Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8964 total)
40 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 872,990 Year: 4,738/23,288 Month: 1,643/1,286 Week: 310/615 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
jar
Member
Posts: 32341
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 136 of 283 (649356)
01-22-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
I'm curious why you think any legislature should have anything to say about what should be taught on ANY subject?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 137 of 283 (649360)
01-22-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are.

Quite so. To quote Bill Buckingham: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?"

Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo ...

Yeah. Status quo: don't teach pseudoscience in science classrooms.

I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.

They claim not to have found any aliens yet. That's testable, repeatable, and observable.

I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple.

No they aren't, pure and simple. See, I'm an atheist, and I can read my mind, whereas you can't.

Claims by evolutionists that “we’d all be living in caves” without constant thought and application of evolution ...

... are apparently made up by you. It was your attack on the whole of science that elicited that response.

Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision – a decision made by ONE judge – deserves a second look.

We wanted a second look. We hoped the defendants in the Dover trial would appeal to a higher court, remember? But they didn't want a second look.

Science isn’t the only source of knowledge ...

But it is the only thing that's science. So when we decide what is to be taught in science classrooms as science, we're pretty much stuck with science and not things that aren't science. Unless, of course, we happen to be nuts.

The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of “the fall” from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect.

But because this is in fact true of every institution, it's a bit of special pleading to apply it to one particular thing. You apparently wish to apply this unsensational nondiscovery of human fallibility to the question of whether scientists should assess the merits of your favorite pseudoscience. But I don't hear you saying that courts (another institution of fallible humans) shouldn't assess the guilt of criminals, or that voters through the fallible institution of democracy shouldn't get to choose between representatives, or that you, a fallible human being, shouldn't decide what you eat for dinner tonight. No, it's just that pesky scientific community who, looking at ID, shouldn't be able to say: "No, not good enough, come back when you have something of substance". Because they're human.

Your inconsistency and hypocrisy aside, someone has to decide what goes in the science curriculum. Unless we defer to an inanimate object such as a Magic 8 Ball, that decision is always going to be made by fallible humans. The only thing we can do is place that decision in the hands of the people least likely to fail, i.e. scientists, who are the people least likely to be wrong about science. We do not circumvent human fallibility by instead putting that choice into the hands of an insurance salesman and real-estate developer who knows sweet damn-all about science --- because he is more likely to fail.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 138 of 283 (649362)
01-22-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear. The cartoon that I’ve been shown…..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of “the fall” from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest.

The fact that the process is imperfect does not mean that just anything can get in. Otherwise, your argument for including ID applies equally to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. This is pretty much what Behe had to admit under oath at Dover; a definition of science sufficiently loose so as to include ID would also include astrology.

I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.

Currently SETI is a process, a means of looking for data. It has no positive findings as of yet. When it does, those findings will be checked by other scientists, as is the norm.

I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple.

Believe all you want, but until you can bring evidence to the ID efforts, and apply the scientific method, ID isn't going to be accepted as science.

Claims by evolutionists that “we’d all be living in caves” without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows.

The problem you have here is that you want to overturn the scientific method because you're outraged by what evolution, paleontology, radiometric dating and some other related fields have discovered. You don't seem to realize that the scientific method is common to all fields of science, and if you disallow it in one place because you don't like some of the results then you are hurting all of science. Sounds like you would be happy with a "Science Board" composed of creationists who would get to pick and choose what could be done as science. Sorry, not going to happen. (Ref: the Enlightenment.)

Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision – a decision made by ONE judge – deserves a second look. If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are.

The folks who lost the Dover decision had the right to appeal to higher courts, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. They didn't. They, and the rest of you, lost your rights to second-guess that decision when it wasn't appealed.

Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S.

Oh, we're back to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

Sorry, you can have all those. I'll stick to the scientific method. It produces results.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 139 of 283 (649365)
01-22-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
marc9000 writes:

The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of “the fall” from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect.

No serious scientist from any field is going to claim that science is perfect. Scientists understand completely that humans are fallible and make mistakes. That's the reason science requires repeatability as one of the hallmarks of science. Any individual person is subject to normal human foibles; ambition, confirmation bias, and even dishonesty. The idea behind repeatability is that if numerous different and independent researchers come to the same conclusions, that makes it more likely that the conclusion is accurate.

Science further accounts for the fallibility of humans by acknowledging that all scientific conclusions are tentative. Any theory can be overturned by new discoveries or a different theory that better explains the facts we already have. Einstein is not regarded as a genius just because he developed a revolutionary new scientific theory, but also because he overthrew what was at the time the singularly most successful scientific theory of all time, Newtonian mechanics.

The question underlying this topic is "What should be taught in science classes?" One would think that the obvious answer is that scientists should decide what is taught in science classes. They seem to be the best equipped to decide what is science and what isn't. Your answer seems to be that scientists shouldn't be allowed to determine what science is because humans are flawed. By that logic, we shouldn't allow any institution to make any decisions.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19597
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 140 of 283 (649371)
01-22-2012 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
marc9000 writes:

This is my last message in this thread.

Over the history of EvC I'd say declarations like this turn out to be true maybe 15% of the time. Good luck controlling the inevitable urge to respond.

Even though four people have already addressed a number of your misconceptions, there were a lot left over, but I'll just address this:

marc9000 writes:

Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo...

In a science that is over 150 years old it is difficult to find niches in which to make ones mark. Any possible avenue of research providing the opportunity to build a substantial reputation would receive a great deal of attention from everywhere within biology, from graduate students seeking thesis topics to established scientists to research institutes to government funding agencies.

You cited human fallibility as a reason for excepting ID from the normal requirements of science, but the ID community is as much heir to this human fallibility as everyone else. If ID researchers are truly interested in adding their ideas to the scientific consensus then they should bring those ideas to the halls of science, not to state legislatures.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16048
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 141 of 283 (649375)
01-23-2012 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
quote:

I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are.

And the reasons are religious above all. If ID was really science there wouldn't be any need to mention atheism at all, yet you go on and on about it. You wouldn't need to rely on falsehoods and nutty conspiracy theories either. But you do.

quote:

Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear.

And there are plenty of biased people like you who think that THEIR beliefs should get special exemption from the tests. Who seem to think that lying and cheating and breaking the law is just fine when it comes to getting THEIR propaganda into schools.

quote:

The cartoon that I’ve been shown…..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of “the fall” from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest.

THis is an extremely foolish argument. First off you were shown the cartoon because you denied that you were asking for special privileges, because you claimed that ID had already passed the tests to be considered science.

More importantly, human imperfection is the reason for the process. It is there to stop errors and inappropriate material creeping into the curriculum. It may not be perfect, but how is short-circuiting it for your favourite ideas a valid response ? Or are you claiming that the people on your side are above human imperfection ?

quote:

I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.

And yet again we have another vague complaint completely lacking in details. Without knowing what is taught how can you say that it is inappropriate ?

quote:

I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple.

Your opinions are, of course, your opinions. They do not entitle your beliefs to the special privileges that you keep demanding.

quote:

Claims by evolutionists that “we’d all be living in caves” without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows.

I don't believe that we have seen any example of such claim. The only like claim was made for science in particular - and since you generalised your attacks to all of science such a response seems far less unreasonable.

quote:

Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision – a decision made by ONE judge – deserves a second look.

The fact that scientists do not bow down and worship you is not a good reason to revisit a court decision. A good reason would be based on the facts, the evidence and the law. By some strange reason the calls for the decision to be revisited seem to ignore those. They only claim that the decision was "wrong" because it wasn't the one that they wanted.

quote:

If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are. Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S.

In other words you see nothing wrong with using political power to force your religion into science classes. Which, of course, is exactly why you object to the Dover decision which (correctly) says that you can't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 142 of 283 (649382)
01-23-2012 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


Re: summary
The summary of my argument is neatly summarised by my following answer to the first few sentences from marc9000
marc9000 writes:

I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition.

Of course they would. You have religious "answers", not even one of them having anything to do with science. You were also provided with reasons why ID is not science and why it should not be discussed in science classes.
marc9000 writes:

Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills,...

The only reason for people introducing ID bills is religious fanatisism. Nothing else. It has been pointed out numerous times, one is the Wedge Document, for example. ID is not science and therefore has no place in science classes at school.
marc9000 writes:

....the reasons are what they are.

Yes, we agree. Actually, you've got only one reason for wanting to introduce ID into science classes. Religion. Nothing else.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2012 6:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2677 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 143 of 283 (649448)
01-23-2012 12:40 PM


SHOW ME
Man I miss Missouri. (my favorite state so far)

I do not really see what is so anti-evolution about the bill.

I also don't see what the big deal is.

I have also learned that MO does what MO wants, they pass all kinds of strange bills there.


Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2012 1:00 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 145 by Granny Magda, posted 01-23-2012 1:25 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 144 of 283 (649449)
01-23-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Artemis Entreri
01-23-2012 12:40 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I do not really see what is so anti-evolution about the bill.

Compare with the Discovery Institute's "Model" bill:

http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/another-discove.html

You don't think the Discovery Institute is actually promoting science, do you?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-23-2012 12:40 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 145 of 283 (649450)
01-23-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Artemis Entreri
01-23-2012 12:40 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Hi AE,

The problem is that the wording of the bill lends itself to abuse by the creationist/ID lobby. Given the history of creationist attempts to get their nonsense taught in science class, it's hard to interpret this as an honest attempt to teach kids about the scientific method.

For example, the bill mentions "scientific controversies". But what does it choose as an example of such a controversy? Evolution. In fact that is the only example, despite the fact that there is no appreciable scientific controversy over evolution, only a public and religious controversy. Amongst actual biologists, the ToE is simply the standard model. They could have chosen another example if they were genuinely interested in teaching kids about the scientific method.

Take a look at the second clause;

quote:
Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

No mention of any other controversy. They are only interested in evolution. Clearly, this is a coded way of saying that teachers should be allowed to blast evolution in the classroom and teach creationist/ID material. They're only being cagey about the language because they know that they are on such thin legal ice.

Especially telling is that they want to aim this rubbish at elementary school kids. That's just crazy! They're too young to understand the actual controversies that really do exist within biology. They need a firm grounding in the very basics at that age. They can move on to learn about genuine controversies - like neutral drift for example - at a later, more appropriate age.

Even the language about "discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion", designed to sound as innocuous as possible, is in reality, a way for creationists to label genuine science as "nonreligious doctrine"thus banning any sensible approach to the subject.

This bill wouldn't be quite so suspicious if it weren't for the repeated attempts by US creationist to bypass the Establishment Clause and sneak religious dogma into schools.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-23-2012 12:40 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(3)
Message 146 of 283 (649452)
01-23-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:47 PM


How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take?

Why don't we start with one and see where it goes? Mind you, I am asking for a paper that proposes ID hypotheses and then tests them. I am not asking for papers that "challenge evolution". I am hoping that you can discern between these two.

ID proponents claim that they are being discriminated against, but how can anyone discriminate against something that doesn't exist? What experiments has Behe run that directly test ID? What experiments could anyone run that would test ID?

ID proponents want to be Rosa Parks without actually stepping on the bus. Before you play the persecution card you actually have to have some ID science. At the moment, ID is nothing more than a religiously motivated political movement. It is not an active field of scientific research, nor does it hold any promise of being one.

Perhaps you could answer a very simple question. Why should we teach ID to a single student given the fact that no scientist is using ID in an active research program? What is the educational goal of teaching ID in science class? The only purpose I can find is to inappropriately inject theistic beliefs into science class.

There are a ton of experiments I could suggest that will illustrate how evolution works in the high school laboratory setting. The two classic experiments would be the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment and the Lederberg plate replica experiment. You could even adjust these experiments to look for the appearance of bacteriophage resistant colonies in plaques for a much simpler experiment. In these experiments you can observe both the appearance of beneficial mutations and selection of those mutations. So what similar ID experiments can we run for ID? How do we directly test ID? What scientists have actually tested ID, and how have they used it in their research?

If the scientific community claims to have a criteria for something to become science, shouldn’t that criteria be precisely defined?

That's like finding a definition for guilt or innocence that fits each and every murder trial. Not going to happen. Each and every theory is different, so the experiments and evidence needed will differ. Percy did an excellent job of describing some of those theories in a previous post.

Why is evolution so overwhelmingly accepted amongst biologists? I think Ernst Mayr summed it up best:

quote:
By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.

Ernst Mayr, "80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5680/46.full


Geneticists, paleontologists, developmental biologists, biogeographers, and other biologists worked hard to put the framework of the theory together in a way that tied together all of the observations in the field of biology together. Then came the BIG discover: DNA. This was the big test for the theory. If the theory was correct then we should observe very specific things in the DNA of different species. Those predictions turned out to be extremely accurate.

ID can not explain these observations in a scientifically meaningful manner. ID can't explain the pattern of shared homology and divergence seen in metazoans, both at the level of morphology and DNA. This is the one driving observation that ID just can not address, and it is where evolution excels. That is why evolution is taught and ID is not. ID is not science and can not explain the observations made in biology in a way that is scientifically testable and demonstrable. Evolution can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:47 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Trixie, posted 01-23-2012 2:48 PM Taq has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2154 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(4)
Message 147 of 283 (649459)
01-23-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Taq
01-23-2012 1:44 PM


ID research papers.
Try this one for size.

Behe & Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Protein Sci. 2004 Oct;13(10):2651-64.

Behe was asked about this at Dover and it appears in his book, "The Edge of Evolution". I posted the following info on an ID site. I hope you'll forgive that it is a cut and paste of that post.

" Are you not aware that many of the assertions made by Behe in "The Edge of Evolution" have already been shown to be wrong? The problems with Behe's computer simulation are numerous. In setting the parameters for the simulation Behe loads the dice against evolutionary theory. He only includes single base changes (point mutations) as the source of change, ignoring all the other well documented mechanisms of mutation, many of which cause a heck of a lot more than a single base change, for example transposon insertion, faulty transposon excision, recombination, aquiring or losing plasmids, plasmid integration into chromosomal DNA, wholesale deletions and duplications, the list goes on and on.

Secondly, his model does not allow selection to act on intermediates,ie he assumes that the intermediates are neutal. There is no selection for or against any point mutations that arise. Evolution happens by random mutation and natural selection working in combination. While the mutations may be random and can be compared to your drunk on the road, the selection isn't and it is this selection that drives the changes within a population. By failing to include any selection in his computer model, Behe removes a crucial mechanism which evolution requires.By any stretch of the imagination this is not really testing evolution. Consider, if you will, a crowd of drunks, 50% of them wearing red hats, let loose in a street and told to get to the other end while car drivers are instructed to aim for the drunks wearing red hats. At the end of it all, the population will contain more than 50% non-red hat wearers. Whether a drunk had a red hat or not is random, but the choice of who gets flattened and who doesn't is not random, since the drivers are selecting red hat wearers. Whilst not a perfect analogy, it does the job.

Behe states that the protein-protein binding sites are difficult to develop and used this computer simulation to demonstrate that. Even with the dice loaded against evolution, the data generated showed that it could happen by random mutation alone and that it would only take 20,000 years with a small starting population and only 0.7 days if the starting population was the same size as the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil. I'm sure you'll agree that there's more than 1 ton of soil on the entire planet. Behe's own data, obtained from a skewed simulation shows that the very protein-protein interaction which he asserts is difficult to develop is in fact easy to develop even without selection for intermediates.

Let's take another example from his book. Behe asserts that HIV has not evolved any new protein protein binding sites. When he was provided with a list of binding sites which refuted this claim, especially the fact that HIV-Vpu had evolved into an ion channel, what was his response? He said, and I quote "Although she calls herself a “pre-grad student,” the tone of the post is decidedly junior high, the tone of someone who is trying hard to compete with all the other Mean Girls on that unpleasant website. I’ll pass over all that and try to stick to the substance." This highly unprofessional and sexist response is given despite the fact that the person in question is a post graduate who was engaged in HIV research! After a flurry of activty, Behe has now acknowedged that HIV-Vpu represents a real, de novo binding site. So another of Behe's assertions in his book bites the dust. His chloroquinine resistance in malaria goes the same way. Two mutations are required for this, which Behe argues must be produced simultaneously. This completely ignores the fact that natural isolates of malaria possessing either one or the other of the two mutations have been found. His entire argument depends on the impossibility of these strains arising, so the fact that they do actually exist rather torpedoes his assertions.

The fact that in his book he declares "The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." He accepts that life has existed for billions of years and has decended with modification from one stage to another and that natural selection is the obvious mechanism by which adaptive gene variants spread through a population. Where's the ID in all of this? I'm interested in what you think of Behe's conversion to descent with modification."

When it's asserted that the non-existence of something is evidence against the ToE, such as novel proteins in HIV at a time where the existence of said something is in fact known about, you have to assume that much of what they assert is garbage. When they carry out a skewed computer simulation that actually supports the very theory they are trying to refute and when they propose an experiment to test their hypothesis, but fail to carry it out (See Dover....again), you really have to be suspicious about their motivation, their thought processes and ultimately their mental stability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Taq, posted 01-23-2012 1:44 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 01-23-2012 3:12 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 148 of 283 (649464)
01-23-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Trixie
01-23-2012 2:48 PM


Re: ID research papers.
Try this one for size.
Behe & Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Protein Sci. 2004 Oct;13(10):2651-64.

You really don't have to go further than the title of the paper. It is a research paper on evolution, not ID. The rather glaring mistakes that Behe and Snoke make in the paper only make it a bad paper on evolution.

You also did a great job of highlighting some of the problems with their conclusions. One of the criticisms I have of the paper is that it commits the Sharpshooter falacy. Behe and Snoke are calculating the odds of something occuring after it has already occurred. This is painting the target around the bullet hole. For any given beneficial two-residue conversion there are literally billions that did not occur.

Of course, nowhere in that paper is intelligent design mentioned nor is the ID model presented and tested. It is another attempt to play the false dichotomy card where the downfall of evolution means that ID is true by default.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Trixie, posted 01-23-2012 2:48 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 01-23-2012 4:16 PM Taq has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 149 of 283 (649471)
01-23-2012 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Taq
01-23-2012 3:12 PM


ID research papers and imaginary targets.
Taq writes:

One of the criticisms I have of the paper is that it commits the Sharpshooter falacy. Behe and Snoke are calculating the odds of something occuring after it has already occurred. This is painting the target around the bullet hole. For any given beneficial two-residue conversion there are literally billions that did not occur.

Exactly. Behe makes that mistake all the time, and the entire I.D. movement is riddled with that kind of thinking. I think that the psychological factor underlying it is their belief that things were intended to be as they are. When they talk about improbability in relation to biological features, the origin of life, and the fine tuning of the universe, it appears improbable to them that things could have arrived at the exact point that God wanted them to be "just by chance".

The only way I can think of explaining their obvious mistakes is the firm religious belief they have that we humans are the sharpshooter's ultimate target.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 01-23-2012 3:12 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 01-23-2012 5:19 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(2)
Message 150 of 283 (649480)
01-23-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bluegenes
01-23-2012 4:16 PM


Re: ID research papers and imaginary targets.
Exactly. Behe makes that mistake all the time, and the entire I.D. movement is riddled with that kind of thinking. I think that the psychological factor underlying it is their belief that things were intended to be as they are. When they talk about improbability in relation to biological features, the origin of life, and the fine tuning of the universe, it appears improbable to them that things could have arrived at the exact point that God wanted them to be "just by chance".

The only way I can think of explaining their obvious mistakes is the firm religious belief they have that we humans are the sharpshooter's ultimate target.

Besides, everyone already knows that E. coli are the supreme beings. Just look at how the universe had to be fine tuned just for them. It required a universe with specific laws that could give rise to perfectly adapted host organisms like H. sapiens. Without the specific features of the H. sapiens gastrointestinal tract the E. coli species could not exist. I think this is very obvious evidence that H. sapiens were designed just for E. coli.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bluegenes, posted 01-23-2012 4:16 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by bluegenes, posted 01-23-2012 6:47 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020