Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 7:05 AM
392 online now:
14174dm, CRR, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,053 Year: 13,659/21,208 Month: 3,141/3,605 Week: 483/933 Day: 21/51 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Symposium Review
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (144878)
09-26-2004 5:19 PM


I attended this conference this weekend, here is the information presented and some of my thoughts on it all:

http://www.parsimonious.net/symposium/Symposium.htm


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 09-28-2004 1:02 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded
 Message 9 by mick, posted 07-06-2005 2:39 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 07-07-2005 6:52 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-17-2005 10:45 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3784
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 14 (144972)
09-27-2004 1:43 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Normally we frown on topics started as little more than a link, but in this case it seems appropriate.

Also, the "Columnist's Corner" seemed a better place that "Links and Information".

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-27-2004 12:49 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-27-2004 2:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (144974)
09-27-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
09-27-2004 1:43 AM


I did the website/link because I also wrote this up for a couple other groups/people and would have made more of a topic out of it, but I didnt want to start a thread that had the potential to debate a dozen or more topics espically if no one was guranteed to be around to defend the points. Let me know if anyone would like any more specific details or elboration on what went on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-27-2004 1:43 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-28-2004 4:17 AM Parsimonious_Razor has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 3886 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 14 (145308)
09-28-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-27-2004 2:06 AM


I don't know whether to thank you or offer condolences that you had to sit through such a "scientific" meeting. In any case, given that Behe is the only one in the entire group that at the very least has a background in a relevant field to evolutionary biology (if one is kind), did he offer anything novel? It sounds like he is pushing IC further and further back from full blown structures to protein interactions. Having just attended an admittedly dry seminar on the way the HIV protein Rev interacts with the HIV RNA molecule, it is simple chemistry and hardly irreducible...it is also a far from optimal interaction (which IDists seem to assume that everything is optimal)yet the tradeoff is that it allows HIV a lot of room to respond to different cellular conditions. Given a variable system, operating under the normal constraints of biochemical reactions, how does Behe justify IC? I don't really expect an answer since thus far, the entire ID movement has been mired in its inability to get beyond assertion of IC and the impossibility of its evolving and provide a legitimate example.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-27-2004 2:06 AM Parsimonious_Razor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-28-2004 3:09 PM Mammuthus has responded
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 07-07-2005 6:37 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 14 (145361)
09-28-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-26-2004 5:19 PM


I thought this quote from the column was quite appropriate and describes the ID movement in a concise and accurate way:

This is something that never seems settled in the ID movement, where is the designer inserting himself? At the beginning of time? At the beginning of life? At the Cambrian explosion? At the creation of human beings? Everywhere along the path? Is he still inserting himself? None of this, of course, is explained or answered in any talk. This talk at best can be seen inserting the designer at the beginning, defining the fundamental and natural laws. They try to escape this trap by saying that making things designed for an observer means the designer planned observers but I am not convinced that logic follows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-26-2004 5:19 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 14 (145398)
09-28-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
09-28-2004 4:17 AM


Behe didn't offer much of anything new. His talk opened with that damnable mouse trap and went downhill from there. If you have read Darwinís black box you know his talk. He used the same evidence with no alterations. I have read some of the debates he has had and seen problems pointed out to him he wasn't able to offer an explanation for. He didn't here either. The only "critics" he tried to answer were Russell Doolittle and anyone who quoted him because apparently he misinterpreted a paper he used in the rebuttal of Behe.
Towards the end of the speech he talked a LITTLE about his modeling of multiprotein complexes. From what I gathered he took a gene, duplicated it then determined what mutations would have to occur on both genes to make the two proteins complementary so they could form a complex. He calculated the length of time necessary for random mutation to get these mutations correct and not add others (basically the chance to get an exact sequence of mutations at random) and found it to be a LONG time. I don't think there is anything earth shattering there, itís sort of a statistical straw man.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-28-2004 4:17 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 09-29-2004 4:41 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded
 Message 8 by deerbreh, posted 07-06-2005 1:05 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 3886 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 14 (145566)
09-29-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-28-2004 3:09 PM


quote:
From what I gathered he took a gene, duplicated it then determined what mutations would have to occur on both genes to make the two proteins complementary so they could form a complex.

This from a biochemist? Why the hell would the entire protein need to be complementary to interact? I guess he did not clear this up either? Most protein protein interactions are via specific domains...hell, they can even be linked by a few disulfide bonds..sounds like Behe confused proteins with DNA..not to mention dimers and trimers made up of mutliple copies of the same protein..no need for complementary changes in the DNA...on the other hand, I am sure Phillip Johnson was very impressed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-28-2004 3:09 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2005 9:06 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 8 of 14 (222169)
07-06-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-28-2004 3:09 PM


"He calculated the length of time necessary for random mutation to get these mutations correct and not add others (basically the chance to get an exact sequence of mutations at random) and found it to be a LONG time. I don't think there is anything earth shattering there, itís sort of a statistical straw man."

Behe constructed a statistical strawman? Do tell. In other news....a dog bit a man today. The amazing thing is that anyone still thinks Behe has something useful to contribute to the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-28-2004 3:09 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 2398 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 9 of 14 (222205)
07-06-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-26-2004 5:19 PM


Thanks for the review. I've been wondering what was discussed at such conferences, and to find that the discoveries of Copernicus still foment academic debate was gratifying! ;)

Cheers, thanks for your efforts

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-26-2004 5:19 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 14 (222419)
07-07-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
09-28-2004 4:17 AM


I have been unconvinced about a principled IC and this week I have wondered if entropy increases are not correlated with changes in free path lengths of molecular motion which composites into a proteins' given locomotion from its past amino acid changes. It even seems possible that differences in 1-D symmetry *fully* explain the given material IC 'targets'.

If macrothermodynamics is more than a qualitative position on the relation of DNA stability and chemical degredation (it might remand form appearing old in shape but young in chemical mixture etc) and 1-D symmetry of any kind of polymer in the cells then it seems that IC is reducible to claims about D'Arcy Thompson transform metrics NOT being purely chemical. They might be purely biophysical orbe by being informed by notions of Shannon type definitions but so far , I am unimpressed with ID's IC except as a principle of 1-D structure consequences.

Perhaps I will learn that this conference indeed brought IC notions this far?

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-07-2005 06:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-28-2004 4:17 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 14 (222426)
07-07-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-26-2004 5:19 PM


designed effect
I am fully convinced of the existence of what I Kant named , "designed effect" in the Critique of Judgement but the place where this notion could have been brought in at the conference but does not seem to have occurred is where you reported,

quote:
Nelsonís message was primarily that there is strong evidence for multiple independent origins life and that abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are at major odds with each other.

The designed effect as an effect IS biased to original earth extrapolations of life and there can still be some prior human design even if there is life orginiating randomly in more than one place in the systematic constiution no matter what the debate about a univers's center and edge is or is not.

I do not understand why Creationists have not attempted to read Kant backward in explaining there right to exist. That much seems uncensorable by science fearing religion in the appearence of authority nor by govt giving freedom to the LOWER faculty.

It is not a position that main line scientists miscognize the double nature of the cause and effect here.

It seems doubled because two material diretums substitute where the "struggle" is in form for shape not the base fudamental elements. Thus G. Gladyshev seems very perceptive from


THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS

Georgi P. Gladyshev*
International Academy of Creative Endeavors
San Diego, USA Ė Moscow, Russia
N. N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences

ABSTRACT
The classical formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are presented. Some mistakes in the understanding the physical meaning of this general law of nature are noted. It is asserted that many misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics are related to terminological confusion and the underestimation (the disregard) of the theory developed by J.W. Gibbs and other founders of "true thermodynamics,

with
quote:
I would like to note that the quotations presented below do not pertain to the second law of thermodynamics in its classical form [2, 9, 10]. Today, they may seem surprising, especially taking into account that all this was written several years after Gibbs published his works.
For example, Boltzmann (1886) wrote,
"The general struggle for existence of animate beings is therefore not a struggle for raw materials - these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly availableónor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat (albeit unfortunately not transformable), but a struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth.".

see also likewise

http://www.endeav.org/evolut/

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-08-2005 09:59 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-26-2004 5:19 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 14 (222469)
07-07-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
09-29-2004 4:41 AM


Mammuthus

This from a biochemist? Why the hell would the entire protein need to be complementary to interact? I guess he did not clear this up either? Most protein protein interactions are via specific domains

What makes you say he was trying to make the whole protein complemntary? I'd be surprised if he worked with any more than two single domain proteins?

...hell, they can even be linked by a few disulfide bonds

That's trivial as we all know and crucially not specific. It's not easy to get two proteins to form a complex, disulfide bonds aside. He was clearly trying to do it without disulfides! Using pahge-display we all know it takes tens of billions of attempts.

He's trying to generate high affinity not non-spcific binding!

..sounds like Behe confused proteins with DNA

You clearly should have realized that you are on the wrong track here. Behe IS a biochemist so your thoughts here are utterly impossible!

..not to mention dimers and trimers made up of mutliple copies of the same protein..no need for complementary changes in the DNA...on the other hand, I am sure Phillip Johnson was very impressed

But getting SPECIFIC dimerization is NOT trivial. Of course any hydorphobic protein will dimerise but not *specifically* (for itsself ahead of other hydrophobic proteins) without design or billions of steps. And dimerization is much easier tha ngetting two differnt proteins to bind that don't already do so!

This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2005 09:18 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 09-29-2004 4:41 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-11-2005 3:11 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 14 (223068)
07-11-2005 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
07-07-2005 9:06 PM


^ Bump for Mammuthus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2005 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3501
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 14 of 14 (270418)
12-17-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor
09-26-2004 5:19 PM


OK - 15 months later I finally get around to looking at it...
and it's no longer there.

You still have it? Can you post it somewhere?

Perhaps, if you contact Admin or AdminAsgara, they can store it somewhere at .

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 09-26-2004 5:19 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017