To Good to be True? Intelligently Designed?

LucyTheApe writes:

quote:

---

the structures of life is too complex/structured to have arisen through the chance occurances that lead to the events in the life of real human beings

---

Except that we can see the evolution happening right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us deny it?So far, every single example of "irreducible complexity" that has been proffered by those who claim that it's "too complex" has been shown to have evolved. In fact, one of the grand failures of Behe's claim is that his insistence that such structures had "never been examined" was an out and out lie. There were literally dozens of papers on the evolution of the blood clot cascade, the bacterial flagellum, etc.He simply didn't bother to look.So again I have to ask: Why would you have us deny what we can see happening right in front of our eyes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know what this discussion has to do with Bible Study and what the Bible really means.

---

It has to do with the difference between a piece of literature and a piece of science.Science does not claim that there is no such thing as design. On the contrary: The whole point of engineering is to design things. However, design has hallmarks and life does not show those signs.The Bible, since it is a piece of literature, does show design. To try and flip the argument onto science is an example of comparing apples and oranges.I agree, we should not be sidetracked on this issue, though. Your request for a source has been shown.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It has to do with the difference between a piece of literature and a piece of science.

---

​

Nice statement of faith there.

---

Nice try, but science doesn't require faith. In fact, the entire point behind science is that you should not have faith. You should be able to test it out for yourself and see if you come up with the same thing. And if you don't, then we need to do even more investigation to find out why my results don't match yours.Science is what happens despite you, not because of you.Literature, on the other hand, is all about the person who wrote it. I'm currently in a play, As Bees in Honey Drown, about an author who gets conned and in the process, he finds he can no longer write. He talks about the "arrogance" of the creative process, putting pen to paper out of your own self and thinking that it will be worthy.Literature is what happens because of you, not despite you.

quote:

---

Because Science is man's invention and the Bible is God's revelation, if there is a descrepancy between them the fault must be with man's invention because God knows all the facts.

---

But science is a process and a self-correcting one at that. A book is just a book. It doesn't tell you how to interpret it (and it must be interpreted) and there is nothing in the method of interpretation that will let you know if you've made an error.Besides, who said god has all the facts? God? Well, isn't that convenient? Does the phrase "circular argument" mean anything to you?Hint: Science doesn't claim to have all the facts. Science is a process, not a result.

quote:

---

See, I also can make an assertive statement of faith.

---

Except you're still comparing apples and oranges. Some arguments cannot be reversed.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

Is this going to be a tag team effort?

---

Does it matter? Why is it important who the person is who gives you the quote you are sneeringly insinuating doesn't exist?

quote:

---

It sounds like there is still a question about which quote it is.

---

Not at all. Are you saying Behe was being vague when he said, "No papers are to be found"?

quote:

---

Secondly, you or Rrhain need to provide evidence that Behe lied by showing me the date of the publication of his book as compared to publication dates of the said papers in those specific journals.

---

You mean you didn't bother to look it up? We are not here to do your homework for you.Darwin's Black Box was published in 1996. Why don't you do your own homework and start looking up the publication dates regarding molecular biology from before that? Here's a hint: Mycoplasma genitalium was completely sequenced in 1995.Here's another quote of Behe's: Remember, this was from 1996.David Ussery did a PubMed search for articles regarding this and guess what he found:

YEAR	"Molecular Evolution"	"Irreducible complexity"	[b]"Intelligent Design" and evolution	evolution and "complex biochemical system"
1980	10	0	0	0
1981	13	0	0	0
1982	12	0	0	0
1983	8	0	0	1
1984	14	0	0	1
1985	24	0	0	2
1986	32	0	0	3
1987	43	0	0	3
1988	36	0	0	2
1989	40	1	0	0
1990	52	0	0	5
1991	39	1	0	1
1992	45	0	0	1
1993	56	1	0	2
1994	114	0	0	1
1995	322	0	0	2
Total	860	3	0	24

So in direct contrast to Behe's claim, there were literally hundreds of articles to be found on molecular evolution.When Ussery debated Behe, Behe weaseled out by saying he used a different database and that since his book was written mostly during 1995, he shouldn't be expected to know about the articles published then.Want to know what happened after he published his books? The number of articles on molecular evolution exploded. From 1996 to 2000, there were 6695 articles published.Behe's book has not been altered to reflect this reality.

quote:

---

Could you finish the job of proving Dr. Behe is a liar?

---

You mean you can't do it for yourself? You are incapable of using a search engine? You don't know about PubMed? In ten seconds, I found the following:Gillespie JH.
Molecular Evolution and Polymorphism in a Random Environment.
Genetics. 1979 Nov;93(3):737-754.
PMID: 17248978 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]And here are a couple of good ones:Kimura M, Ota T.
On some principles governing molecular evolution.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Jul;71(7):2848-52.
PMID: 4527913 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]172:LinksWilson AC, Maxson LR, Sarich VM.
Two types of molecular evolution. Evidence from studies of interspecific hybridization.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Jul;71(7):2843-7.
PMID: 4212492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Note the dates on these. Two were published twenty years before Behe wrote his book. One of the ones I've referenced shows that there are multiple methods of molecular evolution. The idea that the concept of molecular evolution was originated with Behe or that it was only because he popularized the subject that people started investigating it is risible.When was the last time you were in a science library?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Responded to the wrong post. Want to make sure that the references are correct. See below.Edited by Rrhain, : Responded to the wrong post.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

The scientific method presupposes some truths.

---

It would help if you would state what they are. I am not necessarily denying them, but I cannot make any statements about that which you are not defining.

quote:

---

You have a rational belief in mathematics and logic. That is a kind of "faith" or sorts or trust.

---

Not quite. It isn't belief. It's functionality.Note: While logic and mathematics are certainly related, they are not the same thing. As we well know, you can come up with different types of mathematics by changing your axioms. Deny the Fifth Postulate, and you wind up with non-Euclidean geometry. However, the logic remains the same.

quote:

---

The belief, the "faith" if you will that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself.

---

And isn't it lovely that nobody tries to claim it does! You're arguing a non sequitur.

quote:

---

So your science requires a faith of sorts.

---

But you haven't defined what that "faith" is. Assertion is not justification.Back to the original statement since none of this has anything to do with it:Science is about things that happen despite you. Literature, on the other hand, is all tied up in you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You should be able to test it out for yourself and see if you come up with the same thing. And if you don't, then we need to do even more investigation to find out why my results don't match yours.

---

​

Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same thing 400 million years of natural selection?

---

Why would you expect to come up with "the same thing"? That isn't how evolution works. You are confusing getting a specific outcome with getting any outcome.If I shuffle cards and deal a hand of bridge, you're not going to get the same hand this time as you are next time. But, nobody ever said you were. However, you're going to get a hand of bridge. Do not confuse the specific outcome (AJ9 S, KQ52 H, 108765 D, 4 C) with the existence of an outcome.What you can test for yourself is that life will not remain static. I have repeatedly given an example of an experiment you can do quite quickly in the privacy of your own biology lab using materials that are easily acquired from a biological supply house. It can be done by high school students. Note, the experiment does not indicate how the bacteria and phage evolve...only that they will. And they do.

quote:

---

Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same things the theorized "Big Bang" event?

---

Yes. The field you are thinking of is called "quantum cosmology." The COBE and IMAP experiments were tests of it.

quote:

---

However you are making a dichotomy which doesn't quite fit. There is "scientific liturature".

---

Three problems.First: Are you seriously claiming the Bible is "scientific literature"? Please.Second: "Scientific literature" is not science. Science is a method.Third: You are equivocating on the word "literature." There is the definition that means "text written down" and then there is the definition that means "story."

quote:

---

There are indications to me in the Bible that the liturature is divinely inspired.

---

But that's because you've already determined that its story is true. The vast majority of the world disagrees with you. If it were accurate, if it were amenable to the process of science, then it would be replicable. Since it is not, it is clearly not of the same type.

quote:

---

There is such a thing as scientific liturature.

---

Indeed, and it is not the same thing as "literature" as I used it. I will thank you not to engage in equivocation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

Explain a little more about how I am suppose to use your grid there.

---

It is the number of articles found in PubMed that involve the search terms listed at the top of the header published that year.Behe claims that there were no published articles on molecular evolution to be found when he wrote his book. Instead, there were over 800. Compare this to the number of papers regarding "irreducible complexity" and regarding "intelligent design" combined with "evolution" (to distinguish the papers from those regarding "intelligent design" that aren't in relation to evolution) and regarding "complex biochemical system" again paired with "evolution."His claim that there were no papers is shown to be trivally false by simple inspection. He simply didn't bother to do any real research into the subject.

quote:

---

Does "Complexity" always mean to you "Irreducible Complexity?"

---

No. That is why the search is for "irreducible complexity," not "complexity."And by the way: You will note that I have never used the term "fundy" or "fundies." I will thank you to respond to what I have actually said and not what you wish I said.But, we're getting off track. I'm trying to create a new thread to pick this up.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

TheTruth responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Except that we can see the evolution happening right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us deny it?

---

​

What do you mean by this? What evolution is happening?

---

This is also probably off-topic, so let me just point it out here and say if you want to discuss it, start a new thread:Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.There are other examples. The literature is replete with them. The point here is not to claim that every single possible example of evolutionary theory is explained in this single experiment. It is simply to show that evolution does happen, right in front of your eyes. We can see the genome change. With bigger experiments, more sophisticated equipment than you might find in a high school lab, and time and grant money that would be on the order of a university or research lab, we can even see speciation occur. Reproductive isolation has been seen to occur in only 13 generations.Why would we ever want to deny this evidence?But again, this is wildly off topic. Please, if you wish to continue, start a new thread. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.