Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John Paul refutes Nilsson & Pelger?
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1 of 23 (73716)
12-17-2003 9:25 AM


In this message John Paul wrote:
Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted?
No, I don't. References and an explanation, please.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 12-17-2003 7:47 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 8:37 PM JonF has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 2 of 23 (73875)
12-17-2003 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
12-17-2003 9:25 AM


Needless to say, John Paul did a hit and run here.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 9:25 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 9:27 PM Rei has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 23 (73888)
12-17-2003 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
12-17-2003 9:25 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 9:25 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2003 4:38 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 7 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:29 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 12-18-2003 7:33 AM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 23 (73910)
12-17-2003 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
12-17-2003 7:47 PM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 12-17-2003 7:47 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:21 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 12-18-2003 7:35 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 12 by Rei, posted 12-18-2003 1:10 PM John Paul has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 23 (74003)
12-18-2003 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
12-17-2003 8:37 PM


Well I read the link. Now where is the refutation ?
(And have you read any of the replies to Berlinski ?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 8:37 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 6 of 23 (74008)
12-18-2003 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
12-17-2003 9:27 PM


post deleted; see below for real reply...
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 9:27 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 7 of 23 (74011)
12-18-2003 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
12-17-2003 8:37 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 8:37 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 12-18-2003 6:36 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 23 (74021)
12-18-2003 6:36 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rei, posted 12-18-2003 1:47 PM nator has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 23 (74022)
12-18-2003 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zhimbo
12-18-2003 5:29 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:29 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 23 (74027)
12-18-2003 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
12-17-2003 8:37 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 8:37 PM John Paul has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 23 (74029)
12-18-2003 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
12-17-2003 9:27 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 9:27 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 12 of 23 (74112)
12-18-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
12-17-2003 9:27 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 9:27 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 12-19-2003 5:23 PM Rei has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 13 of 23 (74118)
12-18-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
12-18-2003 6:36 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 12-18-2003 6:36 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 12-18-2003 3:17 PM Rei has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 23 (74142)
12-18-2003 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rei
12-18-2003 1:47 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rei, posted 12-18-2003 1:47 PM Rei has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 23 (74349)
12-19-2003 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rei
12-18-2003 1:10 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rei, posted 12-18-2003 1:10 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 12-19-2003 6:03 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 12-19-2003 6:43 PM John Paul has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024