than just what we have evolved to easily perceive, observe/measure and/or quantify would suggest to you that things may not be so cut and dried as your simplistic metaphysical belief system would have it.

 
Quote
And the "experts" all agree (with some notable exceptions) that unassisted abiogenesis is at least possible, and perhaps even likely given the right conditions.


"Unassisted" meaning what, exactly?

Quote
No serious "expert" is making any sort of case for "god did it". Are they?


Far as I know, only god-experts are attempting to make such a case. Though how 'expert' anyone can really be about gods is certainly debatable. Science is not trying to make that case and will not. That realm of speculation is outside its job description.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,15:39   

Quote
So, Joy, please do tell me about how *you* believe life originated.


I have no clue how, where or when life originated, so I don't worry about it. I'm here now, so there's plenty of other things to concern myself with. I do kind of like the 'seeding' scenario, given that I'm not naturally inclined to believe life is exclusive to this obscure chunk of rock in a universe as huge and full of wonders as ours appears to be. But that's just a preference among speculative scenarios, not all the way to being what you could call "belief."

I do not believe in abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) here on this planet, though if science ever demonstrates such a thing can occur (and is likely to occur in nature) I'm willing to accept it. Doesn't look like that's going to happen during my lifetime, so I'm not investing any energy into a belief that means precisely zip.

Quote
Is your chosen deity sufficiently powerful that it is capable of creating a universe where life can originate via "chance" alone?


I don't know. Though I would be inclined more toward belief that a deity sufficiently powerful to create an entire universe and populate it with life forms would not need to rely upon "chance" alone, nor (given intent) be particularly inclined to rely upon "chance" alone. But there's no way to be sure of any such speculation either way from here inside of space-time. So the question is not of much serious concern to me. It looks to be of more serious concern to you.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,15:42   

Quote
"Unassisted" meaning what, exactly?

I expect you would have determined that when you were hanging around at TT.
Quote
I do know that there are people who do equate phenomena with the physical processes of their operation.

What is pressure?
Quote

Where did I claim that? Nowhere have I asserted that life's origin was not entirely natural, even if it was a singular event. Again you are making things up out of whole cloth and projecting them onto me. Please stop it.

You hang around with dogs, you pick up fleas.
Quote
I'd hoped that some grasp of the likely fact that there is more to reality than just what we have evolved to easily perceive, observe/measure and/or quantify would suggest to you that things may not be so cut and dried as your simplistic metaphysical belief system would have it.

Agreed. There's much we don't know. More we don't even know we don't know.

Anyway, I'm guilty of treating you like the usual fundy with the usual baggage. I apologise for that. You are obviously a different beast entirely.

So I'll take my simplistic metaphysical belief system and go then......

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,15:46   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,15:39)

I do not believe in abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) here on this planet, though if science ever demonstrates such a thing can occur (and is likely to occur in nature) I'm willing to accept it. Doesn't look like that's going to happen during my lifetime, so I'm not investing any energy into a belief that means precisely zip.

So you have no thoughts whatsoever on abiogenesis then? Not even to say telic intervention was required? What was your original purpose over at TT then? To argue against TT?
   
Quote
It looks to be of more serious concern to you.

Perhaps. I was just trying out my little trap, and you eluded it. It works sometimes......

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,16:04   

Applause. Some time since we had a real shootout here, last was with Denial Smith.

I believe both Joy and Utunumsint might do well taking a close look at  the Methological naturalism thread

Gotta go to bed now.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,16:30   

Quote
So you have no thoughts whatsoever on abiogenesis then? Not even to say telic intervention was required? What was your original purpose over at TT then? To argue against TT?


My only thought on abiogenesis is that I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental. It struggles too mightily to stay alive - even when it knows it's doomed, at this end of the scale - as if it had purpose. A reason to be. That fits nicely into my metaphysical views. But I do not claim to 'know' anything about it that you would consider objective, big-t Truth. Nor am I here to convince you to subscribe to any metaphysical belief system other than your own.

I participated at TT because Mike Gene asked me to participate at TT. It was quite a fun pastime before he moved on to other things and it became Bradford's personal political blog. I still follow on occasion if there is an interesting subject.

My interest in the debates exists on a couple of levels. The first scientific - I find accumulated and incoming knowledge and evidence via research to be fascinating. Life is quite the amazing phenomenon, it would be a good thing (I believe) for humanity to understand much more about it. That kind of knowledge might to a long way towards helping us make life a more enjoyable experience overall.

The second level is sociocultural, colored by politics. I see this grand "Culture War" and a lot of senseless bravado, and some serious overtones of authoritarianism on both sides that conflicts with my views about things like freedom and liberty and democracy and the sanctity of individual human rights. It often seems like there are a lot of wannabe mind-tyrants abroad in the "Land of the Free," and too little courage in the "Home of the Brave." I am interested in how this works, and why it seems to be more prevalent of late. It doesn't seem like a very hopeful indication that humanity can evolve past its strong suicidal tendencies, and that would be a shame.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,17:01   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,16:30)
I see this grand "Culture War" and a lot of senseless bravado, and some serious overtones of authoritarianism on both sides that conflicts with my views about things like freedom and liberty and democracy and the sanctity of individual human rights.

And from your analysis of how the "Culture War" functions would you agree it's something of an uneven fight?

One side somewhat outguns the other, no? There's a definite preponderance of evidence on one side, right?

I mean, if it were an actual war it would have been over in a half hour. If that.

Giving equal time to both sides of an argument only works when both sides of the argument are equally strong.

So, why do you suppose it is that the side of the Culture Wars represented by the Disco Tute, AIG and UncommonDescent get so much face time with teachers like Mr Freshwater? And why does he get so much support  from his local community, to the extent of death-threats being made against his opponents?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,17:19   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,17:30)
           
Quote
So you have no thoughts whatsoever on abiogenesis then? Not even to say telic intervention was required? What was your original purpose over at TT then? To argue against TT?


My only thought on abiogenesis is that I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental.

It strikes me that to ascribe the origins of life on earth, and/or the evolutionary directions taken by life over the last ~3.5 billion years either to "intent" or "accident," is a category error (or category mistake).

It is defensible to ascribe to persons and perhaps a few other higher organisms intent to engage in behaviors, which are therefore called "acts." To do so is to ascribe to them the ability to represent behavioral options prior to behaving and hence "intend" a given behavior. As a component of this ascription, we say that for them it is possible to exhibit "accidental" behaviors or results. A person may "accidently" knock the cup from the table. Or may do so intentionally.

An earthquake, however, neither behaves intentionally nor causes results "by accident." It may cause many cups to fall from many tables, but these are neither accidents nor not accidents. They are not "acts" at all. Such an ascription is simply inappropriate for a natural event such as an earthquake, and represents a category error.

It is similarly inappropriate to ascribe either intention or lack of intention ("accidents") to other natural phenomena. Hence, within a naturalistic framework, the origins of life and course of evolution are neither accidental nor non-accidental, because both ascriptions commit a category error. However these phenomena originate, it is unlikely to be by means of "actions" analogous to human actions, because the capacity for "acts" (versus mere behavior) appears rather clearly to be a culmination of long evolutionary history, not its beginning.

Interestingly, it IS possible that God created life accidently. An eternal divine entity possessed of agency may create deliberately - but as an intentional being may also enage in acts that have unintended consequences, and hence may be regarded as accidents. It is an interesting question for believers in such beings to contemplate: perhaps there is a God, but this universe and/or the life within it are accidental. Could explain a lot, because the God of the bible seems such a bungler.

Absent such a being, the universe is neither accidental nor not accidental. Ascriptions along that dimension become category errors when the processes so described are natural processes, absent agency. The only circumstance in which a universe and the life within it can be "accidental" is if there IS a God and that God created this universe. Only believers need be concerned with that possibility.

(Remember to recycle).

[Edit for fragrance]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,17:51   

Hello Joy!

Would you accept Eru Illuvatar as your creator?

Or for that matter, Osyrhia?

please answer carefuly...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,18:44   

Schroedinger's Dog:
 
Quote
please answer carefuly...


Carefully? I actually quite like Tolkien's concept of "the infinite 'potential variety' of God." Though his hierarchal model is nothing new - many cultural mythologies include 'levels' of creation and creative impulse - gods, demigods, powers, principalities and such. Due to Catholicism's warm embrace (and outright usurpation) of entire systems of Pagan metaphysics, it doesn't seem so strange that the scenario would appeal to someone as gifted a storyteller/mythmaker as Tolkien.

As for Osyrhia, I'm not all that fond of terminal complexity in metaphysics, though I will certainly admit that things on that level may indeed be terminally complex. I'm often amazed at how twisty and unfathomable people can make their metaphysical belief systems - a reflection of their minds, I'm pretty sure, as well as a way to provide cover for obvious and endemic personal failings. If I could get the pages in English I might be able to figure out if this is an elder system or just another New Age construct. But it doesn't really matter. Again, 'ages' of progression and/or regression ruled by different powers is nothing new. Aldous Huxley's documentation of common themes and concepts across cultures and systems amounts to what he termed the "Perennial Philosophy." Looks to me like certain classes of direct experience come quite naturally to the human animal. Our propensity to turn them into authoritative, sociopolitical constructs called Religions can lead to lamentable results.

For myself, I choose the "Simple Answer" because I don't seek too much knowledge of the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell, nor to I wish to claim such [h/t Reinhold Niebuhr]. Of all the systems of belief I've encountered and examined, I've chosen the one with the best advice on how to live. Here, and now, since that is my concern while I live in the here and now.

In that system Love is the Answer. I honestly and reasonably doubt that any avatar or holy man/woman will ever impart to us a better or more complete Answer to the suffering of this world. And I believe very, very strongly that if we could just abide by that one commandment - to Love One Another - life on planet earth would be as good as it gets here and now. Alas, love is not something so easily commanded, is it? Judging by the obvious difficulty that humans have with so simple an Answer, it seems a mighty Fool's Errand to go seeking after anything more obscure or occulted. I'm just doing the best I can, figure that if I someday wake up dead, I'll deal with 'reality' there and then as I find it to be.

YMMV.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,20:46   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 09 2010,17:19)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,17:30)
           
Quote
So you have no thoughts whatsoever on abiogenesis then? Not even to say telic intervention was required? What was your original purpose over at TT then? To argue against TT?


My only thought on abiogenesis is that I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental.

It strikes me that to ascribe the origins of life on earth, and/or the evolutionary directions taken by life over the last ~3.5 billion years either to "intent" or "accident," is a category error (or category mistake).

It is defensible to ascribe to persons and perhaps a few other higher organisms intent to engage in behaviors, which are therefore called "acts." To do so is to ascribe to them the ability to represent behavioral options prior to behaving and hence "intend" a given behavior. As a component of this ascription, we say that for them it is possible to exhibit "accidental" behaviors or results. A person may "accidently" knock the cup from the table. Or may do so intentionally.

An earthquake, however, neither behaves intentionally nor causes results "by accident." It may cause many cups to fall from many tables, but these are neither accidents nor not accidents. They are not "acts" at all. Such an ascription is simply inappropriate for a natural event such as an earthquake, and represents a category error.

It is similarly inappropriate to ascribe either intention or lack of intention ("accidents") to other natural phenomena. Hence, within a naturalistic framework, the origins of life and course of evolution are neither accidental nor non-accidental, because both ascriptions commit a category error. However these phenomena originate, it is unlikely to be by means of "actions" analogous to human actions, because the capacity for "acts" (versus mere behavior) appears rather clearly to be a culmination of long evolutionary history, not its beginning.

Interestingly, it IS possible that God created life accidently. An eternal divine entity possessed of agency may create deliberately - but as an intentional being may also enage in acts that have unintended consequences, and hence may be regarded as accidents. It is an interesting question for believers in such beings to contemplate: perhaps there is a God, but this universe and/or the life within it are accidental. Could explain a lot, because the God of the bible seems such a bungler.

Absent such a being, the universe is neither accidental nor not accidental. Ascriptions along that dimension become category errors when the processes so described are natural processes, absent agency. The only circumstance in which a universe and the life within it can be "accidental" is if there IS a God and that God created this universe. Only believers need be concerned with that possibility.

(Remember to recycle).

[Edit for fragrance]

Well said.  That also applies when people say "well who created the universe" - by putting the "who" they are automatically leaving out the more basic "what", along with the implication that "creation" carries.  Creation can refer to the result of natural process without intentionality (cold weather and water can create ice, for example), but most people think of an active agent.  Same sort of error, no?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,20:52   

So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression), does that apply between consenting adults of the same sex?  What about between species?  Between kingdoms (animal and vegetable, for example)?  

Why pick a philosophy that gives advice on how to live here and now if it includes (or you include) things about some other life for which there is no evidence?  I like a lot of Zen teachings, but when they go into metaphysical BS that has no basis in reality, I jettison that part.  There is no need to take things whole.  Even stoic philosophy had its supernatural aspect that can be ignored.  Why not do that and leave the non-evidence based crap behind?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,21:08   

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 09 2010,21:46)
Same sort of error, no?

It implicitly imports the notion of agency and intent, which is only clearly warranted with respect to human agency. Human agency is a culmination of a long biological and cultural evolutionary history, and therefore a poor model for beginnings.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,22:27   

Badger3k:
   
Quote
So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression), does that apply between consenting adults of the same sex?  What about between species?  Between kingdoms (animal and vegetable, for example)?


Love is not just about sex. There seem to be increasing numbers of ambivigendered folks these days, and it does not appear to be a choice (for those I know) as much as it is nature. Something the haters don't want to consider, but may have to accept one of these days. Given intersex epidemics in fish and amphibians from agricultural pollution - ALL the fish examined in a surprising number of systems - it could be yet another thing we've visited upon our children through unbridled greed, apathy, and/or endless stupidity. There are enough humans in the world, it is not important on any level for anyone to be forced to reproduce, nor is it reasonable to enforce lifelong celibacy because someone else doesn't 'approve' of who a person loves. Interspecies crosses a relative power and consent line, but if you're into loufas you and Bill O'Reilly would have something in common.

   
Quote
Why pick a philosophy that gives advice on how to live here and now if it includes (or you include) things about some other life for which there is no evidence?


No evidence you would consider, obviously. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate and project your own beliefs (or lack thereof) universally. I have encountered some evidence that consciousness is separable from body and may survive death. Enough to lend hope, for what it's worth - to me. Others have no power to eliminate my experiences or to dictate what I must believe about them. So I couldn't imagine why in the world anybody'd bother to try.

   
Quote
 Why not do that and leave the non-evidence based crap behind?


Because I don't have any desire to reject what I don't consider to be "crap." You of course can believe or not believe whatever you like.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,22:28   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,16:30)
My only thought on abiogenesis is that I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental. It struggles too mightily to stay alive - even when it knows it's doomed, at this end of the scale - as if it had purpose. A reason to be.


Perhaps. Another explanation is that any kind of life that doesn't struggle mightly to stay alive and reproduce doesn't exist for very long, and doesn't leave any descendents for us to observe.

The advantage of this explanation is that it doesn't require any higher-order knowledge by life. No knowledge that it's 'doomed' or that it has a purpose. Kind of hard for me to see how bacteria could know they were doomed or had a purpose, especially a few billion years ago when they were the only life in existence.

Note: I'm not claiming this as evidence against a purpose to life. Only that it's not evidence for a purpose.

 
Quote
That fits nicely into my metaphysical views.


Do you consider that a reason to believe it?

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,23:20   

Reciprocating Bill:
 
Quote
It strikes me that to ascribe the origins of life on earth, and/or the evolutionary directions taken by life over the last ~3.5 billion years either to "intent" or "accident," is a category error (or category mistake).


Perhaps so. I'd suspect it would be dependent upon how life originated on earth, and whether or not the evolutionary directions followed a telic impetus or were front-loaded. I seem to recall that quite a few researchers in recent years have subscribed to the 'seeding' scenario in one way or another (accidental or intentional), for reasons of shortcomings they perceive in models of abiogenesis, time frames and other issues with strict Darwinism.

Thus while it would be a category error to ascribe intent to an earthquake, it may not be a category error to ascribe intent to either the appearance of life on this planet or its directional evolution. You never know. Maybe we'll meet ET one of these days and he'll give us his lab notes. §;o)

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,23:21   

It's enjoyable reading threads where Joy is commenting in good form.

While I may be more anti-religious than she, I can agree with the wisdom of avoiding having faith in absolutes.

Quantum Mechanics brings into question any absolute declaration of a separation of reality and consciousness (i.e. "purpose").

If Behe and the ID Movement in general were truly interested in finding evidence of "telic organizing principles in nature" I would think they would seriously explore things like EAM and Quantum Consciousness.

However, it is rather obvious they would rather engage in Joy's "dueling metaphysics" and try to convince people to bend knees for their religion.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,23:35   

qetzal:
Quote
Note: I'm not claiming this as evidence against a purpose to life. Only that it's not evidence for a purpose.


That's why I qualified the statement to "this end of the scale." While all life forms we know of act/react to stimulus (process information) and display some signs of volition - jury's still out on viruses as life forms - not all life forms are 'conscious'. According to the Hameroff-Penrose model, there is a numerical quantification for the appearance of that phenomenon.

I'd argue in favor of all conscious life forms having 'purpose' (to include self-purpose), even if it seems trivial to us.

Quote
Quote
That fits nicely into my metaphysical views.


Do you consider that a reason to believe it?


"It" what? That conscious beings have purpose or act upon telic impetus, or my metaphysical views? Doesn't really matter, of course. I believe what I believe for my own reasons, about both.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,03:09   

Quote
'd suspect it would be dependent upon how life originated on earth, and whether or not the evolutionary directions followed a telic impetus or were front-loaded.

And as we're never going to know that precisely you can continue to make the claim "that it depends".

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence for any sort of "telic impetus".

None. Whatsoever.

   
Quote
"It" what? That conscious beings have purpose or act upon telic impetus, or my metaphysical views? Doesn't really matter, of course. I believe what I believe for my own reasons, about both.

Yes, and to me it's about as interesting as hearing somebody recount their dreams.

It seems that you want to be an Atheist Joy but don't have the guts (boom boom) to go the whole way. Instead we get this wishy washy "I believe what I believe and nobody can make me chance my mind".

Yeah, you and everybody else too.

Joy, ever thought about becoming a politician? You've got a great knack for answering questions without actually committing yourself either way.

   
Quote
Thus while it would be a category error to ascribe intent to an earthquake, it may not be a category error to ascribe intent to either the appearance of life on this planet or its directional evolution. You never know. Maybe we'll meet ET one of these days and he'll give us his lab notes. §;o)

See what I mean?

A) You have no evidence whatsoever that the apperance of life was intended by some being. Yet you still make it part of your warm'n'fuzzy outlook.
B) Yes, ha ha, perhaps ET will turn up and give us his lab notes. Yet somehow I doubt you really, truly believe that. And even if you do then you've already indicated, in the previous sentence even, that the appearance and evolution of life was backed by intent. So even if it was ET you still have to explain the origin of ET. So what caused ET? Another ET? Yes, makes sense.

So which is it? Was it ET or was it some deity? It cannot be both, ultimately.

Ever thought about writing for the Huffington Post? I'm sure you'd fit right in with Deepak Chopra and the rest of the "woo gang".

 
Quote
I seem to recall that quite a few researchers in recent years have subscribed to the 'seeding' scenario in one way or another (accidental or intentional), for reasons of shortcomings they perceive in models of abiogenesis, time frames and other issues with strict Darwinism.


"Strict Darwinism"? Tell me a single problem you have with Darwinism? What's the difference between "Darwinism" and "Strict Darwinism"?

You seem more then capable of elucidating what your issue is with Darwinism, so please do so. That's what this is really about, at heart. Then we might be able to actually talk about something other then how your inner beliefs are yours alone and so very precious. Who's work are you cribbing from? Behe? Dembski?

But I won't be taking part.

Goodbye Joy.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,07:12   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,00:20)
Reciprocating Bill:
     
Quote
It strikes me that to ascribe the origins of life on earth, and/or the evolutionary directions taken by life over the last ~3.5 billion years either to "intent" or "accident," is a category error (or category mistake).

Perhaps so. I'd suspect it would be dependent upon how life originated on earth, and whether or not the evolutionary directions followed a telic impetus or were front-loaded.

Quite so, in this sense: it is an mistake to characterize undirected origins in the absence of "telic" input as an "accident." Undirected events in nature are neither accidents nor not accidents.

"Accident" refers only to the unintended acts/consequences of agents/agency.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,08:45   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 09 2010,16:04)
Applause. Some time since we had a real shootout here, last was with Denial Smith.

I believe both Joy and Utunumsint might do well taking a close look at  the Methological naturalism thread

Gotta go to bed now.

Great thread Quack. Kudos to RB for posting it.

I have a background in classical and medieval studies and also in comparative religions, so I'm familiar with several of the 12th century debaters mentioned. Thomas Aquinas' The Division of Sciences also gives a good presentation.

I'm more of an Augustinian in the sense that I think where we most reflect the image of God is in our intellectual capacities (memory, will, and reason). Bonaventure wrote a beautiful work called Itinerum ad mentis in Deum which outlines his markedly Franciscan/Augustinian view of the cosmos. As reflections of God, the material world sat at the bottom, showing ownly vestigial traces of the imprint of the hand of God. But in and of itself, the physical world was the most remote. I think this is a mistake that IDers make in thinking there can be any direct proportion between God and nature.

From a theological point of view, I believe God holds all time and space in his power, and thus there is no such thing as randomness and chance for God. Therefore if he wanted to use evolution to create us (or at least our physical bodies), then that is what he did. Methodological naturalism is no threat to this kind of theological point of view.

That said, the real question is, do you believe that God can have a personal relationship with his creation? Can his supernatural presense enter into his creation and engage with us as a species? Why, would such a God even need to do so if he holds all time and space in his power and there is nothing that he has not predetermined? Doesn't this mean free will is a myth?

You see the dividing line between theology and philosophy come out fairly clearly in some of these questions. And these in turn have an impact on biological questions such as biological determinism.

Anyway, very interesting.

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,09:00   

Quote
And these in turn have an impact on biological questions such as biological determinism.

Like what? What sort of "impact" are you referring to?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,09:11   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2010,09:00)
Quote
And these in turn have an impact on biological questions such as biological determinism.

Like what? What sort of "impact" are you referring to?

Don't worry. I only mean impact from a philosophical point of view. If you believe in biological determinism, then free will is an ilusion.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,09:37   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 09 2010,23:21)
Quantum Mechanics brings into question any absolute declaration of a separation of reality and consciousness (i.e. "purpose").



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,09:58   

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 09 2010,18:52)
So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression),

It's called "Mind Games".

How a propos.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,10:02   

Thanks, TP. Just have to chuckle sometimes at the stubborn refusal of biologists to credit anything to physics. Ah, well. Around and around it goes, don't guess it'll ever stop... §;o)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,10:55   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,10:02)
Thanks, TP. Just have to chuckle sometimes at the stubborn refusal of biologists to credit anything to physics. Ah, well. Around and around it goes, don't guess it'll ever stop... §;o)

And you just have to guffaw at physicist wannabes who refuse to learn enough biology to comment on it sensibly.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,11:00   

Utunumsint, I appreciate your response although I don't think I can engage in much debate on that level. I am too much of a realistic bent.

WRT God though, I think he is to embedded in the manifest world to have a 'personal relationship' with his creation. (Provided there is or he is a creator.)

There was a time when everything under the sun was attributed to gods: Rains, winds, thunder and lightning (Thor used to drive his chariot across the sky around here, striking with his hammer).

Most of the mystery has gone, the world has become a rational and rather predictable place to be. And even when unpredictable, most of the time we know why things happen anyway.

What remains is the human mind. But as far as I am concerned, that mystery has been solved too. Actually was already 100 years ago. My studies of depth psychology and personal experience have dispersed any doubts I might have had.

That doesn't mean that man's propensity for religious feelings and impulses are false; it just means they too can be understood.

The problem is that people want to see God as a remote spirit in the sky instead of as the ghost in the machine of our soul.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is within."

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,12:07   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,23:35)
qetzal:
   
Quote
Note: I'm not claiming this as evidence against a purpose to life. Only that it's not evidence for a purpose.


That's why I qualified the statement to "this end of the scale." While all life forms we know of act/react to stimulus (process information) and display some signs of volition - jury's still out on viruses as life forms - not all life forms are 'conscious'. According to the Hameroff-Penrose model, there is a numerical quantification for the appearance of that phenomenon.

I'd argue in favor of all conscious life forms having 'purpose' (to include self-purpose), even if it seems trivial to us.


So only conscious life necessarily has a purpose, but that purpose might be nothing more than 'survive and reproduce.' Is that what you're saying? If so, how does that support your belief that life is intentional? As I already noted, the 'purpose' of surviving and reproducing can be readily explained without supposing that the first life arose through intentional agency.

 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,10:02)
Just have to chuckle sometimes at the stubborn refusal of biologists to credit anything to physics.


Weren't you the one arguing that life requires more than just a specific arrangement of atoms? Seems to me that's the ultimate refusal to credit physics.

But I'll guess that you're referring more to stuff like Penrose-Hameroff, right? The thing is, biologists are more than happy to credit physics when the empirical evidence supports it. Last I knew, Penrose, Hameroff, and others like them were still at the hand-wavy speculation stage, with their ideas about quantum consciousness, Orch-OR, et al. I'm not aware that they've developed any significant evidence to support such ideas.* If they ever do, I'm confident that biologists will take more notice.

Might still take a while, of course, due to differences between disciplines, inertia, etc. But saying that biologists refuse to credit physics strikes me as either ignorant or disingenuous.

+++++
*If you think otherwise, feel free to provide a link. But please, no links about how microtubules might do this or might collapse that. If there's evidence that they really do that, and that it is related to consciousness, great - let's see it. Otherwise it's still hand-wavy speculation, and isn't (yet) deserving of significant credit from anyone.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,12:25   

Albatrossity2:
 
Quote
And you just have to guffaw at physicist wannabes who refuse to learn enough biology to comment on it sensibly.


I haven't seen too many of those, but then, I don't hang out around here much. I find biophysics theory and applications quite fascinating. But that's hardly surprising, since my field was applied biophysics. Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

My guess is that one of these days you guys may want to graduate from Dueling Metaphysics on the midway, see if they'll let you into the main arena to face real lions.  But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

Good luck with that. Judging from the number of dumb assumptions and inane assertions I've seen so far in this thread, you're going to need it if you ever hope to be more than mere shills for the Freak Show.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,14:22   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)
Judging from the number of dumb assumptions and inane assertions I've seen so far in this thread....


Joy, are you familiar with the parable of the mote and the beam?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,14:44   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)
Albatrossity2:
   
Quote
And you just have to guffaw at physicist wannabes who refuse to learn enough biology to comment on it sensibly.


I haven't seen too many of those, but then, I don't hang out around here much. I find biophysics theory and applications quite fascinating. But that's hardly surprising, since my field was applied biophysics. Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

My guess is that one of these days you guys may want to graduate from Dueling Metaphysics on the midway, see if they'll let you into the main arena to face real lions.  But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

You definitely have mastered the red herring.

And my field, coincidentally, was biophysics as well. And I've never been a fan of corporate hijackings or premeditated murder either. Another coincidence, I suppose.

In what I have read here that you have written, I've found no "sensible argument" for your notion that your consciousness exists independent of your body. I have seen plenty of wishful thinking and general woo that might pass for "sensible argument" in your world, but it won't get you much more than derision here. Sorry, but I save my sensible arguments for those who seem sensible.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,15:02   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)

 But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.


     
Quote
Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

     
Quote

Good luck with that. Judging from the number of dumb assumptions and inane assertions I've seen so far in this thread, you're going to need it if you ever hope to be more than mere shills for the Freak Show.

I retract my apology to Joy. I doubt her baggage would fit on a army transport plane. It's just camouflaged better them most. I suspect she's bitter because she never found "god wuz here" when she was looking at DNA down the microscope.

I guess we won't be seeing Joy about any more soon then, from the tone of her last few messages.

It's amazing how people like Joy make grand claims but claim to be so insulted by a few petty comments and then use it as an excuse to avoid answering pertinent questions asked by others about those grand claims.

How easy. So much easer to cut and run then address getzal and RB's specific points. Boo hoo, some random people on the internet were mean to me. What an excuse. What a con artist.
 
Quote
My guess is that one of these days you guys may want to graduate from Dueling Metaphysics on the midway, see if they'll let you into the main arena to face real lions.  But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

Says a voice from TT.
 
Quote
I participated at TT because Mike Gene asked me to participate at TT. It was quite a fun pastime before he moved on to other things and it became Bradford's personal political blog. I still follow on occasion if there is an interesting subject.

Let's look at some of the other things Joy has said about TT in the past.
 
Quote
TT is a privately owned blog that doesn't have to let you participate at all, and may make decisions about moderation without consulting you.

 
Quote
. Yes, most at TT are 'creationists' in that they do view biology and evolution as creations instead of accidents (with some caveats), with deity running the show.

 
Quote
The assumption is that those past life forms 'evolved' over millions of generations to become the life forms we see now.

Creationist evolution denier.
 
Quote
What's it evolving into? A drug resistant strain of bacteria isn't a new species of life, it's an adaptive development in an existing species of life. It's still Plasmodium falciparum the protozoa that causes malignant malaria.

Yep, creationist for sure with a DaveScot tint. Evolution had it's chance, it produced nothing new. Blah blah blah.
 
Quote
Just trying for a psych profile on the last hold-outs, denizens of The [infamous] Swamp. To round out the research. That's all.

How did that work out I wonder.

Link

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:00   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 10 2010,19:44)
[SNIP]

Sorry, but I save my sensible arguments for those who seem sensible.

It occurs to me that this is possibly the most intelligent thing I have ever seen written by anyone anywhere.

I shudder to think at the time I've wasted on morons.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:05   

qetzal:
 
Quote
As I already noted, the 'purpose' of surviving and reproducing can be readily explained without supposing that the first life arose through intentional agency.


Survival and reproduction are trivial considerations of 'purpose' beyond any given individual's ability to contribute to the gene pool (intentionally or not). Possibly pertinent to the process of evolution, not necessarily pertinent to the 'purpose' of life itself.

Once more, I don't know how "first life" arose and honestly don't give a shit because it affects my life not at all. In fact, that unanswerable question affects no one's life in the here and now (except a handful of abiogenesis researchers). So I sure don't know why any of you believe it's some sort of effective religion-slayer. Mere Dueling Metaphysics. Ho, hum.

 
Quote
Weren't you the one arguing that life requires more than just a specific arrangement of atoms? Seems to me that's the ultimate refusal to credit physics.


There is more to physics than the specific arrangement of atoms. I admit to a form of natural vitalism. I don't think either biology or physics are in possession of all the pieces to the puzzle. I can say with some confidence that science won't be approaching completion of the picture during my lifetime. Or my grandchildren's lifetimes. There will still be work for researchers as far into the future as any of us cares to look.

 
Quote
I'm not aware that they've developed any significant evidence to support such ideas.* If they ever do, I'm confident that biologists will take more notice.


Since you're uninterested in research on PCCs [MTs/MAPs*] I guess you'll just have to wait on something that grabs your attention. And much of the active research is in the proprietary realm these days anyway. Guess Big Pharma knows a promising direction when it sees one. Lord knows we've all been waiting on the "Really Good Drugs" all our adult lives... §;o)
___

* i.e., Gravitational symmetry breaking leads to polar liquid crystal phase of microtubules in vitro

Transitions in Microtubule C-termini Conformations as a Possible Dendritic Signaling Phenomenon

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:33   

Albatrossity2:
 
Quote
In what I have read here that you have written, I've found no "sensible argument" for your notion that your consciousness exists independent of your body. I have seen plenty of wishful thinking and general woo that might pass for "sensible argument" in your world, but it won't get you much more than derision here. Sorry, but I save my sensible arguments for those who seem sensible.


It's not surprising that you haven't seen a "sensible argument" in favor of consciousness being separable from matter. I haven't offered an argument on that and don't plan to. I have merely mentioned in passing that I have encountered some evidence in that direction. I find it intriguing, but certainly know better than to offer it here as some kind of "argument." So I didn't bother. I was asked a personal question, answered the question honestly and without elaboration. That is ALL I did.

If you wish to see something "sensible" you'll need to work a bit on your reading comprehension skills so you'll be able to recognize the difference between an argument and a simple response to a personal question.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:44   

I don't see how the same brain that produces this insight

Quote
Once more, I don't know how "first life" arose and honestly don't give a shit because it affects my life not at all.


not two seconds later produces bullshit like this

Quote
There is more to physics than the specific arrangement of atoms. I admit to a form of natural vitalism.


Now, I've been accused (or blessed as the case may be) of possessing unnaturally powerful animal magnetism (the stories I could tell you about delivering pizzas ... ) but "natural vitalism?"

Can you get that in a pill?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:46   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,16:44)
Now, I've been accused (or blessed as the case may be) of possessing unnaturally powerful animal magnetism...

Was that when we couldn't separate that monkey from your person due to some strange attractive force?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:01   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,16:33)
It's not surprising that you haven't seen a "sensible argument" in favor of consciousness being separable from matter. I haven't offered an argument on that and don't plan to. I have merely mentioned in passing that I have encountered some evidence in that direction. I find it intriguing, but certainly know better than to offer it here as some kind of "argument." So I didn't bother. I was asked a personal question, answered the question honestly and without elaboration. That is ALL I did.

If you wish to see something "sensible" you'll need to work a bit on your reading comprehension skills so you'll be able to recognize the difference between an argument and a simple response to a personal question.

Ah, isn't semantics fun?

"Evidence" is usually what one uses for an "argument". By mentioning "evidence" that you have "encountered", a rational person might be led to believe that you would be able to use it in an argument. But you can't/won't do that, and thus are able to slough off my criticism that you have offered exactly nothing to support the notion.

You simply have faith in the notion that consciousness (whatever that is) is separable from matter, and that's good enough for you. But you're right; I can't argue against evidence that you haven't provided. So I will stick with mockery.

I've no delusions about whether I will get an argument, or evidence, or anything I would recognize as sensible from you. I've read enough here, and at Telic Twats, to have figured that out, even with my marginal reading comprehension skills.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:11   

Hey, the monkey told me she was an adult.

What was I supposed to do, card her?

Anyway, it was a long time ago and most of the charges were dropped.

Your point?

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:14   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,16:05)
qetzal:
       
Quote
As I already noted, the 'purpose' of surviving and reproducing can be readily explained without supposing that the first life arose through intentional agency.


Survival and reproduction are trivial considerations of 'purpose' beyond any given individual's ability to contribute to the gene pool (intentionally or not). Possibly pertinent to the process of evolution, not necessarily pertinent to the 'purpose' of life itself.


My question was whether "survive and reproduce" was sufficient to constitute "purpose" as you define it. Your failure to actually answer is duly noted.

 
Quote
Once more, I don't know how "first life" arose and honestly don't give a shit because it affects my life not at all. In fact, that unanswerable question affects no one's life in the here and now (except a handful of abiogenesis researchers). So I sure don't know why any of you believe it's some sort of effective religion-slayer. Mere Dueling Metaphysics. Ho, hum.


I never said anything about abiogenesis being a religion-slayer. Also, weren't you just admonishing us about making dumb assumptions? Your double standard is duly noted.

In any case, I only raised the question because you said:

 
Quote
I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental.


If you no longer give a shit, that's fine with me.

 
Quote
Since you're uninterested in research on PCCs [MTs/MAPs*] I guess you'll just have to wait on something that grabs your attention. And much of the active research is in the proprietary realm these days anyway. Guess Big Pharma knows a promising direction when it sees one. Lord knows we've all been waiting on the "Really Good Drugs" all our adult lives... §;o)


When did I ever say I was uninterested in any of that? More dumb assumptions, I guess.

As for your links, are you actually suggesting that they support Orch-OR or any other quantum consciousness type claims? Guffaw!

The first one attempts to explain the effects of gravity on assembly of microtubules. The second is a computer model of how the C-terminus of tubulin might behave. Neither one provides any test of its ideas. More importantly, neither one provides evidence to support Orch-OR or anything similar. That you offer them as such suggests you really don't understand what you're talking about. Either that, or you're just hoping I'll be cowed by a couple of random papers about microtubules.

Also, if you think pharma is pursuing microtubules because they believe in quantum consciousness, you're seriously deluded.

Feel free to continue with your buffoonery. I've had enough.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:59   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,16:44)
Now, I've been accused (or blessed as the case may be) of possessing unnaturally powerful animal magnetism (the stories I could tell you about delivering pizzas ... ) but "natural vitalism?"

Were you Lenny Flank's delivery boy?  If so, do you have any special insights into theology?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,19:59   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,22:27)
Badger3k:
     
Quote
So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression), does that apply between consenting adults of the same sex?  What about between species?  Between kingdoms (animal and vegetable, for example)?


Love is not just about sex. There seem to be increasing numbers of ambivigendered folks these days, and it does not appear to be a choice (for those I know) as much as it is nature. Something the haters don't want to consider, but may have to accept one of these days. Given intersex epidemics in fish and amphibians from agricultural pollution - ALL the fish examined in a surprising number of systems - it could be yet another thing we've visited upon our children through unbridled greed, apathy, and/or endless stupidity. There are enough humans in the world, it is not important on any level for anyone to be forced to reproduce, nor is it reasonable to enforce lifelong celibacy because someone else doesn't 'approve' of who a person loves. Interspecies crosses a relative power and consent line, but if you're into loufas you and Bill O'Reilly would have something in common.

     
Quote
Why pick a philosophy that gives advice on how to live here and now if it includes (or you include) things about some other life for which there is no evidence?


No evidence you would consider, obviously. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate and project your own beliefs (or lack thereof) universally. I have encountered some evidence that consciousness is separable from body and may survive death. Enough to lend hope, for what it's worth - to me. Others have no power to eliminate my experiences or to dictate what I must believe about them. So I couldn't imagine why in the world anybody'd bother to try.

     
Quote
 Why not do that and leave the non-evidence based crap behind?


Because I don't have any desire to reject what I don't consider to be "crap." You of course can believe or not believe whatever you like.

Thanks for the replies.  It's interesting to see what others believe and why.  This probably isn't the place for it, but I'd be interested to know (or see) what you consider evidence for a consciousness that survives brain death.  I've done a bit of research into it and can find nothing with anything solid behind it.  Speculative, perhaps, but nothing that would give me cause to believe in it.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:08   

Oldman+, the line you said
Quote
"It seems that you want to be an Atheist Joy but don't have the guts (boom boom) to go the whole way. Instead we get this wishy washy "I believe what I believe and nobody can make me chance my mind".
reminded me of when I was doing my own research into religions and the basis for their beliefs.  I eventually came down to deism, but I had to stop and ask what justification did I have for that belief, and all I could say is that I wanted to believe it.  That wasn't enough for me to be honest and respect evidence and truth, and I had to admit that I really was an atheist.  It was a bit of a knock, but I had to respect myself and my decision to base my beliefs on rational thinking and evidence, as opposed to just emotions.  

This whole thing is a bit funny since one of my new students found out I was an atheist, and I had to be really, really careful of what I said (I teach in a public high school).  Trying to be honest while not trying to "preach" can be difficult, but I try to be honest and instead encourage a critical examination of evidence and the students beliefs (in everything).  I try to teach critical thinking in just about everything, though it may not be appreciated now.

Sorry for the digression, just wanted to toss that out.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:12   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)
Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

Now this seriously sounds like you're in Illuminati territory.  Reptoids?  Grays?  Men in Black?  Templars?  CIA?

Why not tell us of one of these "premeditated 'random' murders" in the field of orthodox and/or corporate biophysics.  Such a tale would be fascinating.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:15   

No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper.  At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit.  Seriously.  Total bullshit from stem to stern.  

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too.  I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy.  The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will  buy you beer.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:16   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,17:11)
Hey, the monkey told me she was an adult.

What was I supposed to do, card her?

Anyway, it was a long time ago and most of the charges were dropped.

Your point?

Was Glenn Back involved?  Back in '90?  

More to the point, did you keep the negatives?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:26   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,18:15)
 The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will  buy you beer.

"I drink therefore I am" -- Descartes, according to Idle.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,22:02   

Badger3k:
 
Quote
Thanks for the replies.  It's interesting to see what others believe and why.  This probably isn't the place for it, but I'd be interested to know (or see) what you consider evidence for a consciousness that survives brain death.  I've done a bit of research into it and can find nothing with anything solid behind it.  Speculative, perhaps, but nothing that would give me cause to believe in it.


Thanks for being forthright and not insulting. Always a rarity around here.

This isn't the place for a discussion of consciousness. But note I qualified my response. The evidence I find intriguing is for separability - the extrapolation to anything beyond death is much shakier. The only evidence that is compiled and documented is NDE. Which is of course ultimately subjective no matter how much commonality they describe. NDE is usually waved away by simply claiming the experiencer was hallucinating. It never convinces the experiencer, but it makes insecure nay-sayers feel good about themselves. Everybody else gets to decide for themselves what to believe or hope for about that.

In something like this it is necessary to make a distinction between belief in something and direct experience of that thing. Those who subscribe to religions, philosophies or metaphysical systems promising an afterlife can be said to "believe in" the continuation of consciousness beyond death. Accounts I have seen from people who have experienced NDE share a different quality, one of 'knowing'. I used the word hope in my response to you for a reason. I am intrigued, I'd sure like to know. But I don't expect to know unless I "wake up dead," and if that happens you're not likely to get a report from me.

 
Quote
Why not tell us of one of these "premeditated 'random' murders" in the field of orthodox and/or corporate biophysics.  Such a tale would be fascinating.


Oh, it's it's a very old tale about things no one ever really wanted to know. Any more than they want to know what's happening now or how such things become inevitable. It's a genuine Sacred Cow that has always owed its soul to lies (not to mention the Zombie that fathered it).

Besides, "everybody knows" that Templars and the CIA are one and the same... §;o)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2010,23:45   

Quote
Thanks for being forthright and not insulting. Always a rarity around here.


Oh Joy, you nearly rose above, but you had to have a cheap shot.

Quote
This isn't the place for a discussion of consciousness


I'd be happy to start a thread for you if you can't.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,02:42   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,22:02)
Thanks for being forthright and not insulting. Always a rarity around here.

Yet Joy still hangs around here. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Perhaps "insults" are better then the ignorance over at TT.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,08:26   

Hi Joy,

Not to change the subject, but I was wondering what your opinion is on the works of Behe specifically, and also on Dembski and Meyers?

I'd be interested to know what you think about these guys?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,08:29   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,20:15)
No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper.  At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit.  Seriously.  Total bullshit from stem to stern.  

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too.  I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy.  The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will  buy you beer.

Hi Bill,

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

The same thing goes for philosophy. Whether you like philosophy or not, applied philosophy is everywhere. It is at the root of politics, psychology, and law to name only a few instances.

I agree though. There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,08:38   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:29)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,20:15)
No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper.  At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit.  Seriously.  Total bullshit from stem to stern.  

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too.  I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy.  The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will  buy you beer.

Hi Bill,

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

The same thing goes for philosophy. Whether you like philosophy or not, applied philosophy is everywhere. It is at the root of politics, psychology, and law to name only a few instances.

I agree though. There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Cheers,
Ut

Ohoh.

Am I allowed to say this? Then: OhOH!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:01   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,08:29)
You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

What rot. Your lot have had since time immemorial to sort it out, to apply reason to revelation. And holy wars a-plenty have ensued. And religions are no closer to reconciliation then they ever were.

You think another 50 years of the application of reason to revealed truth will fix anything? You are deluded.  

Nobody can dispute the veracity of "revealed truth". I claim that a voice in my head is telling me the truth, nobody can dispute that. If that voice disagrees with what you claim your voice is telling you, well it's WAR! JIHAD! CRUSADES!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:09   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 11 2010,08:38)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:29)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,20:15)
No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper.  At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit.  Seriously.  Total bullshit from stem to stern.  

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too.  I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy.  The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will  buy you beer.

Hi Bill,

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

The same thing goes for philosophy. Whether you like philosophy or not, applied philosophy is everywhere. It is at the root of politics, psychology, and law to name only a few instances.

I agree though. There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Cheers,
Ut

Ohoh.

Am I allowed to say this? Then: OhOH!

OhOh is right. I wasn't planning on getting into this kind of debate. Bad me.  :)

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:14   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,09:01)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,08:29)
You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

Quote
What rot. Your lot have had since time immemorial to sort it out, to apply reason to revelation. And holy wars a-plenty have ensued. And religions are no closer to reconciliation then they ever were.


It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.  

Quote
You think another 50 years of the application of reason to revealed truth will fix anything? You are deluded.


Exactly what do you want religion to fix?

Quote
Nobody can dispute the veracity of "revealed truth". I claim that a voice in my head is telling me the truth, nobody can dispute that. If that voice disagrees with what you claim your voice is telling you, well it's WAR! JIHAD! CRUSADES!


I'd like to point out that the crusades were wages against the muslims because they were waging a jihad on westerners.

You want to go another round? You're pretty good when it comes to science, but you're on my turf now. :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:56   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,09:14)


It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think *you* should bone up on *your* history.

None of that is because of "revealed truth". None whatsoever. And anyway, universities existed before Catholics.
 
Quote
Greece

   * The Platonic Academy (sometimes referred to as the University of Athens[3][4]), founded ca. 387 BC in Athens by Plato.

China

   * Taixue was established in 3CE.
   * Nanjing University (National Central University) was founded in 259 AD.

Korea

   * Taehak was founded in 372 and Gukhak was established in 682.

India

   * Nalanda University an ancient university was established in the 5th century AD in Bihar, India.

Iran

   * Academy of Gundishapur was an important medical centre of the 6th and 7th centuries AD.

Japan

   * Ashikaga Gakko was founded in 9th century and restored in 1432.


So, er, perhaps it's you that needs a history lesson.
 
Quote
Exactly what do you want religion to fix?

It could start with the  Jihads and holy wars you yourself mentioned. I seem to remember some incidents where some believers killed some other believers simply because they were of different religions. Fix that first eh?
 
Quote
I'd like to point out that the crusades were wages against the muslims because they were waging a jihad on westerners.

Yeah, that's why those westerners had to travel to fight, instead of doing it on their own doorstep.
 
Quote
You want to go another round? You're pretty good when it comes to science, but you're on my turf now. :)

Thanks. I hear what you are saying, but I dispute your logic. You say more time is required to apply reason to revealed truth. I say you've had thousands of years and you are still fighting amongst yourselves as to what "truth" is.

As this is your turf, perhaps you can say how much longer it is before all religions accept each other peacefully? You've had thousands of years already, you really think it's happening anytime soon?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:05   

Actually it was the Muslims that preserved Greek knowledge, which was then picked up by Europeans, resulting in the Renaissance, which means rebirth. Rebirth of classical learning.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:08   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,09:14)
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought.

It was the Catholic church that gave us universities the Inquisition, and the laid the foundation for western tought Abu Ghraib.

We can play this anecdotal game all day if you want...

But it seems pointless.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,09:56)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,09:14)


It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think *you* should bone up on *your* history.

Quote
None of that is because of "revealed truth". None whatsoever. And anyway, universities existed before Catholics.


Quote
Greece

   * The Platonic Academy (sometimes referred to as the University of Athens[3][4]), founded ca. 387 BC in Athens by Plato.

China

   * Taixue was established in 3CE.
   * Nanjing University (National Central University) was founded in 259 AD.

Korea

   * Taehak was founded in 372 and Gukhak was established in 682.

India

   * Nalanda University an ancient university was established in the 5th century AD in Bihar, India.

Iran

   * Academy of Gundishapur was an important medical centre of the 6th and 7th centuries AD.

Japan

   * Ashikaga Gakko was founded in 9th century and restored in 1432.


Quote
So, er, perhaps it's you that needs a history lesson.


Lets start with Plato's academy, since all the other schools you mentioned are not western.

The only reason we still have plato's works, or the works of stoics, or the works of aristotle, or pythagoras, or any work of classical history is because some Monk in the dark ages decided it was worth preserving on hides.

Another thing they preserved was Roman Law. The Catholiic Church was the only institution that still practiced Roman Law in the dark ages. Roman law was an indispensible part of the development of canon law (religious law). Since in the dark ages, with the constant attacks from north African muslims, magyares, and vikings, the secular kingdoms had degenerated into lawless tyrannies, all looked to Rome for some kind of justice. After the invasions had settled down, the secular rules soon saw the benefits of emulating this law, so they set up the foundations for universities. Most notable are Oxford and Paris. The magistrates there based their model of education on what was taught in the monasteries. The curiculum was called the trivium and quadrivium. Notable in this curriculum was the teaching of physics, theology, philosophy, geometry, and even biology.

My point here is that their ties with religious institutions set them apart from the secular world of politics, and power, unlike Plato's school. Reason and clear thinking were essential, and produced some of the very great thinkers.

How this all relates to theology is well illustrated in the link provided by Quack on the dividing line between science and theology worked out during the middle ages.

Quote
Exactly what do you want religion to fix?


Quote
could start with the  Jihads and holy wars you yourself mentioned. I seem to remember some incidents where some believers killed some other believers simply because they were of different religions. Fix that first eh?


Actually, the crusades were to free European pilgrims to the holy land from molestation from muslim raiders and rulers. Muslims were also pressing in on the borders of Byzantium an Constantinople. Without the forsight of the early popes, we would all now be under Sharia law. The Crusades were primarily a defensive war.

There is one notable exception to this, and that is the Albigentian crusade. Not a memorable moment in Catholic history.

Religious warefare got really bad during the Protestant reformation, but there were many factors involved with these truggles, and most of the time, the underlying motivation for these wars was political and financial. Not religious.

Quote
Thanks. I hear what you are saying, but I dispute your logic. You say more time is required to apply reason to revealed truth. I say you've had thousands of years and you are still fighting amongst yourselves as to what "truth" is.

As this is your turf, perhaps you can say how much longer it is before all religions accept each other peacefully? You've had thousands of years already, you really think it's happening anytime soon?


Can you answer me this question for the secular world? Why is there no world peace today? Why has the UN not solved all the problems in the world? Why was the 20th century one of the bloodiest centuries in human history?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:28   

Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:33   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,10:08)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,09:14)
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought.

It was the Catholic church that gave us universities the Inquisition, and the laid the foundation for western tought Abu Ghraib.

We can play this anecdotal game all day if you want...

But it seems pointless.

The inquisitions run by the Catholic Church were based on Roman law and were a response to the superstitious mob violence going on against pretty much anyone who was different. It only involved heretics from the Catholic Church (never Jews or Muslims). In Roman law, unlike local laws of the time, you were given an defendant. Punishments were very much less severe than the secular courts which were travesties of justice. The worst inquisitions were run by secular kingdoms, and not by the catholic church. The spanish inquisition comes to mind here.

Is it really pointless to talk about history? There are some very bad unsubstantiated acusations that are commonly thrown about from time to time, such as the death tool of the inquisition. Some put the killings as high as 100 000 000, which is ridicilous since the entire population of Europe was over several hundreds of years was much lower than that number.

But you are right. This is really off topic in this thread.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:37   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 11 2010,10:05)
Actually it was the Muslims that preserved Greek knowledge, which was then picked up by Europeans, resulting in the Renaissance, which means rebirth. Rebirth of classical learning.

Agreed, but the renaissance had much more to it than just the introduction of Aristotle. There was great economic prosperity, a huge upsurge in intellectual though, both before the works of Aristotle were translated and after. Savage kingdoms were taking on the model of diplomacy, some if which we still have today, from the formalized model of the papal court. Religious advances, such as the Franciscan theology, provided a newfound respect for nature, and natural law, as opposed to the platonic dualism that the dark ages tended to favour.

Should I go on?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:38   

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,10:28)
Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Ah, we have a scholar of history here I suppose. Can you provide some kind of evidence for your powerful rebuttal? :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:40   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:33)
It only involved heretics from the Catholic Church (never Jews or Muslims).

Do tell. So the expulsion of Spanish Jews, at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, has been erased from your history book? And the Inquisition in Goa, which punished folks for observing non-Catholic holidays, is similarly forgotten?

How very convenient for you.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:50   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:26)
Lets start with Plato's academy, since all the other schools you mentioned are not western.

I'm sorry, I did not see "western universities" you simply said "university". So what relevance is it where they were based? Universities were not invented by Catholics or given to us by Catholics!
   
Quote
Can you answer me this question for the secular world? Why is there no world peace today? Why has the UN not solved all the problems in the world? Why was the 20th century one of the bloodiest centuries in human history?

Religion. The UN is made up of many overtly religious countries. The last remaining superpower, the USA, won't elect an atheist. So there really is no "secular world", there's just less or more secular parts in the world.

You are fooling yourself if you think that they are separate issues.

Even if world peace were to break out tomorrow I'm sure the first outbreak of hostilities would be down to a religious cause.

Quote
Without the forsight of the early popes, we would all now be under Sharia law. The Crusades were primarily a defensive war.

And I guess you think that would be a bad thing right? But why? To me it's little different to being forced to live your life under Catholic "law". It's just that you can't see that because to you Catholic dogma is "normal" and Sharia law is "alien". Don't you think that people who want to implement Sharia law think it's great and the way you live is awful? It's the same thing but you can't see that because you are "inside" the problem. I can look at both and say I want neither. You cannot, you just don't want the one you don't already have. But I'm sure you would like to convert people to your way of thinking (perhaps not you but your religion wants that) and so it's the same with Muslims.

Just two sides of the same coin.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:51   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:33)
The inquisitions run by the Catholic Church were based on Roman law and were a response to the superstitious mob violence going on against pretty much anyone who was different. It only involved heretics from the Catholic Church (never Jews or Muslims).

That's all right then. Much like the Kray twins, they never harmed anybody other then their own.

The Kray's were still murdering bastards however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kray_twins

Pah.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:52   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,10:40)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:33)
It only involved heretics from the Catholic Church (never Jews or Muslims).

Do tell. So the expulsion of Spanish Jews, at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, has been erased from your history book? And the Inquisition in Goa, which punished folks for observing non-Catholic holidays, is similarly forgotten?

How very convenient for you.

Run by the secular rulers.

And not forgotten. I'm not saying there nothing bad ever happened in the name of religion, but comparing the track record of western Chrisendom over the last 1500 years compared to the atrocities of the secular world of the 20th century committed in the name of progress, gives you a little prespective.

I understand why many of you here have a grudge against religion, as anti science and anti religion, but my only point in posting all these historical facts is to show that science and religion have rarely, in history been antagonistic. At least not in the way many people portray it today.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:52   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,05:40)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:33)
It only involved heretics from the Catholic Church (never Jews or Muslims).

Do tell. So the expulsion of Spanish Jews, at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, has been erased from your history book? And the Inquisition in Goa, which punished folks for observing non-Catholic holidays, is similarly forgotten?

How very convenient for you.

The sack of Béziers which opened the Albigensian Crusade?

"Kill them all! God will know his own!"

-Arnaud Amalric, papal legate.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,10:57   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 11 2010,10:52)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,05:40)
   
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:33)
It only involved heretics from the Catholic Church (never Jews or Muslims).

Do tell. So the expulsion of Spanish Jews, at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, has been erased from your history book? And the Inquisition in Goa, which punished folks for observing non-Catholic holidays, is similarly forgotten?

How very convenient for you.

The sack of Béziers which opened the Albigensian Crusade?

"Kill them all! God will know his own!"

-Arnaud Amalric, papal legate.

I mentioned that one.

Thanks
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:01   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:52)
Run by the secular rulers.

Who weren't secular at all, but rabidly religious. With the blessing and assistance of the popes in Rome.

Or can you provide evidence that anyone in power in the Vatican ever rebuked the Spaniards or the Portuguese for their actions on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church?

Otherwise, this is nothing but weaseling.

And we haven't even gotten to Galileo's troubles with the Vatican. I suppose that will  be excused by saying that it was really the "secular" government of Italy or one of the city-states?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,10:50)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:26)
Lets start with Plato's academy, since all the other schools you mentioned are not western.

I'm sorry, I did not see "western universities" you simply said "university". So what relevance is it where they were based? Universities were not invented by Catholics or given to us by Catholics!
   
Quote
Can you answer me this question for the secular world? Why is there no world peace today? Why has the UN not solved all the problems in the world? Why was the 20th century one of the bloodiest centuries in human history?

Religion. The UN is made up of many overtly religious countries. The last remaining superpower, the USA, won't elect an atheist. So there really is no "secular world", there's just less or more secular parts in the world.

You are fooling yourself if you think that they are separate issues.

Even if world peace were to break out tomorrow I'm sure the first outbreak of hostilities would be down to a religious cause.

 
Quote
Without the forsight of the early popes, we would all now be under Sharia law. The Crusades were primarily a defensive war.

And I guess you think that would be a bad thing right? But why? To me it's little different to being forced to live your life under Catholic "law". It's just that you can't see that because to you Catholic dogma is "normal" and Sharia law is "alien". Don't you think that people who want to implement Sharia law think it's great and the way you live is awful? It's the same thing but you can't see that because you are "inside" the problem. I can look at both and say I want neither. You cannot, you just don't want the one you don't already have. But I'm sure you would like to convert people to your way of thinking (perhaps not you but your religion wants that) and so it's the same with Muslims.

Just two sides of the same coin.

So the cold war was run by religious? World War I and II were religiously motivated? Can you provide quotes from Popes declaring for one side or another, or calling out for violent action?

Why does it seem to me that any failure or inhumanity practiced by a secular athiestic government would be ultimatly blamed on religion somehow? How about the bloody French Revolution? Or Stalin's gulags?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:10   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,11:01)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:52)
Run by the secular rulers.

Who weren't secular at all, but rabidly religious. With the blessing and assistance of the popes in Rome.

Or can you provide evidence that anyone in power in the Vatican ever rebuked the Spaniards or the Portuguese for their actions on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church?

Otherwise, this is nothing but weaseling.

And we haven't even gotten to Galileo's troubles with the Vatican. I suppose that will  be excused by saying that it was really the "secular" government of Italy or one of the city-states?

History is what it is. Bad things happened.

But to ascribe the root of all evil to religion is simplistic at best.

To see science and religion as antagonistic is also simplistic.

And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Are these things that you believe?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:11   

Oops!

Missed that, Utunumsint:

Quote
There is one notable exception to this, and that is the Albigentian crusade. Not a memorable moment in Catholic history.


I'll get me coat!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:25   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:10)

History is what it is. Bad things happened.

Yes, and history does not support your notion that secular forces (i.e. secular governments) were the driving force behind the abuses ascribed to the Inquisition. That's my point, and you've not addressed it with this latest weaseling. Hopefully you do understand it, however.

 
Quote
But to ascribe the root of all evil to religion is simplistic at best.

To see science and religion as antagonistic is also simplistic.

And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Are these things that you believe?

No, those are strawmen. I was responding to this statement from you.
Quote
There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Given the fact that science has a much shorter track record than religion, and given the fact that there have been plenty of theocracies and no scientocracies, I'd posit that the damage done by religion (which is still happening today) might be more substantial than the damage done by science. Yes, there is bad science. But science tends to be self-correcting. I see no such trend for religion...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:25   

Ut:
Quote
I was wondering what your opinion is on the works of Behe specifically, and also on Dembski and Meyers?


I don't have an opinion on the works of Behe, Dembski or Meyers because I've not read their works. I have read discussions, excerpts and other people's re-wordings in blog posts. The impression is that all three are qualified to question aspects of current theory and offer their own thoughts about what else may be going on. Qualification coming from earned credentials, which is how all scientists and whatnot get qualifications. Whether or not they are right is not something I am not qualified to determine. Do watch the show.

Having read Dembski's blog on occasion, I am not impressed with his ability to debate forthrightly with his opponents even when they aren't just slinging mud. Too much censorship. I have issues with the DI's role in the culture war. It looks to me like they have less concern for truth (whatever that turns out to be) than for imposing another orthodoxy. I never liked orthodoxies in science, education or philosophy.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:25   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:05)

So the cold war was run by religious?

How many people died in that "war"? And was one side religious while the other not, perhaps?
   
Quote
World War I and II were religiously motivated?

At some level, certainly. Hitler was religious! Or at least he gave a good impression of being so.
Quote
Hitler maintained that the "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
   
Quote
? Can you provide quotes from Popes declaring for one side or another, or calling out for violent action?

Can you provide a quote from the pope at the time condemning Hitler's actions?
   
Quote
Hitler's Pope is a book published in 1999 by the British journalist and author John Cornwell that examines the actions of Pope Pius XII during the Nazi era, and explores the charge that he assisted in the legitimization of Hitler's Nazi regime in Germany, through the pursuit of a Reichskonkordat in 1933. The book is critical of Pius' conduct during the Second World War, criticizing him for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argued that Pius's entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argued that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Pope
   
Quote
Why does it seem to me that any failure or inhumanity practiced by a secular athiestic government would be ultimatly blamed on religion somehow?

There are very few of those. And those that have existed can shoulder the blame.
   
Quote
How about the bloody French Revolution? Or Stalin's gulags?

Resentment of clerical advantage was certainly a factor in the French Revolution.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:32   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,11:25)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:10)

History is what it is. Bad things happened.

Quote
Yes, and history does not support your notion that secular forces (i.e. secular governments) were the driving force behind the abuses ascribed to the Inquisition. That's my point, and you've not addressed it with this latest weaseling. Hopefully you do understand it, however.


How many people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition? Can you provide me a number and we can go from there to compare this admittedly bad situation to some more modern atheistic examples?

Quote
But to ascribe the root of all evil to religion is simplistic at best.

To see science and religion as antagonistic is also simplistic.

And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Are these things that you believe?


Quote
No, those are strawmen. I was responding to this statement from you.


Quote
There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.


Quote
Given the fact that science has a much shorter track record than religion, and given the fact that there have been plenty of theocracies and no scientocracies, I'd posit that the damage done by religion (which is still happening today) might be more substantial than the damage done by science. Yes, there is bad science. But science tends to be self-correcting. I see no such trend for religion...


Thanks for clarifying. And thanks for at least making the statement tentative.

But maybe I can ask you a follow up question. How does science govern a nation, or provide guidance on ethics, or create a political theories?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:36   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:32)
How many people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition? Can you provide me a number and we can go from there to compare this admittedly bad situation to some more modern atheistic examples?

If you continue to equate atheism with science, we cannot have a civil discussion. Do you believe that they are equivalent? If so, I'll let you go without further comment, because we obviously have no common ground in our definitions.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:40   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,11:36)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:32)
How many people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition? Can you provide me a number and we can go from there to compare this admittedly bad situation to some more modern atheistic examples?

If you continue to equate atheism with science, we cannot have a civil discussion. Do you believe that they are equivalent? If so, I'll let you go without further comment, because we obviously have no common ground in our definitions.

Yes. Perhaps it would be a good time to take a breather.

I'm responding to the idea that religion and science are mutually antagonistic. This seems to be old man's position anyway, which leaves only atheism. I'm sorry if I assumed it was yours position as well.

No, I do not believe that science is equated with atheism. Science does not provide arguments, only data, and an understanding of the physical universe, and as such is not atheistic, or religious, or even agnostic. Its just science.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,11:25)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:05)

So the cold war was run by religious?

How many people died in that "war"? And was one side religious while the other not, perhaps?
   
Quote
World War I and II were religiously motivated?

At some level, certainly. Hitler was religious! Or at least he gave a good impression of being so.
 
Quote
Hitler maintained that the "terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men's minds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
   
Quote
? Can you provide quotes from Popes declaring for one side or another, or calling out for violent action?

Can you provide a quote from the pope at the time condemning Hitler's actions?
   
Quote
Hitler's Pope is a book published in 1999 by the British journalist and author John Cornwell that examines the actions of Pope Pius XII during the Nazi era, and explores the charge that he assisted in the legitimization of Hitler's Nazi regime in Germany, through the pursuit of a Reichskonkordat in 1933. The book is critical of Pius' conduct during the Second World War, criticizing him for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argued that Pius's entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argued that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Pope
   
Quote
Why does it seem to me that any failure or inhumanity practiced by a secular athiestic government would be ultimatly blamed on religion somehow?

There are very few of those. And those that have existed can shoulder the blame.
   
Quote
How about the bloody French Revolution? Or Stalin's gulags?

Resentment of clerical advantage was certainly a factor in the French Revolution.

With regard to the popes, Pius, XII, while under Piux XI drafted this document in 1936.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

Note also the consequences of this open challange to Nazi ideology, and perhaps that might help you understand why the Vatican maintained a very quiet but real resistance during the war.

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:50   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:40)
This seems to be old man's position anyway, which leaves only atheism.

Not quite. I'm just saying it's irrelevant. NOMA and all that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Except that I don't think that magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value in any meaningful way. If it did, well, it's had sufficient time to come up with something meaningful and as yet it has not.

 
Quote
I'm responding to the idea that religion and science are mutually antagonistic.

I find that it's the religious amongst us that hold that view more then the scientists.

I mean, who is up in arms about teaching "Darwinism" in schools? It's not the science community.

Who was against discovery of the true aspects of the solar system and the earth's place in it? It's not scientists.

Who is against condom and contraceptive use? It's not scientists.

So it's true that religion and science are mutually antagonistic. It's just only true from the religious point of view. From the scientific point of view it's really about as relevant as the colour of your socks.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:56   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:49)
Note also the consequences of this open challange to Nazi ideology, and perhaps that might help you understand why the Vatican maintained a very quiet but real resistance during the war.

It seems there's debate even over that
Quote
Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical "condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)".[31] Some scholars have critized Phayer as having relied too much on German documents alone.[32] Other Catholic scholars have regarded the encyclical as "not a heatedly combative document" as the German episcopate entertained hopes of a Modus vivendi with the Nazis. As a result the encyclical was "not directly polemical" but "diplomatically moderate", in contrast to the encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno dealing with Italian fascism.[1]


but interesting reading nonetheless.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:57   

Here is another article in the Economist reporting on John Cornwell's change of mind on Pius XII.

Quote
JOHN CORNWELL, author of a new life of Pope John Paul II, would have made a fine devil's advocate when the pope's name is one day advanced for sainthood. Unfortunately, he will not be chosen, for John Paul II himself, some two decades ago, scrapped the custom of having a devout Catholic question the virtues of a candidate for beatification or canonisation. The old job of devil's advocate is now, in effect, performed by committee.

Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

Chastened by this experience, Mr Cornwell is now a better biographer. In this life of John Paul II, he celebrates his subject's achievements as well as deploring the mistakes. The pope's heroism is affirmed. As a young would-be priest in occupied Poland, Karol Wojtyla was not intimidated by Nazi efforts to liquidate the Catholic clergy. A priest under Communism, he was again courageous. When the Soviet system imploded, “few would dispute that the inexorable and bloodless process had been initiated by the Polish pope.”. . .

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,11:58   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:38)
Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,10:28)
Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Ah, we have a scholar of history here I suppose. Can you provide some kind of evidence for your powerful rebuttal? :)

Cheers,
Ut

You're the one who said Catholics started universities. Why don't you back up your statements with some actual evidence, instead of equivocating and throwing out strawmen?

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:00   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:57)
Here is another article in the Economist reporting on John Cornwell's change of mind on Pius XII.

 
Quote
JOHN CORNWELL, author of a new life of Pope John Paul II, would have made a fine devil's advocate when the pope's name is one day advanced for sainthood. Unfortunately, he will not be chosen, for John Paul II himself, some two decades ago, scrapped the custom of having a devout Catholic question the virtues of a candidate for beatification or canonisation. The old job of devil's advocate is now, in effect, performed by committee.

Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

Chastened by this experience, Mr Cornwell is now a better biographer. In this life of John Paul II, he celebrates his subject's achievements as well as deploring the mistakes. The pope's heroism is affirmed. As a young would-be priest in occupied Poland, Karol Wojtyla was not intimidated by Nazi efforts to liquidate the Catholic clergy. A priest under Communism, he was again courageous. When the Soviet system imploded, “few would dispute that the inexorable and bloodless process had been initiated by the Polish pope.”. . .

Sure, I knew that, but
Quote
The author, himself, has since retracted his accusations in substantial part[3][7][8], saying that it is "impossible to judge the motives" of the Pope.[5][6] but that "Nevertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did." [9]


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,12:00)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:57)
Here is another article in the Economist reporting on John Cornwell's change of mind on Pius XII.

 
Quote
JOHN CORNWELL, author of a new life of Pope John Paul II, would have made a fine devil's advocate when the pope's name is one day advanced for sainthood. Unfortunately, he will not be chosen, for John Paul II himself, some two decades ago, scrapped the custom of having a devout Catholic question the virtues of a candidate for beatification or canonisation. The old job of devil's advocate is now, in effect, performed by committee.

Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

Chastened by this experience, Mr Cornwell is now a better biographer. In this life of John Paul II, he celebrates his subject's achievements as well as deploring the mistakes. The pope's heroism is affirmed. As a young would-be priest in occupied Poland, Karol Wojtyla was not intimidated by Nazi efforts to liquidate the Catholic clergy. A priest under Communism, he was again courageous. When the Soviet system imploded, “few would dispute that the inexorable and bloodless process had been initiated by the Polish pope.”. . .

Sure, I knew that, but
 
Quote
The author, himself, has since retracted his accusations in substantial part[3][7][8], saying that it is "impossible to judge the motives" of the Pope.[5][6] but that "Nevertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did." [9]

He was too busy trying to save the lives of Italian Jews.

Cheers,
Ut

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:08   

Quote
To see science and religion as antagonistic is also simplistic.


Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:11   

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,11:58)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:38)
Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,10:28)
 
Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Ah, we have a scholar of history here I suppose. Can you provide some kind of evidence for your powerful rebuttal? :)

Cheers,
Ut

You're the one who said Catholics started universities. Why don't you back up your statements with some actual evidence, instead of equivocating and throwing out strawmen?

How about this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Paris

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:45   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:40)
No, I do not believe that science is equated with atheism. Science does not provide arguments, only data, and an understanding of the physical universe, and as such is not atheistic, or religious, or even agnostic. Its just science.

Perhaps. But I might respectfully suggest that you examine your conscience in that regard. When discussing/comparing science and religion it seemed very easy for you to slide into statements and questions where you were discussing/comparing atheism and religion.

Think about it. Is your antipathy toward science based on the unspoken conflation of science and atheism in any way?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:53   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,12:45)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:40)
No, I do not believe that science is equated with atheism. Science does not provide arguments, only data, and an understanding of the physical universe, and as such is not atheistic, or religious, or even agnostic. Its just science.

Perhaps. But I might respectfully suggest that you examine your conscience in that regard. When discussing/comparing science and religion it seemed very easy for you to slide into statements and questions where you were discussing/comparing atheism and religion.

Think about it. Is your antipathy toward science based on the unspoken conflation of science and atheism in any way?

I see a lot of antipathy towards religion on this site. I've been careful not to get involved in such discussions until now, and my purpose has been, for the most part, to try and dispel such antagonism.

I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:

Quote
Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.


Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:06   

Here is a really good link for the establishment of the western form of university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Note the defining characteristic is autonomy. In other words, "Academic Freedom".

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:12   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,12:53)
I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:

   
Quote
Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.


Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.

Cheers,
Ut

It's a true statement.

Unverifiable claims are unverifiable and cannot be address by science. Yet those claims often intrude into the realm of science and are expected to be taken seriously in the scientific realm by those making the claims. I mean, just look at the "science" produced by AIG and similar groups. Total bullshit from beginning to end.

So it might be "science" versus "religion" but not because of any particular effort on the "science" part. If "science" comes up with a mechanism to explain the diversity of life and "religion" does not like it that's not really "science's" problem is it?

So science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies as science does not care about religion but religion sure cares about science.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:14   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:06)
Here is a really good link for the establishment of the western form of "university".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Note the defining characteristic is autonomy. In other words, "Academic Freedom".

Cheers,
Ut

Ah, now it's "western form of university" when originally it was just "university". Shift those goalposts.  

 
Quote
In other words, "Academic Freedom".


Religion hates academic freedom. Don't believe me? Look at the argreements you have to make before you can enter many religious univeriseties in the USA. Must believe in the literal bible, must accept the bible over any science that conflicts with the bible etc etc etc. You want links for that? There are plenty of examples.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:17   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,12:53)
I see a lot of antipathy towards religion on this site. I've been careful not to get involved in such discussions until now, and my purpose has been, for the most part, to try and dispel such antagonism.

I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:

     
Quote
Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.


Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.

No, you're not. I'll try again.

1) Science and religion can have an adversarial relationship, particularly if science tramples on false religious claims about how the natural world works. If religions do not make falsifiable claims about how the natural world works, this relationship would not be adversarial.

2) Atheism and religion do have an adversarial relationship, particularly since atheism definitely tramples on religious claims. They are polar opposites. But this is not a dispute about the workings of the natural world; this is a dispute about the supernatural.

Both of those statements can be true, but they do not mean that science and atheism are the same thing. They are not. Yet your thinking, at least as revealed on this forum, seems to equate them in some not-so-subtle ways.

Think about it some more.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:17   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,13:14)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:06)
Here is a really good link for the establishment of the western form of "university".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Note the defining characteristic is autonomy. In other words, "Academic Freedom".

Cheers,
Ut

Ah, now it's "western form of university" when originally it was just "university". Shift those goalposts.  

 
Quote
In other words, "Academic Freedom".


Religion hates academic freedom. Don't believe me? Look at the argreements you have to make before you can enter many religious univeriseties in the USA. Must believe in the literal bible, must accept the bible over any science that conflicts with the bible etc etc etc. You want links for that? There are plenty of examples.

Those limitations don't belong to my tradition, but to the protestant form.

By the way, did you actually read the link?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:22   

Ut-less wrote:

Quote
You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth.  


I didn't knock good theology nor bad theology.  I mocked ALL theology.  Apparently your Revealed Truthy-o-Meter needs calibrating.

Good theology, Ut?  Srsly? Says who?

Is there a Good Theology Panel o' Elders?  Or ask Dumbledore?  How about a measure?  Good enough, really good, good gravy, good dog or good morning.  Is good morning better or worse than good gravy?  More to the point, is good gravy better or worse than good theology?

You say you study this stuff and you write something that bat-shit stupid?
And I haven't even gotten to "revealed truth."

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,13:17)
Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.[/quote]
No, you're not. I'll try again.

Quote
1) Science and religion can have an adversarial relationship, particularly if science tramples on false religious claims about how the natural world works. If religions do not make falsifiable claims about how the natural world works, this relationship would not be adversarial.


Agreed.

Quote
2) Atheism and religion do have an adversarial relationship, particularly since atheism definitely tramples on religious claims. They are polar opposites. But this is not a dispute about the workings of the natural world; this is a dispute about the supernatural.


Agreed. Perhaps it would be good for some people on this forum to realise this distinction.

Quote
Both of those statements can be true, but they do not mean that science and atheism are the same thing. They are not. Yet your thinking, at least as revealed on this forum, seems to equate them in some not-so-subtle ways.


Can you provide me with an example of my sin? Perhaps I did fall into this inadvertently. If so, then mea culpa, mean maxima culpa.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:26   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 11 2010,13:22)
Ut-less wrote:

Quote
You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth.  


I didn't knock good theology nor bad theology.  I mocked ALL theology.  Apparently your Revealed Truthy-o-Meter needs calibrating.

Good theology, Ut?  Srsly? Says who?

Is there a Good Theology Panel o' Elders?  Or ask Dumbledore?  How about a measure?  Good enough, really good, good gravy, good dog or good morning.  Is good morning better or worse than good gravy?  More to the point, is good gravy better or worse than good theology?

You say you study this stuff and you write something that bat-shit stupid?
And I haven't even gotten to "revealed truth."

Billy Bob. Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone were a little bit more rational? That is all I'm saying.

Chill out. Have a cigar.

Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:31   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:17)
Those limitations don't belong to my tradition, but to the protestant form.

All religion to me. Same difference.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:32   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:24)
Can you provide me with an example of my sin? Perhaps I did fall into this inadvertently. If so, then mea culpa, mean maxima culpa.

From here
Quote
And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Say ten Our Fathers and twenty Hail Marys and your sin will be forgiven.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:33   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,13:32)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:24)
Can you provide me with an example of my sin? Perhaps I did fall into this inadvertently. If so, then mea culpa, mean maxima culpa.

From here  
Quote
And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Say ten Our Fathers and twenty Hail Marys and your sin will be forgiven.

:)

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:34   

I think I'll leave it at that.

Thanks to all for this discussion. It's been interesting.

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:35   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:26)
Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone were a little bit more rational?

One way to achieve that is to reduce the influence that religion has on still forming minds.



The more rational the world gets the less religion will matter.

I mean, c'mon. There's nothing "rational" whatsoever about your religion or religion in general.

Tell me, if you are presented with two "revealed truths" that conflict with each other how do you determine which one is in fact true?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:36   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:34)
I think I'll leave it at that.

Thanks to all for this discussion. It's been interesting.

Cheers,
Ut

Bye then. I'll ask you about "universities" next time then.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:36   

Funny that this came up here. I just happened to be reading about the University of Coimbra today and came across this article, which discusses the introduction of 'modern' science teaching in the 18th century.

Dodgy translation:

 
Quote
One argument showing that, before Pombal's reforms, an atmosphere of scientific stagnation prevailed in Portugal is the fact that the works of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and others were, until the middle of the 18th century, banned from being taught in [Coimbra]. An edict of the Rector in 1746 decreed this prohibition, a significant setback relative to the scientific development of Europe.

An exception to this was the work of the Jesuit Inácio Monteiro. But Monteiro was imprisoned on Pombal's orders in 1759 and exiled to Ferrara in Italy, in which university he conducted worthwhile teaching and scientific work...


Academic freedom, in the best Catholic tradition!

(and yes, Ut, I know that things are a bit different now. But you don't see too many liberation theology papers coming from the Gregorian University either)

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:46   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 11 2010,14:36)
Funny that this came up here. I just happened to be reading about the University of Coimbra today and came across this article, which discusses the introduction of 'modern' science teaching in the 18th century.

Dodgy translation:

 
Quote
One argument showing that, before Pombal's reforms, an atmosphere of scientific stagnation prevailed in Portugal is the fact that the works of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and others were, until the middle of the 18th century, banned from being taught in [Coimbra]. An edict of the Rector in 1746 decreed this prohibition, a significant setback relative to the scientific development of Europe.

An exception to this was the work of the Jesuit Inácio Monteiro. But Monteiro was imprisoned on Pombal's orders in 1759 and exiled to Ferrara in Italy, in which university he conducted worthwhile teaching and scientific work...


Academic freedom, in the best Catholic tradition!

(and yes, Ut, I know that things are a bit different now. But you don't see too many liberation theology papers coming from the Gregorian University either)

Galileo and Descartes were both Catholics.

Check out these ones.

Saint Luke (c.72) - Catholic patron saint of physicians and surgeons (himself being a physician, iconographer and evangelist)

Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) - Catholic monk who wrote a work On the Nature of Things, and several books on the mathematical / astronomical subject of computus, the most influential entitled On the Reckoning of Time. He made original discoveries concerning the nature of the tides and his works on computus became required elements of the training of clergy, and thus greatly influenced early medieval knowledge of the natural world.

Pope Silvester II (c.950–1003) - A scientist and book collector, he influenced the teaching of math and astronomy in church-run schools, and raised the cathedral school at Rheims to the height of prosperity.

Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) - Wrote on geometry, mathematics, and the astrolabe. He was also a monk who composed Marian antiphons and was essentially beatified.

Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253) - Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.

Pope John XXI (1215–1277) - He wrote the widely used medical text Thesaurus pauperum before becoming Pope.

Albertus Magnus (c.1193–1280) - Patron saint of scientists in Catholicism who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote that: "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."

Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294) - He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.

Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310) - Dominican who is believed to have given the first correct explanation for the rainbow in De iride et radialibus impressionibus or On the Rainbow.

Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) - He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.

Jean Buridan (1300–1358) - Catholic priest and one of the most influential philosophers of the later Middle Ages. He developed the theory of impetus, which was an important step toward the modern concept of inertia.

Nicole Oresme (c.1323–1382) - Theologian and Bishop of Lisieux, he was one of the early founders and popularizers of modern sciences. One of his many scientific contributions is the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction, he also showed that the reasons proposed by the physics of Aristotle against the movement of the Earth were not valid. Oresme strongly opposed astrology and speculated about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) - Cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.

Ignazio Danti (1536–1586) - Bishop of Alatri who convoked a diocesan synod to deal with abuses. He was also a mathematician who wrote on Euclid, an astronomer, and a designer of mechanical devices.

René Descartes (1596–1650) - Descartes was one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in the Western World. He is also honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important work on invariants and geometry.

Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598-1671) - Italian astronomer. He was a Jesuit who entered the order in 1614. He was also the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body.

Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) - German Jesuit scholar who published around 40 works, most notably in the fields of oriental studies, geology and medicine. He made an early study of Egyptian hieroglyphs. One of the first people to observe microbes through a microscope, he was thus ahead of his time in proposing that the plague was caused by an infectious microorganism and in suggesting effective measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Kircher has been compared to Leonardo da Vinci for his inventiveness and the breadth and depth of his work

Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) - Contributions to paleontology and geology

Roger Joseph (1711-1787) - Physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, diplomat, poet, and Jesuit. He is famous for his atomic theory, given as a clear, precisely-formulated system utilizing principles of Newtonian mechanics. This work inspired Michael Faraday to develop field theory for electromagnetic interaction, and was even a basis for Albert Einstein's attempts for a unified field theory, according to Einstein's coworker Lancelot Law Whyte. Boscovich also gave many important contributions to astronomy, including the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position.

Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718–1799) - Linguist, mathematician, and philosopher. Agnesi is credited with writing the first book discussing both differential and integral calculus. She was an honorary member of the faculty at the University of Bologna.

Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789–1857) - French mathematician. He started the project of formulating and proving the theorems of calculus in a rigorous manner and was thus an early pioneer of analysis. He also gave several important theorems in complex analysis and initiated the study of permutation groups. A profound mathematician, Cauchy exercised by his perspicuous and rigorous methods a great influence over his contemporaries and successors. His writings cover the entire range of mathematics and mathematical physics.

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) - Augustinian priest and scientist often called the "father of modern genetics" for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognised until the turn of the 20th century. Its rediscovery prompted the foundation of genetics.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) - French chemist best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in microbiology. His experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease, and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He is best known to the general public for showing how to stop milk and wine from going sour - this process came to be called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. He also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the asymmetry of crystals.

Francesco Faà di Bruno (1825—1888) - Italian mathematician most linked to Turin. He is known for Faà di Bruno's formula and being a spiritual writer beatified in 1988.

Armand David (1826–1900) - Catholic missionary to China and member of the Lazarists who considered his religious duties to be his principle concern. He was also a botanist with the author abbreviation David and as a zoologist he described several species new to the West.

Pierre Duhem (1861–1916) - He worked on Thermodynamic potentials and wrote histories advocating that the Roman Catholic Church helped advance science.

E. T. Whittaker (1873-1956) - Converted to Catholicism in 1930 and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His 1946 Donnellan Lecture was entitled on Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God. He also received the Copley Medal and had written on Mathematical physics before conversion.

Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) - Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer. Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. He was a pioneer in applying Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology: suggesting a pre-cursor of Hubble's law in 1927, and publishing his primeval atom theory the pages of Nature in 1931.

Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000) - A neuroscientist from Rio de Janeiro who headed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for 16 years. He studied the Shroud of Turin and his "the Origin of the Universe", "the Origin of Life", and "the Origin of Man" involved an understanding between Catholicism and Science.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:50   

And yet none of them managed to use their catholicism to do science, they used secular methods. Amazing!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2010,14:50)
And yet none of them managed to use their catholicism to do science, they used secular methods. Amazing!

No arguments from me.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:58   

And also these.

Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic

Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic

Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

John von Neumann the Modern Computer

Alexander Fleming Penicillin


Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:08   

It's not religion in general that has conflict with science, it's those religions in which leaders and/or members claim that scientists as a group hold unsubstantiatable claims in common with each other (i.e., claims that the vast majority of them regard as supported by evidence, i.e., by consensus).

The trouble with that (well, one of the troubles) is that scientists as a group don't have a central authority (other than the universe itself) telling them what to think. They come from a variety of religions, countries, languages, ethnic groups, genders, cultures, backgrounds, eye and hair colors, age brackets, economic brackets, etc., so there's no reason to think that as a group they'd ever agree on any scientific conclusions that weren't supported by evidence.

Henry

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:39   

What about the Evil Darwinathenazi Conspiracy HQ? Don't tell me that you're a splitter!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:43   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:58)
And also these.

Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic

Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic

Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

John von Neumann the Modern Computer

Alexander Fleming Penicillin


Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

Again, they didn't use their religion at all during scientific inquiry. So empirically, they don't mix.

ETA: some killer bomb-makers on that list. And Monte-Carlo theorists.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:56   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:11   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:13   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:58)
And also these.

Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic

Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic

Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

John von Neumann the Modern Computer

Alexander Fleming Penicillin


Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

You just don't get it do you? Do you think you are the first person to go this route?

Those people all had lungs. Correlation does not imply causation.

Edits for clarity.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:21   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,21:11)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

It's nothing to do with whether it hurts or not, that is an irrelevance.

Likewise, any beliefs I may or may not have are irrelevant.

What can be demonstrated is a different matter.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:22   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

Except in cases where it DID hurt. Like creationism, heliocentrism, spiritual healing vs. medicine, etc. etc.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:39   

I'll be brief, that's the best I can do. The problem with religions is that they make God a supernatural being instead of the intrapsychic 'force' it is.

Book religions are bad, they introduce so much nonsense that they can be put to whatever use their proponents may want.

Literalism of course makes it even worse; boundless idiocy from creationists is evidence we all are familiar with.

Christendom would be much better if we got rid of the OT, Acts, the fake/forged letters of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse. And make the the true meaning of the Jesus myth public knowledge.

What conflict between religion ans science? My religion has no conflict. Religion is about the inner life of man. To the extent that psychology is a science, no conflict there either.

Not well said, but somewhere along those lines.

But the world won't be ready for that for a long time yet, but all the knowledge we need is available.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2010,22:22)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

Except in cases where it DID hurt. Like creationism, heliocentrism, spiritual healing vs. medicine, etc. etc.

HARharrr!!!!!

THIS IS YOUR MOM!!!



Oups, sorry, Rich reflex...

Beside that whole point of making fun of Rich's mom*, it is now quite evident, I think, that Ut is an evil sock-puppet from beyond!

Let's have some fun and ask him about genesis!

Pwetty pwease?


*Always worth it, whatever the priest says!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,18:24   

Ut-less wrote:

Quote
Billy Bob. Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone were a little bit more rational? That is all I'm saying.


says the guy who gets "revealed truth" from a magical sky fairy to the scientist who observes the natural world.

Yeah, Ut, I agree the world would be a better place if you were rational but you're not, you're delusional.  Hear voices.  Invoke Zombie Hitler.

By "rational" you mean that we should sit here and listen to you spout your unsubstantiated, bat-shit crazy notions and not call you out on them?  That what you mean, Ut?

Hey, if you want to be an intellectual freeloader you need to go over to the Discovery Institute website and comment there.  Good luck with that, grasshopper.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,19:04   

I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

--------------
Bye.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,19:18   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,19:04)
I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

Yes, but Ut is talking about Roman Catholicism, which is actually the true religion, and has a pope, lots of saints and miracles, and a deity you can eat, unlike all of those irrational religions.

Edit: typo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,19:21   

Louis is in fine form today. Always a teat. Uh, treat, I mean.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:42   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 12 2010,00:18)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,19:04)
I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

Yes, but Ut is talking about Roman Catholicism, which is actually the true religion, and has a pope, lots of saints and miracles, and a deity you can eat, unlike all of those irrational religions.

Edit: typo

Oh well why didn't someone say so. Of course this means I now take everything back. The catholic religious institution has the best hats and, and this is important, IN NO WAY HAD A SECTION OF ITS ORGANISATION DEDICATED TO THE COVER UP OF THE ACTIONS OF PAEDOPHILE PRIESTS (gosh, that came out louder than expected). That's how you know it's Da-One-Troo-Church-a-Gawd. See?

Of course this is irrelevent to the truth of any propositions or claims they might make. However...how did Ut put it...oh yes...it doesn't hurt.

Look! Look! I can dismiss ideas by tarring them with nasty assertions! Look! I too can couple the tiresome and irrelevant to something. Perhaps I should do a little dance of smug, sanctimonious glee?

Oh that's right, I shouldn't.

I know I'm a Meanie and an {gasp, reaches for fainting couch} Atheist {dun dun duuuuuuh!} but really if the level of someone's discussion cannot elevate itself beyond the sublimely unconnected and incoherent then mockery is really the best way. Good old Thomas Jefferson had it right on that at least.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Cubist



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:43   

Science is all about the objective, empirically-verifiable data; as well, science regards 'private revelation' as the worst sort of flaw. Religion, contrariwise, is all about subjective 'data', and prizes 'private revelation' above everything else. Science loves doubt; religion despises doubt. Science insists on empirical confirmation; religion says "thou shalt not put thy God to the test.
In other words: Science and religion damn well are incompatible -- and religion knows it. Which brings up one more difference between science and religion: If science had its druthers, science would be perfectly happy to ignore religion -- but the reverse is very definitely not true.

I am not impressed by lists of religious people who happen to do science, or of scientists who happen to be religious. If "see? these guys do BOTH science AND religion!" really were a valid argument in support of the argument that religion is compatible with science, all those Catholic priests who rape little children would be a valid argument in support of the proposition that Catholicism is compatible with raping little children.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,00:21)
Louis is in fine form today. Always a teat. Uh, treat, I mean.

Close, and with so many bananas. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,09:13   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

If it doesn't hurt, why are believers in a supernatural being under-represented amongst present-day scientists? Just think how long your list might be if, for all those centuries, it had been acceptable to be a non-believer.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,10:54   

i have several questions and can't find a thread to post on, so here goes:

1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.

2.  WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?

3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:06   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 12 2010,09:13)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
   
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

If it doesn't hurt, why are believers in a supernatural being under-represented amongst present-day scientists? Just think how long your list might be if, for all those centuries, it had been acceptable to be a non-believer.

That's a big question. If you have the stomach for it, you should read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age where he asks the question of why it is that for the first time in history, it is easier to not believe in God, than to believe in him.

Its a big book, but certainly well worth the effort.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:12   

Quote (nmgirl @ Feb. 12 2010,10:54)
i have several questions and can't find a thread to post on, so here goes:

1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.

2.  WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?

3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

1-Its what you do with the data of science that raises philosophical questions. For example, I the course of my investigations in evolution, I've come to the conclusion that life is wonderously made. I don't doubt the existance of God because of my rejection of ID, but find cause to rejoyce in his creative power. But that is a philosophical/theological position. Others on this forum come to very different philosophical conclusions.

2-Methodological naturalism has to do with early and current debates on how nature should be studied. Does it have its own internal laws that can be investigated without reference to supernatural powers? From a very early date there were those who supported this view of science (what they called natural philosophy back then). IDers don't like it because they want to have a God who has to tweek his creation every couple of hundred years to help evolution along.

3-I believe Dembski means that the genetic code contains very specific information that is indispensible for the proper working of organisms. Its like a language.

Does that help?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:27   

nmgirl:
 
Quote
1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.


Hi, nmgirl. I'll take a crack at your questions, but all it'll be is my opinion.

IMO, the reason ID vs TOE discussions turn to philosophy is because the root issue is metaphysical [philosophical]. That's why I am prone to describe these sort of discussions as "Dueling Metaphysics." Which is far as I can tell a favorite perennial human pastime.

 
Quote
2. WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?


Methodological naturalism is the guiding axiom of scientific inquiry. It is the baseline presumption that all phenomena subject to scientific examination and quantification are natural. IOW, science can't investigate and quantify things like ghosts, pixies, angels or gods because such things are by definition not natural. Science can investigate and quantify biological phenomena because life is natural. IDers often conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism holds that all phenomena (known and unknown) must be entirely natural, not just the phenomena science can investigate.

 
Quote
3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?


Sorry, no. The definition seems to vary quite a bit depending on who is doing the defining in any given discussion/debate. IMO, "information" is data (in any form) that can be processed by a receiver to provide some kind of knowledge/understanding of what is being transmitted. A receiver may or may not act upon processed information, action is not required in order for information to be transmitted, processed and known/understood.

I'm pretty sure there are at least a dozen people here (and among the ranks of ID supporters) who would offer an entirely different definition, so don't put too much stock in mine.

What's your definition?

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,18:43   

Quote (nmgirl @ Feb. 12 2010,10:54)
3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

No, except that it is never the definition used by anyone who disagrees with ID.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,19:40   

What do you mean by 'definition'? Eh?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,19:53   

Information

Quote

Antievolutionists want to confuse and conflate meaning and information. Spetner, Gitt, Truman, and Dembski... all of them want meaning to be folded within whatever sort of "information" they propose.

Shannon's discussion of information explicitly excluded meaning. Algorithmic information theory only cares about one aspect of meaning: what is the shortest program and input that can generate a string?

Critique of Dembski's "complex specified information"


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,23:09   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,09:27)
Methodological naturalism is the guiding axiom of scientific inquiry. It is the baseline presumption that all phenomena subject to scientific examination and quantification are natural. IOW, science can't investigate and quantify things like ghosts, pixies, angels or gods because such things are by definition not natural. Science can investigate and quantify biological phenomena because life is natural. IDers often conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism holds that all phenomena (known and unknown) must be entirely natural, not just the phenomena science can investigate.

I think the reason that investigation of "ghosts, pixies, angels or gods" and such are not considered science is not because they are defined as "not natural", but because they are notoriously un-repeatable, which makes experimentation and hypothesis testing extremely difficult, if not impossible.  If ghosts, miracles, etc. were  phenomena that could be produced on demand, they could, and would, be subject to scientific investigation, ala e.g. "Mythbusters".
 Even random, noiselike phenomena like radioactive decay, unpredictable for a single nucleus, are statistically predictable to a high degree of accuracy, and hence are amenable to scientific investigation.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,01:03   

Quote
3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?


It means "buy my book".

Henry

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,11:29   

Anyone ever seen this pro ID video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670#

There are a few arguments made concerning the flagellum that I am interested in from 17 minutes to 25 +
Could someone provide counterarguments, or at least good sources for counterarguments to these claims?


1-Is co-option the only argument for the contruction of flagelar motors?

2-Is it true that only around 10 of the 40 components of the flagellum could have been coopted from other structures?

3-Is it true that even if you had all 40 components that could be gathered together using cooption, that you would still need an incredibly complex assembly unit or organism?

Also, it seems to me that I've allowed myself to be convinced that because two simultaneous mutations have been proven to add new functionality, based on the Lenski tests, that this means evolution could have produced what Behe calls irriducibly complex machines, such as the flagelar motors. I was also convinced that such double mutations were not only possible, but that they were not even that rare. However, the traces of such mutations would be difficult to find since the more successfull double mutations would supplant weaker double mutations.

But I'm still having problems imagining the evulutionary path to such complex organisms as the flagellum. How do we argue from Lenski's experiments to a plausible evolutionary path to the flagellum?

Cheers,
Ut

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:16   

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/claims-evolution-flagella

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:34   

Thanks for the link Midwife.

So the just of what the link says is that Minnich is lying. Is this correct?

Are there any counterargument from IDers for this?

Does this basically mean that all of the parts of the flagella, except for two, could have been coopted?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:42   

Quote (Utunumsint @ April 06 2010,11:29)
But I'm still having problems imagining the evulutionary path to such complex organisms as the flagellum.

From what?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:43   

Don't know if it proves anything at all, but to me it means the gaps are tiny, even considering the lack of specific historical knowledge.

To me it means that just about every part of the flagellum code exists in a non-flagellum context.

So basically, what you said.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 06 2010,12:42)
Quote (Utunumsint @ April 06 2010,11:29)
But I'm still having problems imagining the evulutionary path to such complex organisms as the flagellum.

From what?

Well that's just the point. If there are 30 missing homologes(?), and the closest relative to the fully functioning flagella has only 10, then you have to explain the jump.

What midwife's post affirms is that Minnich was dead wrong about this fact, and correspondingly, so was Behe. All the functions of the flagella could have been coopted.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:49   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 06 2010,12:43)
Don't know if it proves anything at all, but to me it means the gaps are tiny, even considering the lack of specific historical knowledge.

To me it means that just about every part of the flagellum code exists in a non-flagellum context.

So basically, what you said.

Thanks midwife.

...this was a quick one... :)

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:53   

I'd just like to start a betting pool for the day that Dembski removes Mr. Wiggles from the UD home page.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:58   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 06 2010,12:53)
I'd just like to start a betting pool for the day that Dembski removes Mr. Wiggles from the UD home page.

There goes their last shreed of credibility they had with gullible old me.... :),

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:53   

Hey,

I just reread the thread, and it looks like 17 out of the 40 proteins non homologous. What does it mean to say "not yet know?"

Cheers,
Ut

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:58   

Of those 17, only two are indispensable.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,15:44   

Quote (Utunumsint @ April 06 2010,13:53)
What does it mean to say "not yet know?"



--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,15:48   

Quote
What does it mean to say "not yet know?"


It's probably related to the fact the we have sequenced the genomes of maybe .0001 percent of living species.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,15:49   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 06 2010,15:48)
Quote
What does it mean to say "not yet know?"


It's probably related to the fact the we have sequenced the genomes of maybe .0001 percent of living species.

Hahaha!!! :)

  
  333 replies since Jan. 28 2010,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]