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 Gaugerís 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.

ĎĎI was like ĎOh my God! Itís Jesus on a banana!íí  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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: 2709
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 evolveóeven irreducible complexes, which is his real argument.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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.

ĎĎI was like ĎOh my God! Itís Jesus on a banana!íí  - 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: 3992
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: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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, Iím 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 Gaugerís 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: 10756
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: 1030
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: 1030
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: 2709
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.


--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
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.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
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: 466
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: 3992
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 Gaugerís 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, Iím 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, Iím 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 Gaugerís 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 350Ė500 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 350Ė500 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 350Ė500 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
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?

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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 Gaugerís 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.

ĎĎI was like ĎOh my God! Itís Jesus on a banana!íí  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
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.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
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 Gaugerís 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: 4807
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: 1030
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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 ĎĎfor humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million yearsíí (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans).

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
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 ĎĎfor humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million yearsíí (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.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
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, Beheís 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. Beheís 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 Ďirreducible complexityí 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].

   [Ö]

   1 A. Bottaro et al., Immunology in the spotlight at the Dover ĎIntelligent Designí trial, Nat. Immunol. 7 (2006), pp. 433Ė435.

   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. 784Ė790.

   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. 8669Ė8676.

   4 L.J. Briggs et al., More than one way to build a flagellum: comparative genomics of parasitic protozoa, Curr. Biol. 14 (2004), pp. R611ĖR612.

   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. 1304Ė1312.

   6 V.A. Petrenko et al., Alpha-helically constrained phage display library, Protein Eng. 15 (2002), pp. 943Ė950.



--------------
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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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, Beheís 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. Beheís 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 Ďirreducible complexityí 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, Beheís 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. Beheís 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 Ďirreducible complexityí 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, ďyouíve got to be in it, to win itĒ.


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, ďBernoulliís Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,Ē Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA Ė 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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
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?

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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: 1030
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
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 Gaugerís 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: 1191
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: 1191
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 Iím 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. Iím 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 donít 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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: 466
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: 1946
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.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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: 4565
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 Iím 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. Iím 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 donít 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: 2709
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

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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.

ĎĎI was like ĎOh my God! Itís Jesus on a banana!íí  - 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: 1332
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: 2709
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.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
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: 2767
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: 2767
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: 1946
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.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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: 2483
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.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
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: 1946
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'

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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: 1946
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.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
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: 1332
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: 1946
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.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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: 5402
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.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
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... ß;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... ß;o)

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
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.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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 Gaugerís 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: 10756
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: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,10:21   

I am a Gnostic. ("We" lost out to literalism.) 'Nuff said.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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... ß;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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís 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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
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.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
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 Gaugerís 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