Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
48 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK, ringo (5 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,437 Year: 9,185/23,288 Month: 200/1,544 Week: 475/518 Day: 55/88 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To Good to be True? Intelligently Designed?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 31 of 49 (456613)
02-19-2008 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 1:00 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
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.

You say I was sneeringly skeptical of your charge. Maybe, I can't see why a character attack was necessary.

"Oh Behe lied." Well, if he lied then there is no need to look into anything he wrote. That's an ad hominem attack which could indicate a weakness in your counter research.

I don't think the man lied. I have heard him speak and questioned him about criticisms of his work. He doesn't come off to me as being morally weak so as to lie to advance his thesis in that way.

You say the book isn't corrected. Well, I understand that he has a website where he answers his critics various charges. Perhaps you could check there to see if there is any adjustment.

I've made corrections to many wrong ideas on this Forum. What was written stays up there. I don't think people always acknowledge that a correction has been made.

Are you also the one who wants to use the term "fundies"? I usually regard that as a kind of derogatory slur on evangelical Christians. You talk about sneering? You talk about attitude?

Anyway, the flood of molecular evolutionary papers after Behe's statement helps clarify the issues. So he did a service to science. What happen to "That's the way science works?"

If he provoked many thoughtful papers on the matter than he gave the scientific community a kick in the pants. Did he say that no papers SHOULD be written? Of course not. He stated that he knew of none.

Anyway, I don't throw out ID as nonsense.

It does seem that when things in the Bible Study section get a little quiet with no "Fundies" there to debate, the moderation gets a little more less restrictive to allow other topics to overflow into Bible Study.

I think this Discussion should be placed in one of the other areas. If I do bring in what the Bible says and what I think it means, related to this topic, I fear that you would protest. But I'd be at home in Bible Study and you'd be wondering away from where you really should be debating about Dr. Behe's alledged moral lapses as a professional scientist.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 1:00 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 7:32 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 49 (456615)
02-19-2008 5:16 AM


For anyone interested in reading more about Michael Behe's responses to his critics, here is an interesting website responseding to some criticisms of his ideas.


http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm

I have read some of both Internet articles written to refute his book and some of his respones.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 33 of 49 (456621)
02-19-2008 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jaywill
02-19-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
Sorry to butt in, but...

You say I was sneeringly skeptical of your charge. Maybe, I can't see why a character attack was necessary.

An observation of tone (albeit a cyber one) is not a character attack.

"Oh Behe lied." Well, if he lied then there is no need to look into anything he wrote. That's an ad hominem attack which could indicate a weakness in your counter research.

Seriously, you need to look up what an ad hominem attack is. Stating that Behe lied is not an example of an ad hominem. It is just stating the facts.

Upon hearing that someone lied, my first step would be to "look into anything he wrote" and then into the counter claims. Which is what Rrhain indicated you should do (or have done before regurgitating his claims).

I don't think the man lied. I have heard him speak and questioned him about criticisms of his work. He doesn't come off to me as being morally weak so as to lie to advance his thesis in that way.

So do pro hominem arguments work now? I thought they were just the logical inverse of ad hominem arguments and thus equally invalid (kinda like Bush's assessment of Putin by "looking into his eyes" bullshit).

You say the book isn't corrected. Well, I understand that he has a website where he answers his critics various charges. Perhaps you could check there to see if there is any adjustment.

I can't answer this without the book in front of me, but don't you think that, even if he had, that it's kinda like the "corrections" insert on the back of the front page of newspapers. Who reads that? The science to refute him had been done before publication and more has been done after publication. He shouldn't have stated his IR hypothesis in a pop-sci book in the first place without doing the research. But he did because by getting the idea into the popular consciousness then he could get laymen to make his arguments for him and he would not even have to bother doing the actual science to show evidence for his claims. He could just claim it.

Are you also the one who wants to use the term "fundies"? I usually regard that as a kind of derogatory slur on evangelical Christians. You talk about sneering? You talk about attitude?

Actually, it is a pet term for "fundamentalist" Christians. Hence, the whole "fundie" abbreviation.

If I wasn't a better person, I would say "tit for tat." If I wasn't a better person I might bring up all of the sordid history and all of the sordid present of the fundamentalist Christians (of all denominations) and say you reap what you sow. If I wasn't a better person I might call you on your ridiculous self-martyrdom and laugh until my head fell off.

Hmmm...I might get used to this whole self-contradiction thing. Maybe I'll become a fundie.

Anyway, the flood of molecular evolutionary papers after Behe's statement helps clarify the issues. So he did a service to science. What happen to "That's the way science works?"

Well, I guess if you want to attribute the "explosion" to Behe's book, then you might have a point. But you would first have to show that the "explosion" of articles on molecular evolution had anything to do with the publication of his book. Be sure to use controls like the recent expansion of knowledge based on genetic research and all of the other scientific blah blah blah. It very well could be that Behe and his book caused all of the scientists to scramble, but you will have to show us the evidence for that.

If he provoked many thoughtful papers on the matter than he gave the scientific community a kick in the pants. Did he say that no papers SHOULD be written? Of course not. He stated that he knew of none.

But at the time of publication there were more than 800! Surely a good scientist would want to research his claims and verify them before writing a book about them? Surely a good scientist would want to preclude some of his statements by stating "research into this particular area is quite new" if it indeed was so uncovered by the literature (and, by comparison, it was, but he, IIRC, didn't make any such tentative statements in his book). Surely, a good Christian (or any ol' regular person) reading his book would ask of him these very simple pre-requisites before believing everything he says? Oh...I guess that was the point.

Anyway, I don't throw out ID as nonsense.

Was that even a question?

It does seem that when things in the Bible Study section get a little quiet with no "Fundies" there to debate, the moderation gets a little more less restrictive to allow other topics to overflow into Bible Study.

Or maybe the OP had something to do with the Bible and we got a little sidetracked (my apologies to the mods for my own participation).

I think this Discussion should be placed in one of the other areas. If I do bring in what the Bible says and what I think it means, related to this topic, I fear that you would protest. But I'd be at home in Bible Study and you'd be wondering away from where you really should be debating about Dr. Behe's alledged moral lapses as a professional scientist.

Huh?


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jaywill, posted 02-19-2008 5:04 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 34 of 49 (456635)
02-19-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 1:00 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
Rrhain,

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

That is the significance of the verticle columns.

Is an additional point here that not many articles about Irredcuble Complexity were written in those same specific journals?

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

Am I supposed to be impressed that mainstream science journals ignored or had few contributions on Intelligent Design?

I mean are you saying "See? All the articles were on Darwinism and practically none were on ID" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 1:00 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 10:22 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
TheTruth
Member (Idle past 4410 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 35 of 49 (456638)
02-19-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Raphael
02-15-2008 6:20 PM


Re: Literature need not be a matter of Faith
hehe yes I am quite new and an advantagous creationist. I would love to chat sometime though you must remember I am just turning 16 so not the most knowing of some subjects. Thank you for the warm welcome not all were as kind to accept me to the forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Raphael, posted 02-15-2008 6:20 PM Raphael has not yet responded

  
TheTruth
Member (Idle past 4410 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 36 of 49 (456640)
02-19-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
02-17-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
I don't mean to be rude I was just trying to understand you said
______________________________________________________________________
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 02-17-2008 11:01 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 10:29 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 37 of 49 (456759)
02-19-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jaywill
02-19-2008 10:17 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jaywill, posted 02-19-2008 10:17 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 38 of 49 (456760)
02-19-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by TheTruth
02-19-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TheTruth, posted 02-19-2008 11:05 AM TheTruth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jaywill, posted 06-20-2008 7:25 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Albion72
Junior Member (Idle past 4319 days)
Posts: 1
From: Peublo, Colorado, United States of America
Joined: 06-07-2008


Message 39 of 49 (469761)
06-07-2008 11:17 AM


Hmmmmm.

I think that all the stories are true, but maybe a little drama/exaggeration thrown in. Look at anything written today, almost everything is exaggerated. (Someone falls down while running away from a killer, their car won't start when they need it most, etc etc).


  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 40 of 49 (472061)
06-20-2008 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 10:29 PM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
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

Is it unfair of me to say, what I see you have presented is an example of evolution on a micro level, accompanied by a promise that one day we will see it on a macro level? That is if there is sufficient funding, time, grant money availiable.

Is it fair to say that you have presented evidence for micro evolution with a promise of evidence for lab induced macro evolution to come?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 10:29 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2008 8:00 AM jaywill has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 49 (472067)
06-20-2008 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by jaywill
06-20-2008 7:25 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
... accompanied by a promise that one day we will see it on a macro level?

Define what you think macro is, and we can discuss that.

There are a number of threads for JUST THIS TOPIC. Strangely no creationist seems to be able to define what they mean by macro.

see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? - MACROevolution vs MICROevolution
or "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? - "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
or Dogs will be Dogs wil be ??? - Dogs will be Dogs wil be ???
or Evolution and Increased Diversity - evolution and increased diversity
or Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity - Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jaywill, posted 06-20-2008 7:25 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2008 11:18 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 06-27-2008 2:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 49 (472093)
06-20-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
06-20-2008 8:00 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
RAZD writes:

... accompanied by a promise that one day we will see it on a macro level?

Define what you think macro is, and we can discuss that.

I am still waiting for someone to provide us with a mechanism that forces microevolution to suddenly stop before it becomes macroevolution.

The only think I have had presented is the concept of "kinds" whereby organisms somehow just know that they can't micro any further lest they macro.

Not exactly the most comprehensive scientific explanation I've ever heard...

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2008 8:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 487 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 49 (473179)
06-27-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
06-20-2008 8:00 AM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
I don't think you answered the question. You shot back another to me.

I'll ask it another way then. This is what you wrote:

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

So is this evidence of evolution MINUS speciation produced in a lab with the promise that in the future with bigger experiements, more sophisticated equipment and sufficient time and grant money, evolution with speciation will be demonstrated?

Is that a fair understanding of your confident statement?

Does this mean that evolution with speciation has not yet been demonstrated in the lab but only theorized so far?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2008 8:00 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2008 7:57 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 49 (473229)
06-27-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
06-27-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Put it in a way that fundies understand
??

This is what you wrote:
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

Not that I am aware of. I do know that speciation has been observed however, both in the lab and in the wild, so your

So is this evidence of evolution MINUS speciation produced in a lab

is pointless.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : /

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 06-27-2008 2:12 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Station
Member (Idle past 4298 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 45 of 49 (473243)
06-27-2008 9:50 PM


Oh my.

This very boring story is worse than something out of a bad soap opera and you guys are still worried about it how many years after? I really dont care.

Wont even evolve in topic :P

Edited by Station, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Edited by Station, : you can respond now

Edited by Station, : No reason given.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020