Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
44 online now:
nwr (1 member, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,525 Year: 1,171/14,102 Month: 163/411 Week: 59/125 Day: 27/32 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 204 (448369)
01-13-2008 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:37 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:

quote:
Michael Behe for example that have no religious affiliations

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

Have you not read Behe's "extracurricular" writings?

He's a staunch religionist. He's one of the big players for the Discovery Institute and ARN. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (part of the DI)

As he wrote in "The God of Science: The Case for Intelligent Design":

evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God

As he said at a lecture sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ, Chi Alpha, and the Dallas Christian Leadership:

I certainly do think that the designer in all likelihood is God

To claim that Behe has no religious affiliation is to show that one hasn't done any research into his background at all. Oh, Behe is careful in his very public statements, but that isn't all he says.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:37 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 8:54 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 204 (448482)
01-13-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
01-13-2008 8:54 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta responds to me:

quote:
He has an affiliation to a religious institution

No, it goes much deeper than that. Yes, he is a Roman Catholic, but that isn't what I mean when I said that he is a stanch religionist. What I meant was that he is a board member of a group that specifically wishes to insert religion into society in general and science in particular. If that isn't an example of someone with a religious agenda, what is?

quote:
If you count him as a staunch religionist then we'll have to throw in Richard Dawkins and all the atheists who believe by faith that there is no creator God.

Except atheism is the absence of faith.

quote:
So maybe the entire argument is religious on both sides

Except one side doesn't know what "religion" is. Science is an observational method and has no understanding of what "faith" is. Science doesn't preclude the existence of god. It simply ignores it just as it ignores you. That doesn't mean you don't exist. It's just that science studies what happens despite you, not because of you.

quote:
God or no God -that is the question?

Not to science. Science doesn't care about god.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 8:54 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 6:08 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 204 (448762)
01-15-2008 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by sidelined
01-14-2008 2:24 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
sidelined writes:

quote:
Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying that bald is a hair color.

The best phrasing I have heard is:

Atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 2:24 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 138 of 204 (449209)
01-17-2008 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:31 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:

quote:
Class should go something like this:

Evolutionists believe that everything can and must be explained in purely material terms


But that isn't true.

Why do you want to lie to our children?

quote:
Since neither historical worldview can be categorically proven

But that isn't true.

Why do you want to lie to our children?

quote:
Where's the threat?

It's in the lie that there is a controversy when there isn't.

Here's a thought: Every year, we do a survey of the various biological journals of the past 10 years with regard to the articles published regarding the diversification of life on this planet.

However the percentages break down, that's how much time we'll spend on that particular topic. So if 70% of the articles are in support of evolution and 30% are in support of ID, then we'll spend 70% of our time discussing the diversification of life on evolution and 30% of it on ID.

Would that be fair? Would that accurately reflect the state of the science and ensure that nothing but science ends up in science class?

Or are you about to say that the journals are biased?

quote:
What is your simplified version?

That evolution is not "pure accident." You seem to forget that selection is decidedly non-random.

quote:
Did we come from the minerals in the rocks, or did we come from chemicals

Excuse me? I thought we were talking about evolution. You've wandered off into the topic of origins. Evolution has nothing to say about origins and is compatible with every single method of genesis you care to name. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing life into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method you could possibly imagine.

So long as that life did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

Is god incapable of making life that evolves?

So it seems that you don't know what evolution is. You have completely ignored selection and you think it has something to do with origins. Couple that with your insistence that we lie to our children, and you wonder why people are having a hard time accepting your insistence that there is a controversy.

quote:
Evidence, what evidence???

The evidence at your local natural history museum. You have actually gone to your local natural history museum and asked to look at their research collection, yes?

The evidence in the petri dishes and test tubes in the biology labs. You have actually gone into a biology lab and spent a few years of your life doing the experiments, yes?

The evidence in the field. You have actually gone out into the field and spent a few years of your life digging for fossils or tracking genetic profiles of populations across generations, yes?

If you haven't, if you aren't aware of the results of those who have, how can you claim there is no evidence?

Serious question. I really do want an answer to these two questions:

When was the last time you were in a science library reading biology journals?

When was the last time you were in a laboratory doing experiments in biology?

If you can't quite recall, what makes you think you are in a position to say what evidence exists?

Once again, here's a thought: Every year, we do a survey of the various biological journals of the past 10 years with regard to the articles published regarding the diversification of life on this planet.

However the percentages break down, that's how much time we'll spend on that particular topic. So if 70% of the articles are in support of evolution and 30% are in support of ID, then we'll spend 70% of our time discussing the diversification of life on evolution and 30% of it on ID.

Would that be fair? Would that accurately reflect the state of the science and ensure that nothing but science ends up in science class?

Or are you about to say that the journals are biased?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 140 of 204 (449213)
01-17-2008 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:58 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
Beretta writes:

quote:
How would we eat them if they were fashioned from entirely different materials?

Through the process of digestion. That's the entire point. What you eat gets broken down and then converted into new material that has nothing to do with what you ate.

quote:
How would we digest them?

The same way we currently digest all food: Physically and chemically.

One of the problems of human digestion is that we can't digest cellulose. We don't have anything that can break it down. And yet, we eat cellulose all the time. We get past it by the physical act of chewing in the mouth and the physical grinding of the food in the stomach and intestines. It breaks the walls so that we can get at the bits inside.

When you eat the muscle of another animal, it isn't like it goes straight to your muscle to be patched in. No, it gets broken down chemically into constituent parts and then reassembled into human muscle.

So there is no reason why a creator would create everything to share the exact same DNA. In fact, given the sheer diversity of things, a designer would be foolish to try and use the same process for everything.

F'rinstance, humans have a broken vitamin C process. In the other mammals, vitamin C can by synthesized within the body. There's a multi-step process to synthesize your own vitamin C from glucose so you don't need to eat fruits for it.

Except in humans and the other primates, we have a broken gene in step 4, GLO. Because of this broken gene, we cannot synthesize vitamin C and must consume it in the food we eat. The first three steps of the process are still present in humans and other primates and the first three steps in the process to create vitamin C takes place, but because the fourth gene product in the process doesn't express correctly, no human can synthesize his own vitamin C.

Now, here's an interesting point: Guinea pigs also have a broken vitamin C synthesis pathway, but their pathway is broken in a different way.

Why would a creator make life that can synthesize its own vitamin C but withhold it from another form of life? And why would a creator withhold that ability in two completely different ways?

Since a creator is free to do whatever on earth it wants to do, the fact that the biological scenarios we actually see exist as they do is of no help in deciding if a creator was involved. Because "god did it" explains everything, it actually explains nothing.

But the exact opposite is true with regard to evolution. With evolution we expect to see that life is interconnected with one-off deviations scattered everywhere. It would be an amazing disproof of evolution if we saw that all organisms were genetically distinct with no connection at all among them.

That's the difference between the science of evolution and the religion of ID. With science, there are wrong answers: If you see X, then that means you've disproven your theory because it should have been Y. With ID, there is no such thing as a wrong answer: If you see X, then that's just the way god did it and there's no particular reason why it couldn't be Y...it just isn't.

quote:
God makes carbon based life using 20 different amino-acids in various combinations in the various proteins.

Indeed, but humans only need 9. We can synthesize the rest of them on our own. F'rinstance, you don't need to consume taurine. You can synthesize it from phenylalanine. So why would it matter if each type of life were unique to every other form of life? Just synthesize what you need from whatever it is that you eat...there's no reason for it to be anything like you at all.

And by the way: Dogs can also synthesize taurine but cats can't. Why would a creator decide that one species can synthesize the amino acids it needs while another species can't?

We do not assume a common ancestor. We conclude it. It is the only explanation. "God did it" is not an explanation because it doesn't actually explain anything.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:58 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 141 of 204 (449214)
01-17-2008 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Beretta
01-17-2008 6:08 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta responds to me:

quote:
Atheists have plenty of faith.

No, they don't. That's the entire point behind atheism: To have no faith.

Are you about to tell atheists they don't understand their own philosophy? That they're lying to themselves? That they're simply being spiteful and willful?

quote:
It's called 'religion'.

And that's what atheists don't have.

Atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

quote:
God doesn't care what atheists believe, He just knows that they are running from him and can do that only up to a point - the point of total regret.

BZZZZT!

Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, Beretta. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!

Well, Bob, Beretta has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, Beretta gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.

But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat.

You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 6:08 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 142 of 204 (449215)
01-17-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Beretta
01-17-2008 5:42 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:

quote:
technological advances continue in the absence of evolutionary assumptions.

Not any more they don't. It's how manufacturing gets done.

The Boeing 777 wasn't designed. It was evolved. No human knows exactly how the thing was made. The computer used evolutionary algorithms to come up with the plans. Modern industrial design is all about evolution.

quote:
Only natural selection and variability have anything to do with science.

And that's evolution. So what are you complaining about?

quote:
Origins philosophies...

...have nothing to do with evolution, so why are you bringing them 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 5:42 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 161 of 204 (449500)
01-18-2008 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Beretta
01-18-2008 5:40 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Beretta writes:

quote:
Actually Darwinism is what really belongs to the dark ages -it's old, it's tired and it does not line up with reality.New paradigm coming up -you are going to have to throw off the 150 year-old shackles or be left behind.

You've been saying that for the past 150 years and you have yet to come up with this "new paradigm." Where is it? Where's the evidence?

Again, let's try it this way: Every year, we'll do a survey of the biological journals to see how many articles are written in support of evolution and how many are written in support of ID. We'll split our teaching time between the two so that if 70% support evolution and 30% ID, then we'll spend 70% of our time on evolution when discussing the diversification of life and the other 30% on ID.

Is that good? Would that be "fair"? Would that "acknowledge the controversy"?

So where are the journal articles supporting ID? We can't find any.

Are you about to say that the peer review process is biased? But you just said that the "new paradigm is coming up," so that must mean you actually have the evidence and that it has made it past peer review. It can't be both.

Where is it? Where is your evidence? We've been waiting for over 150 years. When are you going to show it?

It's time to put up or shut 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Beretta, posted 01-18-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 173 of 204 (449967)
01-20-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
01-19-2008 11:28 AM


Re: More Palm the Pea con games.
jar writes:

quote:
That quote is simply another example of the dishonesty of Biblical Creationists. The folk that pulled that quote out of context had access obviously to ALL that Gould said, yet they pulled that one piece out of context to try to con gullible folk like you.

Don't forget: Here is Gould's statement from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes to those who misquote him:

We [Gould and Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible."

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Panda's Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

Quote mining is nothing new for creationists.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 01-19-2008 11:28 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 174 of 204 (449971)
01-20-2008 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Beretta
01-20-2008 1:13 AM


Re: More Palm the Pea con games.
Beretta writes:

quote:
So by inference anyone that believes in the God of the Bible and dares to admit is, is unscientific.

Close, but not quite. Instead, anyone who uses beliefs to justify their analysis rather than evidence is unscientific.

Science involves what is seen despite your beliefs, not because of them.

quote:
What do you believe?

It doesn't matter. Science works despite your beliefs, not because of them.

quote:
So Gould lays out the problem which is real and then proceeds to come up with an imaginative solution or two and that makes the problem disappear?

And what did he say afterwards? You quoted a single sentence. Gould did not speak in single sentences.

Hint: The quote you mined is from a larger discussion that actually denies the attempt to come up with "imaginative" things.

quote:
There we go, the 'imagine' word again. Well imagine away but don't accuse creationists of being inventive and going beyond the bounds of what is scientific.

Here's a thought: Let's "imagine" you provide full quotes in complete context.

Quick: What was the source of the two sentences you quote-mined?

Here's the sentence that comes directly after the second sentence you quote-mined:

Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes.

Hmmm...sounds like Gould is tearing down the idea that it is just an "imaginative solution." It is, he directly states, not enough. There are too many other factors involved.

quote:
show people how to think critically rather than be told that evolution (macro) happened, it's a FACT, you HAVE to believe us even though we've never seen it happen.

Except that we have. Why do you want us to lie to people?

quote:
Neither can be proven

Except evolution has. That's why we have a theory of it. That's the entire point behind theories: They explain facts. You cannot have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/B] evolution until you have observed evolution upon which to base the theory.

Since you are so fond of Gould, you should know about the essay he wrote, Evolution as Fact and Theory.

quote:
don't force feed either as truth.

But one is. In fact, you can demonstrate one right in front of your eyes in a simple way that can be done in a typical high school biology lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.

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 should 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.

So since we can see the fact of evolution happen right in front of our eyes, why on earth would you want us to lie about it?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Beretta, posted 01-20-2008 1:13 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Beretta, posted 01-26-2008 7:13 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 198 of 204 (451878)
01-29-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Beretta
01-26-2008 7:13 AM


Re: More Palm the Pea con games.
Beretta responds to me:

quote:
And what do we have here? Bacteria mutated into bacteria with a mutation.

What were you expecting? An ostrich? If we were to get an ostrich out of a petri dish of bacteria reproducing for a week, then that would completely destroy evolutionary theory as we understand it.

You're changing the goalposts. This is a typical creationist tactic. Insist that X has never been seen and when shown that X is seen (and quite often, at that), insist that it isn't an example of Y and hope to high heaven that nobody notices that you didn't ask for Y in the first place.

Of course it's still a dish of bacteria. Evolution doesn't claim you'll get an ostrich from bacteria in a week. Anybody who thinks evolution claims you can clearly doesn't understand how evolution works.

But here's the thing: It's a different "kind" of bacteria. According to creationism, you cannot get a new "kind." But we just did.

Now, are you asking for evolution beyond a new kind? We've got that, too. It'll take a bit longer and requires more equipment. You will remember the constraints on the lab experiment I mentioned at the beginning of the description: It's cheap and easy and can be done by the typical high school student. If you want to see speciation, then you're going to need more time, more equipment, and understanding of biological processes at the college level if not beyond. But we've seen those, too:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Ishikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]

Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]

Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]

Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Tamer AU, Aragno M, Sahin N.
Isolation and characterization of a new type of aerobic, oxalic acid utilizing bacteria, and proposal of Oxalicibacterium flavum gen. nov., sp. nov.
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2002 Dec;25(4):513-9.
PMID: 12583711 [PubMed - in process]

Garner MR, Flint JF, Russell JB.
Allisonella histaminiformans gen. nov., sp. nov. A novel bacterium that produces histamine, utilizes histidine as its sole energy source, and could play a role in bovine and equine laminitis.
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2002 Dec;25(4):498-506.
PMID: 12583709 [PubMed - in process]

Ping W, Zhou D, Sun J, Fan C, Ding Y.
[A new genus of oral bacteria in human]
Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao. 1998 Apr;38(2):146-51. Chinese.
PMID: 12549377 [PubMed - in process]

Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Steyn PL, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Sandra P, Kersters K, Joubert JJ.
Classification of heparinolytic bacteria into a new genus, Pedobacter, comprising four species: Pedobacter heparinus comb. nov., Pedobacter piscium comb. nov., Pedobacter africanus sp. nov. and Pedobacter saltans sp. nov. proposal of the family Sphingobacteriaceae fam. nov.
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998 Jan;48 Pt 1:165-77.
PMID: 9542086 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

You will notice that we have gone well beyond mere speciation. We have new genera, new families.

Have you heard of a "ring species"? It's the most intriguing thing that shows you exactly how evolution works writ large. It's when you have a species that is distributed geographically over a large area but where the ends meet, like a ring. From the starting point of the ring heading in one direction, adjacent species can interbreed. However, when you complete the ring and return to your starting point, you can no longer interbreed with your original group.

There is a gull ring species running around the Arctic circle. The two ends of the ring are in England. But if you head West, the gull genus of Larus has species that can interbreed with the next population heading West. But when you make your circle back around to England, you find that L. argentatus and L. fuscus cannot interbreed.

Speciation right before your eyes.

quote:
That's called variation.

No, that's called "evolution." Variation is part and parcel of evolution. The very fact that no organism ever reproduces perfectly every single time means that evolution necessarily has to happen. If you allow variation, you cannot help but have all the rest of evolution coming along for the ride.

quote:
it is micro-evolution and it does not imply that macro-evolution is possible.

There is no difference between the two. "Macroevolution" is nothing more than a whole bunch of "microevolution." If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore? What stops it?

quote:
Science tells us bacteria can mutate within a range -full stop.

Incorrect. Science tells us bacteria can mutate as much as you like, to the point where you don't know what it is anymore and you have to classify it in a new taxon. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you want us to lie about that?

quote:
Believing that bacteria could mutate into something other than bacteria would be philosophy not science.

Even if we've seen it happen?

Why would you want us to lie?

Serious question. If you respond to anything in this post, I would request that this be the first thing you respond to:

When was the last time you were in a science library, reading biology journals?

If you haven't done the research, if you haven't paid attention, if you haven't done the work required to keep up on the state of the science, what makes you think you have any ability to say what the state of the science is?

Behe had this problem in his book, Darwin's Black Box. He insisted that nobody had ever done any work on the molecular evolution of the blood clot cascade, for example.

The problem is that there were literally dozens of papers on the molecular evolution of the blood clot cascade. He simply didn't bother to look them up. A simple PubMed search would have turned them up in less than a minute. But Behe didn't do that search. He simply declared that it had never been studied and since he couldn't figure out how the blood clot cascade could have evolved, that meant that it was impossible for it to have evolved.

It never occurred to him that his inability to figure it out simply meant he wasn't clever enough to figure it out and that perhaps he should have done the work to find out if someone else had figured it out.

Since we have seen, right before our very eyes, the very things you say have never been seen, why do you want us to lie about it?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Beretta, posted 01-26-2008 7:13 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 199 of 204 (451886)
01-29-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
01-27-2008 3:39 PM


Re: Science is not Truth????
Buzsaw writes:

quote:
We all know that ID and creationism science related papers rarely if ever get into quality peer-reviewed journals.

Are you saying there's a conspiracy? You do know that if you were to overturn the dominant paradigm of all biology, we'd be talking Nobel Prize-winning stuff, the world would beat a path to your door, and every journal in the world would be begging you to let them publish it. Every university and laboratory in the world would be clamoring to get you to join their staff and you could write your ticket for the rest of your life.

What on earth would stop someone from publishing such important work?

quote:
Imo, my unique Buzsaw hypotheses on origins relative to the Genesis record and scientific laws as I have put forth over the years works to correct some ot the misconceptions of conventional YEC creationists.

Then what on earth are you doing holding back? I'm reminded of one of my math profs back as an undergrad. He refused to publish. One of the most brilliant minds in math, but he didn't want to publish. He had the papers and if you were to come to him for assistance with your project, he'd pull out something from his file cabinet showing that he'd already done what you thought was new work, perhaps you could expand on it...but he'd never publish. People jokingly said they were waiting for him to die so they could get their hands on his filing cabinet.

What are you waiting for, Buz? If you have the evidence that overturns the dominant paradigm of all biology, why are you keeping it a secret? Publish, for crying out loud!

quote:
So far as the science debate forums, go, if your standard for participation is quality scientific journal sanctioned, you essentially disqualify any ID creationist from the science debates.

Ah, you mean there is a conspiracy.

So why does Behe manage to get published? Oh, he never manages to get his "irreducible complexity" past review, but he does manage to get his other molecular biology stuff through. It isn't that he is incapable of the science. It's that he doesn't do it with regard to this one subject. In his book, he made claims that nobody had ever done any study into the molecular evolution pathways for various biological processes.

But it turns out that people had. There were literally dozens of papers on the subject. That is part of the point behind review: To make sure that you have done the appropriate survey of what information currently exists and addressed how your findings fit in with what others have found. For him to say that nobody had ever done any work on the subject when the simplest of PubMed searches would have turned up dozens of papers shows that Behe was exceptionally shoddy in his work.

So help us out, Buzsaw: Why is it those who try to get ID past peer review always seem to fail?

Is it a conspiracy?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2008 3:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 200 of 204 (451887)
01-29-2008 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Beretta
01-27-2008 9:40 AM


Re: Science is not Truth????
Beretta writes:

quote:
I think the biggest problem is the misconceptions that abound about what ID is trying to achieve- they are trying to get a fair hearing and to allow children to hear both sides of the origins debate as well as to explain to them where science and philosophy must be separated.

I've asked this before and I have yet to have anybody answer. How's this for a method:

Every year, we analyze the various biology journals for their articles regarding the diversification of life on this planet. We'll break it down by those articles that advocate evolution and those that advocate ID, creationism, what have you.

Whatever breakdown we find, that's what we'll teach in school. If only 70% of those articles are advocating evolution, then we'll spend only 70% of the time spent on diversification on evolution. The rest will break down to the other proposed mechanisms.

Is that good enough?

Or are you going to say that there is a conspiracy?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Beretta, posted 01-27-2008 9:40 AM Beretta 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 © 2021