Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
109 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (4 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,989 Year: 6,101/6,534 Month: 294/650 Week: 64/278 Day: 12/52 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 207 (137906)
08-29-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Nic Tamzek
08-26-2004 2:22 PM


Thanks for all the links, this is one of the major topics I like to stay up to date on.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-26-2004 2:22 PM Nic Tamzek has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 207 (140921)
09-08-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
09-07-2004 2:00 PM


Re: BSOW Distances Itself from Article
Heheheh... I share RAZD's curiosity regarding the fate of the editor.

I am also interested in why you were sent an email on this from the BSOW? Did you write them about this issue? And if so, was it your actions that brought it to their attention?

In any case, that made my day.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 09-07-2004 2:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2004 10:50 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 10:53 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 207 (140959)
09-08-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
09-08-2004 10:53 AM


Why do I have the feeling that the probably soon-to-be-former editor of the BSOW proceedings will be a hero in the Creationist community?

Because it already happened?

Here is a link to the dicovery institute's announcement of martyrdom... I mean defence of Meyer and Sternberg (the editor).

Here is a link to an interview about the controversy surrounding the article in "The Scientist". I particularly love Sternberg saying he is critical of creationism, with the followup that he is a member of a biological organization DEVOTED to creationism.

I note that Sternberg says the article DID receive a peer-review and that while the reviewers might not have liked Meyers' point, thought it was worthy of publication. I wonder how this squares with the BSOW position?

{Fixed links - There were (") at the beginings and ends - Adminnemooseus}

(edited in)As a point of side interest, one may observe that the first article, including its very title, takes a stab at Kerry. Apparently evolutionary theorists must be Kerry supporters, and ID theorists must support Bush? Hmmmm, on top of moving religion into the classroom isn't there a problem when the main group advocating ID theory also links partisan politics to that "science" theory?

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-08-2004 12:14 PM

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-08-2004 12:59 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 2:25 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 207 (141513)
09-11-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ID man
09-10-2004 12:13 PM


Wow, you already got your ass handed to you on a platter, but I thought I should offer a hand...

BTW Percy ID and Creation are not the same. No amount of whining and misrepresentation can change that fact.

While I will agree that it is POSSIBLE to separate the two in theory, are you seriously suggesting that major members of the movement are NOT simply creationists?

The link given to Steve Jones's exit from ID pretty much shows that not only is there a lot of Religion within members of the ID movement, but that it is gaining an overtly creationist religious bent.

In another thread I pointed out to you that one of the founding members of ID... Dembski... put out a book called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Theology and Science".

Maybe you could explain how he is not pushing a creationist brand of ID? Was the title supposed to be sarcastic or something? It certainly didn't read that way.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 207 (141573)
09-11-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
09-11-2004 11:58 AM


"Budhist" (which, that being the case, you'd think you'd be able to spell)

Heyyyy, typos happen. I tell ya from the minute he started posting I said that reserved style, that centered demeanor, that there's gotta be a budhist.

Indeed, such a buddhist that he has some problems with common descent???

Oh yes, and his signature has a quote from a book/movie whose premise starts "what would the universe be like if God created the Universe for us to explore". Yeah, that sure is buddhist if I ever seen one.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-11-2004 01:18 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 11:58 AM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 207 (141751)
09-12-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ooook!
09-12-2004 6:30 AM


There is quite a persuasive argument knocking around that the last universal ancestor was in fact a whole bunch of simple ancestors which swapped genes amongst themselves quite freely (lateral gene transfer) before ‘solidifying’ into the tree-of-life we all know and love. It was put forward as an answer to the fact that it is quite hard to pin-point where the branches all split at the base of the tree

I am totally in agreement with you on this. Evidence seems to indicate more of a hedge of life rather than a tree of life.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ooook!, posted 09-12-2004 6:30 AM Ooook! has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 207 (142124)
09-13-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ID man
09-13-2004 11:25 AM


Paul said...
Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?

To which you said...
In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation

Do I really need to point out that you said that YOU disagree with Behe on common descent? That then places YOU in the creationist camp then, no? And you claimed to be ID so some within ID are creationists, yes?

Can't wait to see how you spin that one.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 11:25 AM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 207 (142370)
09-14-2004 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
09-14-2004 2:10 PM


Unethical!

Okay, I'm gonna be a bit unethical. This is not on topic but I figured this was the best way to ensure you could get my message and respond.

I sent you an email, or anyway an email to admin@evc, and had not heard back. It was regarding pictures of the month. I wasn't sure if it got to you or not.

Please let me know. Sorry for the interjection... bact to topic at hand...


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 2:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 4:33 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 207 (142745)
09-16-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:32 AM


He is? Any evidence for that assertion?

Maybe, maybe not. However we do have evidence that YOU are a creationist.

Not sure if you missed my last reply to you or not, but I will repeat the point again here.

You stated that a person who does NOT believe in common descent would be in the creationist camp. As I CORRECTLY pointed out, YOU SAID that YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN COMMON DESCENT. Logic seems to put you in the creationist camp then, no?

Still waiting to see you spin your way out of that one... so far it's just been the fast exist stage left.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-16-2004 12:38 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:32 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:31 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 207 (142883)
09-17-2004 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wounded King
09-17-2004 5:31 AM


I agree with your assessment, especially...

Surely having recognised that the paper would be controversial it would have been wise of Sternberg to consult further than his one anonymous colleague who now appears to have decided not to put his head above the parapet.

I don't understand how any managing editor of a low key taxonomic journal would figure he has been given the "go ahead" to run something he knows WILL BE controversial... with the only okay being Meyers (apparently they talked about doing this the first time they met) and some "other guy".

In his list of how this wasn't outside the scope of the journal, he never really mentioned any "groundbreaking controversies". Nor if there were any, that it went forward without the understanding of the people actually running the journal.

A similar thing happened to an organization I worked for (though it was outside of science). The person who decided to go it alone to push through material they wanted to see was, whether any other terms can be used, a jerk for being inconsiderate to the rest of the people involved. No matter his excuses, I think he certainly retains that criticism.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-17-2004 05:40 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2004 5:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 117 of 207 (143086)
09-18-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ID man
09-18-2004 11:31 AM


Me: You stated that a person who does NOT believe in common descent would be in the creationist camp.

IDman: I don't believe that is what I said.

Uhmmmmm, well here is the exchange witnessed in post #55 in this very thread...

PaulK: Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?

IDman: In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation.

What's the difference between a movement and an individual who rejects common descent?

IDists don't have to believe in common descent. IDists CAN believe in common descent, Creationists don't. That is the difference

Hanging your hat on a choice doesn't help you.

IF ID is a scientific theory that is supposed to compete with evolution as a rival scientific theory it will have to have some sort of answer to this question. Otherwise it is a lesser model.

IDists follow the evidence. IF that evidence leads us to the conclusions of Creationists- that there were many different types of organisms that first populated the Earth- so be it.

This is of course the point being made. The EVIDENCE as it CURRENTLY STANDS is wholly in support for common descent. That is why common descent is part and parcel of current SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Only a creationist can avoid the evidence enough to try and argue he has a choice as a scientist. This is why Behe and Jones were two examples of scientists trying to stay within appropriate scientific bounds.

Those pretending they have a choice and so can doubt it, are rejecting the evidence and science... creationists, even by your own standards.

I hope you understand this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:31 AM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 118 of 207 (143089)
09-18-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ID man
09-18-2004 12:40 PM


I gave evidence for design

No you gave proposed criteria and an example of how it might work on a biological organism. Until the criteria can be proven experimentally the example of its application is useless.

Here is an example.

I say that I have come up with a way to detect "xatus" in objects, and treat a strip of paper with a chemical which I claim will react and exhibit the presence of "xatus". Xatus will turn the paper yellow, otherwise it will just stay the same color.

I touch it to various objects and some turn the strips yellow, some don't. See then, I say, I have proven they have Xatus.

Well that's just a bunch of snake oil.

I need to define what xatus is, I need to explain what the mechanism I am using to detect xatus is, and it must be proven in experiments to detect between objects that have xatus and those which do not.

I defy you to find any experiments by any ID theorists (beyond vague thought experiments) to prove the detection criteria work.

The problem with Behe is that he has jumped to application without proving the criteria. Examples of what he claims are IC systems, have in some cases been later proven not to be IC at all (which his classification would have ended further research). There are also IC systems (by his def) which are known to have been produced through intermediate steps.

And Behe is the best ID has.

That would be a lie. Please point me to where I have been shown this.

Crash has given you examples. You are the liar.

No one has ever heard of nature acting alone bring about a totally novel organism from scratch.

Thankfully evolutionary theory does not state that this has ever happened.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 12:40 PM ID man has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 119 of 207 (143090)
09-18-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
09-18-2004 1:05 PM


Since it only had to happen once, and could not now happen on Earth, that's not surprising.

Well it never had to happen at all. Remember he said from scratch. What the hell is scratch? Even evo theory involves complex precursor materials which are not life, but can assemble an organism in the right environment.

This sounded to me like he was trying to cart out the "dog never gives birth to a chicken" argument with a new coat of paint.

There never was a scratch.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 1:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 5:30 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 207 (143129)
09-18-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
09-18-2004 5:30 PM


there comes a point when the study of those ancestors becomes chemistry and not biology. I presume that's what he meant... Maybe it's not so much of a point, exactly.

Yeah, I knew what he was referring to, but it's still the same kind of misrepresentation as "dog births chicken".

The chemistry would not have been some random floating chemicals deal, which instantly formed an organism in one step.

It would be chemicals becoming more complex through reactions in specific environments to build precursors which could then make that last step. Its hard to say where life actually begins/ends with some things we have now and that would mimic what went on back then.

Something kind of lifelike, but not, interacting with other semilifelike entities to eventually form something we'd finally say (and who knows if it flitted back and forth in stages for a while) "okay this counts as life".

Scratch sounds instantaneous and from basic ingredients.

I defy that characterization.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-18-2004 04:49 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 143 of 207 (146058)
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:37 PM


Precedent had already been set, no carte blanche required:

Can't you see that there is a world of difference between deviating from purely taxonomic issues, and going into controversial theoretical issues with biological science itself?

Can you show a precedent of dealing with highly controversial and purely theoretical articles? Moreso, that the decision to go ahead with such articles were handled only by the editor and a friend?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:37 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022