|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: John Paul refutes Nilsson & Pelger? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
In this message John Paul wrote:
Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted? No, I don't. References and an explanation, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Needless to say, John Paul did a hit and run here.
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Needless to say I am tired of doing the work for you. If evolutionists were half as critical of the ToE as they were Creationists they would see the theory really wasn't (a theory).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well I read the link. Now where is the refutation ?
(And have you read any of the replies to Berlinski ?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
post deleted; see below for real reply...
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
The link is a bunch of hand-waving and goal-post shifting. The distinction between "eye" and "eyeball" is most baffling. This is not a refutation, but simply states that the simulation didn't cover all possible aspects of vision. Of course, that wasn't the purpose - the purpose was to start with a light sensitive patch see if the evolution of the structure known as the eye was feasible from a selectionist point of view.
Nothing is "refuted" here; only limitations noted. The typical anti-evo tactic of arguing that since EVERYTHING isn't explained, then NOTHING is explained. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hey, how are you John Paul? Long time no see!
Anyway, I was wondering if you might like to continue our discussion of feeding horses on the Ark? I can refer to Woodmoreappe's book now because I own a copy, so feel free to list page numbers and the like. I think we could start a new thread at this point in the Geology and the Flood forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Berlinski is a mathematician whose tentative grasp of evolutionary theory (as well as a tendency to overwrite that makes Hambre look like Hemingway) has produced some great howlers. In the words of Allen Orr, "Why is everyone an expert witness when it comes to Darwinism?"
The 'Vexing Eye' article in its original form contained a point that Berlinski must have felt was a knockout punch: he wondered about the way the skull must have had to adapt in conjunction with the evolution of the mammal's eye. Several people later informed Berlinski that according to the standard evolutionary timeline, mammalian eyes evolved before they had skulls. ------------------The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ah, the ol' "where's the computer simulation" and "They didn't address how a light spot evolved" strawmen.
Nilsson & Pelger never claimed to have a computer simulation (although they have developed one since then) and they explicitly siad that they were presuming the existence of a light-sensitive spot. No refutation there, not even a mention of the substance of the paper. Anything else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Needless to say I am tired of doing the work for you. When you make claims, it's your responsibility to support them. I've seen Berlinksi's article before, and I know that it's not a refutation; I assumed that you were not referring to that. How are we supposed to know that your "refutation" claim was based on Berlinski's irrelevant article?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
I've seen this before (and debated it before); it's nonsense. Please, if it's an actual refutation, summarize the main points; I'll do my attempt at summary, correct me if I'm wrong.
1) It's not actually a genetic algorithm; they just measured the efficiency of changes in small increments. Response: So? There was no barrier; each increment produced a better eye, so gradualism is guaranteed to succeed. Who cares if it was done as a genetic algorithm? 2) Nilsson and Pelger only developed an eyeball, not a complete eye (things like rods and cones were not developed by in their paper) Response: So? The existence of light sensitive cells was given as a prerequisite of their simulation. As I already discussed with you, John Paul, it's quite simple for a cell to become light sensitive. In short, my response is: So? Please explain what the relevance of his criticisms are. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Oooh, you have a copy of Woodmorappe?
I should try and track down a copy - I'd scan it in so it could be referenced easily At least to scan a fair-use amount of its content. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Oh yes, Zhimbo and I bought it a few months ago. Used books from Amazon I think.
It's a really big book filled with a lot of, well, you know. My very favorite thing about the whole book, however, is the little sentence printed on the front in a corner: "For serious readers."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
This thread was started because of my response to this:
John Paul writes:If you want to impress try something from a peer-reviewed journal. A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58. me:Lindsay and Dawkins have been refuted by Behe. Hogwash. Behe's IC arguments are plainly refuted by the evidence. Berlinski's article shows they did nothing to show that a vision sytem could arise, just possibly an eyeball. What is being missed here is the fact that even before an eyeball (which contains more than one cell), can only evolve AFTER the alleged single-celled organism with a light sensitive spot evolved in to a true metazoan (not the colony which biologists understand isn't indictative of true multi-cellularity- at best a colony would have many light sensitive spots and how would we get a vision system from there?) NO ONE has been able to show that mutations culled by NS could create a vision system. Nillson & Pilger did NOT use real genes or even computer generated copies of the genes involved. Behe shows how difficult it is and NO ONE has refuted or even rebutted him. Please by all means show that statement to be incorrect. As for irrelevant- that is exactly what the Nillson & Pilger paper was and still is. It has absolutely no relevance to reality. Only the blind-faith followers of the ToE would hold such diatribe in high regard. [This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-19-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024