Toc - toc...Mmmm, no response..
Jonin
Axe it's literally destroying the remains of ET..
Did you read his most recent work?
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
An extraction from the conslusion:
"..we argue here that the Darwinian explanation also appears to be
inadequate.
Its deficiencies become evident when the focus moves from
similarities to dissimilarities, and in particular to functionally
important dissimilarities—to innovations. The extent to which
Darwinian evolution can explain enzymatic innovation seems,
on careful inspection, to be very limited. Large-scale innovations
that result in new protein folds appear to be well outside
its range. This paper argues that at least some small-scale
innovations may also be beyond its reach. If studies of this
kind continue to imply that this is typical rather than exceptional,
then answers to the most interesting origins questions
will probably remain elusive until the full range of explanatory
alternatives is considered.."
I'm making a prediction (not the ones that ET failed liek "junk DNA"):
there will be no answer even for this latest one.
Maybe not?
Jonin
Sorry, this was meant to be an answer to John Falsename topic
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/638d3f824976ea2d#
I didn't want to "steal" the issue..
ctytor...@yahoo.com
>
> I didn't want to "steal" the issue..
I disagree with you that Axe will destroy ET, but I am really hoping
to stimulate a discussion that doesn't involve debating Geocentrist
trolls. To the credit of ID critics, there have been responses to
Axe's previous work.
ctytor...@yahoo.com
FYI sorry, this is my alternate email, I am "Falsename".
Robert Camp
> Do you know why there aren't answer, Falsename? Because the work of
> Axe it's literally destroying the remains of ET..
Don't be silly. That there were no answers is much more likely to be a
result of the fringe nature of Axe's work. Like any of the more
"respectable" ID scientists, Axe basically does conventional science
and then goes on to draw unconventional inferences.
I haven't read the latest paper, but a look at the abstract suggests
it's much like previous work by him and others (Snoke, Seelke, some of
Behe's stuff, etc.) in that it takes an unanswered question, or an
interpretation of high improbability, and draws from the resulting
incredulity an injudicious inference to intelligent agency. This is
all before you even get into the nuts and bolts of the science, an
answer to which can be found in Art Hunt's review of Axe's work
referenced on another thread.
Axe adds little to the "science" of ID but an opportunity for
proponents to say "See, we really do research!"
RLC
ctytor...@yahoo.com
I'm looking forward to Art Hunt's response to Axe's recent response.
It's strange how it seemingly took him 5-6 years to respond.
Jonin
Obviously I wrote an hyperbolic sentence using the word "destroy" but
looking at the strongness of the topics presented in Axe's
publications it could be an excellent continuation of Behe's work.
Axe's demonstration are clearly, exactly how it's clear Behe's studies
on plasmodium, AIDS and Lenski's coli experiment: too far from
evolution.
Both in vivo and in vitro examples are clearly suggesting that NS and
RM are INCAPABLE to birng what we see.
Just a point though: why when there's a good point against evolution
we should "stimulate discussion" while when we have something maybe
just "considered" good from Sci community we have it carved on rock?
Jonin
You're talking about "unconventional inferences"...Why? Maybe because
you "haven't read the latest paper"..
"interpretation" of high improbability? You better say just the second
part, "high improbability"...There aren't possible alternative
"interpretations" to such data, or you have a one?
Axe talk about nuts and bolts, in the inner level..So I don't
undesrstan why you lift this concept.
And by the way, here's a response to Hunt misconceptions:
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in-jmb/
> Axe adds little to the "science" of ID but an opportunity for
> proponents to say "See, we really do research!"
What Axe did IS science, even if you try to deny it: but it's normal
here..
And by the way, this "research" is proving ET processes at least
inadeguate.
Or you can give a more adeguate one?
What I'd like to see is a crital or technical critic on Axe's work.
Robert Camp
Maybe, but more likely because I have read the abstract and it
confirms the use of rhetorical methods Axe and his ilk have employed
in the past. And your arguments below confirm that you don't
understand why they are invalid.
> "interpretation" of high improbability? You better say just the second
> part, "high improbability"...There aren't possible alternative
> "interpretations" to such data, or you have a one?
There are plenty of ID arguments used to invoke "high improbability"
in which an understanding of probability itself is sorely lacking. One
will not go broke betting that proponents of variations on the
"tornado in a junkyard" canard have little appreciation for the basis
for, and application of, probability calculations.
In any case, the more fundamental mistake here is your presumption
that if no current alternative interpretation has been offered or
discovered, it does not or cannot exist. That's flaw number one. Flaw
number two, and another one that Axe et al make, is that the logical,
and only, alternative to "no explanation for this phenomenon" must be
intelligent agency.
As I said before, much of this kind of "ID science" is simply raw
incredulity. Axe wraps it in jargon, and then ties a bow of
unwarranted inference on top.
> Axe talk about nuts and bolts, in the inner level..So I don't
> undesrstan why you lift this concept.
>
> And by the way, here's a response to Hunt misconceptions:
>
> http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconception...
>
> > Axe adds little to the "science" of ID but an opportunity for
> > proponents to say "See, we really do research!"
>
> What Axe did IS science, even if you try to deny it: but it's normal
> here..
In fact I agreed that it is science in my first paragraph.
> And by the way, this "research" is proving ET processes at least
> inadeguate.
>
> Or you can give a more adeguate one?
Again, you don't seem to understand the fallacies employed in these
arguments, so I'm not surprised that you fall for it when Axe
incorporates them into his "research" (or at least his conclusions).
It would behoove you to examine your own assumptions a bit more
closely.
RLC
ctytor...@yahoo.com
Could you please clear up your last bit of post? I am saying we should
stimulate discussion in light of this, so...?
T Pagano
Easy enough to fix. Prove that the Earth moves at 30 km/sec around
the sun and 400 km/sec around the Milky Way. No one in history has
been able to prove this. Perhaps ctytoriginal can show otherwise.
Doubtful.
ctytor...@yahoo.com
I know trolls when I see one. You have yet to address your paparazzi
on the other threads.
Jonin
Do you think that judging a perr-reviewed publication just reading the
abstract could bring to a serious, scientific critic?
It's disappointing..:(
Seriously, could you please explain to me why Axe's methods are
"rhetorical"? What exactly do you mean? - a suggestion: check them out
before an answer.
Maybe I understand why they are invalid so would you help me to,
please?
>
> > "interpretation" of high improbability? You better say just the second
> > part, "high improbability"...There aren't possible alternative
> > "interpretations" to such data, or you have a one?
>
> There are plenty of ID arguments used to invoke "high improbability"
> in which an understanding of probability itself is sorely lacking. One
> will not go broke betting that proponents of variations on the
> "tornado in a junkyard" canard have little appreciation for the basis
> for, and application of, probability calculations.
"high improbability" is not merely invoked but simply EXIST.
And, BTW, there's not only a statistical point but a simply a
mechanism that just can't work.
What's exactly the lacking in Axe's argument, for you?
>
> In any case, the more fundamental mistake here is your presumption
> that if no current alternative interpretation has been offered or
> discovered, it does not or cannot exist. That's flaw number one. Flaw
> number two, and another one that Axe et al make, is that the logical,
> and only, alternative to "no explanation for this phenomenon" must be
> intelligent agency.
Oh, yes, THIS is dogmatical-rhetoric! Why don't you mention the
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLES, at this point? I'm awainting the classic
sentence "If we're here, and God can't exist, it's because we have
evolved"..
If you can quote the exact sentence in which Axe say what you wrote,
please.. Oh, right, this involve that you read the article, and you
don't seem to want to..
>
> As I said before, much of this kind of "ID science" is simply raw
> incredulity. Axe wraps it in jargon, and then ties a bow of
> unwarranted inference on top.
Ok, your opinion it's clear: if you could go down to a more techincal
field, I'll appreciate.
Sentences doesn't havo too much value, especially the kind (and the
way) that you're presenting them here.
>
> > Axe talk about nuts and bolts, in the inner level..So I don't
> > undesrstan why you lift this concept.
>
> > And by the way, here's a response to Hunt misconceptions:
>
> >http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconception...
>
> > > Axe adds little to the "science" of ID but an opportunity for
> > > proponents to say "See, we really do research!"
>
> > What Axe did IS science, even if you try to deny it: but it's normal
> > here..
>
> In fact I agreed that it is science in my first paragraph.
>
> > And by the way, this "research" is proving ET processes at least
> > inadeguate.
>
> > Or you can give a more adeguate one?
>
> Again, you don't seem to understand the fallacies employed in these
> arguments, so I'm not surprised that you fall for it when Axe
> incorporates them into his "research" (or at least his conclusions).
> It would behoove you to examine your own assumptions a bit more
> closely.
Maybe I don't understand them but nothing is telling me that you do,
so if you could "enlighten" me on..
My assumptions came from years of examination on the issue, so I must
verify them with other opinion, if you are in the correct position to
explain them.
Can i say something? IMHO, you aren't..
Jonin
>
> Could you please clear up your last bit of post? I am saying we should
> stimulate discussion in light of this, so...?
Ok, I agree on stimulating in light of this, sorry.
I wasn't writing against you but more in general terms against who
think to ET as a dogma, againts which one could not rise reasonable
doubt through good and honest science researches.
However, Robert Camp doesn't seem to want to discuss
Robert Camp
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here with the "peer-reviewed," okay?
Bio-Complexity is a vanity journal for ID proponents put out by the
Biologic Institute.
"BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique
goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit
of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation
for life."
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialPolicies#purposeAndScope
I don't know how qualified their kind of peer-review is to evaluate
the science involved in Axe's paper, but it's pretty obvious they're
not going to quibble about the sloppy reasoning involved in his
conjectures and inferences.
> It's disappointing..:(
Life is full of disappointments. I've found that the fewer
metaphysical absolutes you commit yourself to the less likely reality
is to disappoint you.
> Seriously, could you please explain to me why Axe's methods are
> "rhetorical"? What exactly do you mean? - a suggestion: check them out
> before an answer.
>
> Maybe I understand why they are invalid so would you help me to,
> please?
I'll start by cutting and pasting from a previous post,
"In any case, the more fundamental mistake here is your presumption
that if no current alternative interpretation has been offered or
discovered, it does not or cannot exist. That's flaw number one. Flaw
number two, and another one that Axe et al make, is that the logical,
and only, alternative to "no explanation for this phenomenon" must be
intelligent agency."
I'll say again, I'm not critiquing Axe's science. I haven't read the
paper. But the abstract makes clear that his conclusions, tenuous and
full of maybes ("appears," "seems," "at least some," "may be," "if,"
"imply," etc.) are hopeful and searching. Such language is often part
of the standard methodological provisionality of science, but the
problem here is that Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass
of haziness and equivocation. That's what you get when you're making a
gap argument.
In trying to maintain a scientific veneer Axe keeps his last sentence
suitably ambiguous,
"...the most interesting origins questions will probably remain
elusive until the full range of explanatory alternatives is
considered."
But the intent is obvious - to leave open the possibility of inference
to transcendental design. An inference supported, in this case, only
by the willingness of believers to fill an empirical gap ("We're not
sure how this happens...") with an a priori belief ("...so it must be
God").
Conclusions that don't follow from the premises, or in the case of
this abstract's open invitation - inferences that doesn't follow from
the data - are invalid.
> > > "interpretation" of high improbability? You better say just the second
> > > part, "high improbability"...There aren't possible alternative
> > > "interpretations" to such data, or you have a one?
>
> > There are plenty of ID arguments used to invoke "high improbability"
> > in which an understanding of probability itself is sorely lacking. One
> > will not go broke betting that proponents of variations on the
> > "tornado in a junkyard" canard have little appreciation for the basis
> > for, and application of, probability calculations.
>
> "high improbability" is not merely invoked but simply EXIST.
Of course it does. The trick is to understand its applicability given
the context. This is what most ID proponents get wrong.
> And, BTW, there's not only a statistical point but a simply a
> mechanism that just can't work.
Perhaps you can quote from the relevant portion of the paper where Axe
demonstrates that natural mechanisms are incapable of producing the
protein folds he's talking about. All I've seen so far are his fuzzy
suggestions about how limited and improbable such things are. This is
not an argument that the mechanism can't work. It's an argument that
he's incredulous regarding the mechanism, but of course we knew about
his incredulity from the start - that's why he's working at the
Biologic Institute.
> What's exactly the lacking in Axe's argument, for you?
The proper appreciation for context. An example - extraordinarily
improbable events happen *all the time* when considered in isolation
(out of the broader environment which helps to frame the
probability).
> > In any case, the more fundamental mistake here is your presumption
> > that if no current alternative interpretation has been offered or
> > discovered, it does not or cannot exist. That's flaw number one. Flaw
> > number two, and another one that Axe et al make, is that the logical,
> > and only, alternative to "no explanation for this phenomenon" must be
> > intelligent agency.
>
> Oh, yes, THIS is dogmatical-rhetoric! Why don't you mention the
> ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLES, at this point? I'm awainting the classic
> sentence "If we're here, and God can't exist, it's because we have
> evolved"..
If any of that made sense I'd respond. Perhaps if you calmed down?
> If you can quote the exact sentence in which Axe say what you wrote,
> please.. Oh, right, this involve that you read the article, and you
> don't seem to want to..
I never implied Axe said anything at all. I was talking about the
coherence of his reasoning.
> > As I said before, much of this kind of "ID science" is simply raw
> > incredulity. Axe wraps it in jargon, and then ties a bow of
> > unwarranted inference on top.
>
> Ok, your opinion it's clear: if you could go down to a more techincal
> field, I'll appreciate.
>
> Sentences doesn't havo too much value, especially the kind (and the
> way) that you're presenting them here.
Maybe you should leave this kind of accusation to someone more
familiar with English.
RLC
Jonin
"vanity journal for ID proponents"...Ok, this is your opinion on it. I
have an opinion too for www.talkorigins.org but it doesn't matter as
(or more) than your on Bio-Complexity..
>
> "BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique
> goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit
> of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation
> for life."http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialPolicies#...
>
> I don't know how qualified their kind of peer-review is to evaluate
> the science involved in Axe's paper, but it's pretty obvious they're
> not going to quibble about the sloppy reasoning involved in his
> conjectures and inferences.
"I don't know how qualified their kind of peer-review is": Don't
bother of this, just try to give an opinion on the research I pointed
out.
>
> > It's disappointing..:(
>
> Life is full of disappointments. I've found that the fewer
> metaphysical absolutes you commit yourself to the less likely reality
> is to disappoint you.
>
> > Seriously, could you please explain to me why Axe's methods are
> > "rhetorical"? What exactly do you mean? - a suggestion: check them out
> > before an answer.
>
> > Maybe I understand why they are invalid so would you help me to,
> > please?
>
> I'll start by cutting and pasting from a previous post,
>
> "In any case, the more fundamental mistake here is your presumption
> that if no current alternative interpretation has been offered or
> discovered, it does not or cannot exist. That's flaw number one. Flaw
> number two, and another one that Axe et al make, is that the logical,
> and only, alternative to "no explanation for this phenomenon" must be
> intelligent agency."
>
> I'll say again, I'm not critiquing Axe's science. I haven't read the
> paper. But the abstract makes clear that his conclusions, tenuous and
> full of maybes ("appears," "seems," "at least some," "may be," "if,"
> "imply," etc.) are hopeful and searching. Such language is often part
> of the standard methodological provisionality of science, but the
> problem here is that Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass
> of haziness and equivocation. That's what you get when you're making a
> gap argument.
"I haven't read the paper" Oh yeah, this seems clear.
"Such language is often part of the standard methodological
provisionality of science"...So? What's the problem with the same
terms used by Axe?
"huge mass of haziness and equivocation": It's silly how you can say
that if you haven't read the work..
>
> In trying to maintain a scientific veneer Axe keeps his last sentence
> suitably ambiguous,
>
> "...the most interesting origins questions will probably remain
> elusive until the full range of explanatory alternatives is
> considered."
>
> But the intent is obvious - to leave open the possibility of inference
> to transcendental design. An inference supported, in this case, only
> by the willingness of believers to fill an empirical gap ("We're not
> sure how this happens...") with an a priori belief ("...so it must be
> God").
So if ET processes can make you or someone else "sure" of how "this
happens" then can you please explain to me what are those processes?
I can say too that your a priori belief is "..it cannot be God cause
God doesn't exist"..
I'm trying instead to discuss on a more "clever" or "smart" ground:
using researches and concepts that derive from experiments, using
science and not personal opinion like you're doing.
>
> Conclusions that don't follow from the premises, or in the case of
> this abstract's open invitation - inferences that doesn't follow from
> the data - are invalid.
>
> > > > "interpretation" of high improbability? You better say just the second
> > > > part, "high improbability"...There aren't possible alternative
> > > > "interpretations" to such data, or you have a one?
>
> > > There are plenty of ID arguments used to invoke "high improbability"
> > > in which an understanding of probability itself is sorely lacking. One
> > > will not go broke betting that proponents of variations on the
> > > "tornado in a junkyard" canard have little appreciation for the basis
> > > for, and application of, probability calculations.
>
> > "high improbability" is not merely invoked but simply EXIST.
>
> Of course it does. The trick is to understand its applicability given
> the context. This is what most ID proponents get wrong.
Just words: prove how, where and when Axe get wrong on the link I
provided.
>
> > And, BTW, there's not only a statistical point but a simply a
> > mechanism that just can't work.
>
> Perhaps you can quote from the relevant portion of the paper where Axe
> demonstrates that natural mechanisms are incapable of producing the
> protein folds he's talking about. All I've seen so far are his fuzzy
> suggestions about how limited and improbable such things are. This is
> not an argument that the mechanism can't work. It's an argument that
> he's incredulous regarding the mechanism, but of course we knew about
> his incredulity from the start - that's why he's working at the
> Biologic Institute.
":.Although this is not
exceptionally high compared to the extent of change used in
other attempted conversions (see Introduction), it nonetheless
places the Kbl→BioF conversion outside the bounds of what
can be achieved by the Darwinian mechanism.."
"..This places the innovation
well beyond what can be expected within the time that life has
existed on earth, under favorable assumptions. In fact, even the
unrealistically favorable assumption that kbl duplicates carry no
fitness cost leaves the conversion just beyond the limits of
feasibility.."
"..Using appropriate caution, we conclude not that paralogous
evolution absolutely cannot have accomplished a functional
jump like the one examined here, but rather that there is now a
scientific case for doubting this particular jump to be evolutionarily
feasible. At first glance, this claim may seem so modest as to
verge on insignificance. Indeed, it could be interpreted as nothing
more than a curious exception if the standard dogma—that
paralogous evolution readily explains most examples of smallscale
innovation—were well supported by the evidence.."
"..We agree with their rejection of chance, but we argue here
that the Darwinian explanation also appears to be inadequate.
Its deficiencies become evident when the focus moves from
similarities to dissimilarities, and in particular to functionally
important dissimilarities—to innovations. The extent to which
Darwinian evolution can explain enzymatic innovation seems,
on careful inspection, to be very limited. Large-scale innovations
that result in new protein folds appear to be well outside
its range [5]. This paper argues that at least some small-scale
innovations may also be beyond its reach.."
Obvioulsy, I've snipped all the technical stuff..
>
> > What's exactly the lacking in Axe's argument, for you?
>
> The proper appreciation for context. An example - extraordinarily
> improbable events happen *all the time* when considered in isolation
> (out of the broader environment which helps to frame the
> probability).
Examples? Links? Quotation?
BTW, with several degree of improbability less..
I wrote about "the way" just to underline your attitude in replying to
my questions or concepts, surely not for judging the style of your
written english (as you probably noticed, it's not my native
language..If you want we can continue in italian..).
Robert Camp
> On 10 Mag, 17:42, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 4:20 am, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Mag, 15:57, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 1:52 am, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 9 Mag, 03:07, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 8, 1:14 pm, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Did you read his most recent work?
>
> > > > > > >http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
<snip>
> > > Seriously, could you please explain to me why Axe's methods are
> > > "rhetorical"? What exactly do you mean? - a suggestion: check them out
> > > before an answer.
>
> > > Maybe I understand why they are invalid so would you help me to,
> > > please?
>
> > I'll start by cutting and pasting from a previous post,
>
> > "In any case, the more fundamental mistake here is your presumption
> > that if no current alternative interpretation has been offered or
> > discovered, it does not or cannot exist. That's flaw number one. Flaw
> > number two, and another one that Axe et al make, is that the logical,
> > and only, alternative to "no explanation for this phenomenon" must be
> > intelligent agency."
>
> > I'll say again, I'm not critiquing Axe's science. I haven't read the
> > paper. But the abstract makes clear that his conclusions, tenuous and
> > full of maybes ("appears," "seems," "at least some," "may be," "if,"
> > "imply," etc.) are hopeful and searching. Such language is often part
> > of the standard methodological provisionality of science, but the
> > problem here is that Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass
> > of haziness and equivocation. That's what you get when you're making a
> > gap argument.
>
> "I haven't read the paper" Oh yeah, this seems clear.
>
> "Such language is often part of the standard methodological
> provisionality of science"...So? What's the problem with the same
> terms used by Axe?
The fact that you can ask this question when the next part of the
sentence you quote begins with "but the problem here..." suggests that
you are either incapable of reading for comprehension or unwilling to
do so.
> "huge mass of haziness and equivocation": It's silly how you can say
> that if you haven't read the work..
>
>
>
> > In trying to maintain a scientific veneer Axe keeps his last sentence
> > suitably ambiguous,
>
> > "...the most interesting origins questions will probably remain
> > elusive until the full range of explanatory alternatives is
> > considered."
>
> > But the intent is obvious - to leave open the possibility of inference
> > to transcendental design. An inference supported, in this case, only
> > by the willingness of believers to fill an empirical gap ("We're not
> > sure how this happens...") with an a priori belief ("...so it must be
> > God").
>
> So if ET processes can make you or someone else "sure" of how "this
> happens" then can you please explain to me what are those processes?
What are "ET" processes, and what makes you think I said anything
about being sure of how they happen? Please do try to address what I'm
saying without digressing onto irrelevant tangents.
> I can say too that your a priori belief is "..it cannot be God cause
> God doesn't exist"..
You can say that, but it would make no sense at all, either alone or
in the context of this discussion. It also indicates that you need to
improve your understanding of naturalistic methodology and burdens of
proof.
> I'm trying instead to discuss on a more "clever" or "smart" ground:
> using researches and concepts that derive from experiments, using
> science and not personal opinion like you're doing.
The point you continue to miss is that my complaint in this case is
not about Axe's science, it's about the illegitimate inferences he
suggests might be drawn from the science.
<snip>
When I get a chance to read the paper, I'll come back and reply to the
next part of your post. I'll just say for now that you seem to have
missed this import of the following line,
"..Using appropriate caution, we conclude not that paralogous
evolution absolutely cannot have accomplished a functional jump like
the one examined here, but rather that there is now a scientific case
for doubting this particular jump to be evolutionarily feasible."
It would seem even Axe doesn't believe he has done anything but cast a
bit of doubt upon some particular mechanism. This is, again, an
excellent example of my problem with his work. It's not his science,
it's the fact that he finds support in incomplete knowledge of some
structure or function for a rhetorically wild and logically invalid
leap to Intelligent Design. That inference simply doesn't follow from
his own data.
RLC
Jonin
I'm feeeling instead that you are unwilling to answer to my point..
You reply on and on with opinion without having read Axe's work.
Symply you can't tell the point if you don't read the work.
"Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass of haziness and
equivocation"..See? Personal opinion without addressing to specific
concept raised by Axe's work, that's why i didn't reply to the " next
part of the sentence"..
>
>
>
> > "huge mass of haziness and equivocation": It's silly how you can say
> > that if you haven't read the work..
>
> > > In trying to maintain a scientific veneer Axe keeps his last sentence
> > > suitably ambiguous,
>
> > > "...the most interesting origins questions will probably remain
> > > elusive until the full range of explanatory alternatives is
> > > considered."
>
> > > But the intent is obvious - to leave open the possibility of inference
> > > to transcendental design. An inference supported, in this case, only
> > > by the willingness of believers to fill an empirical gap ("We're not
> > > sure how this happens...") with an a priori belief ("...so it must be
> > > God").
>
> > So if ET processes can make you or someone else "sure" of how "this
> > happens" then can you please explain to me what are those processes?
>
> What are "ET" processes, and what makes you think I said anything
> about being sure of how they happen? Please do try to address what I'm
> saying without digressing onto irrelevant tangents.
I hope you learned that in the human existence we're sure only of the
death, so the point you've raised don't add much to the discussion..
We are'nt make a discussion about epistemology or Philosophy.. Let's
talk about the data that come from Axe's study.
>
> > I can say too that your a priori belief is "..it cannot be God cause
> > God doesn't exist"..
>
> You can say that, but it would make no sense at all, either alone or
> in the context of this discussion. It also indicates that you need to
> improve your understanding of naturalistic methodology and burdens of
> proof.
>
> > I'm trying instead to discuss on a more "clever" or "smart" ground:
> > using researches and concepts that derive from experiments, using
> > science and not personal opinion like you're doing.
>
> The point you continue to miss is that my complaint in this case is
> not about Axe's science, it's about the illegitimate inferences he
> suggests might be drawn from the science.
You can't make a clever complaint if you don't read the paper and if
you don't mention specific concept or statement for which you have a
complaint.
>
> <snip>
>
> When I get a chance to read the paper, I'll come back and reply to the
> next part of your post..
Oh, finally...That's a good point!
>
> "..Using appropriate caution, we conclude not that paralogous
> evolution absolutely cannot have accomplished a functional jump like
> the one examined here, but rather that there is now a scientific case
> for doubting this particular jump to be evolutionarily feasible."
>
> It would seem even Axe doesn't believe he has done anything but cast a
> bit of doubt upon some particular mechanism. This is, again, an
> excellent example of my problem with his work. It's not his science,
> it's the fact that he finds support in incomplete knowledge of some
> structure or function for a rhetorically wild and logically invalid
> leap to Intelligent Design. That inference simply doesn't follow from
> his own data.
>
No, tht's not the story.
As you can see from this link..
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
Axe's work want to "..test how well Darwin’s mechanism works on this
more modest scale where things that already work are adjusted to work
differently.." and to "..to identify what ought to be a relatively
easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is.."
What' the point? "..Whether or not a particular conversion ever
occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it
occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the
point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to
be among the most feasible […] and then to assess how feasible this
innovation is.."
So, about the processes, "..we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would
need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or
more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that
we studied..".
So tht'a equal to say that ET can't tell whole story, i.e. it's a
wrong theory based on speculations in the macro world.
And this doesn't came from "incomplete knowledge of some structure or
function", as you've said, but exactly from the opposite..From what a
scientist can do with all his intellectual honesty: experiments,
proofs, real data, not opinion.
Robert Camp
You asked "What's the problem with the same terms used by Axe?" I
answered this question specifically in the rest of the sentence you
quoted. This is no longer a problem of English being your second
language. This is a problem of you not being able to reason or argue
coherently.
> You reply on and on with opinion without having read Axe's work.
>
> Symply you can't tell the point if you don't read the work.
Don't be ridiculous. What do you think abstracts are for? They don't
give you all the details, but they precis the work in the paper.
There's plenty you can tell from an abstract - *especially* the
important points - that's the whole reason for an abstract.
> "Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass of haziness and
> equivocation"..See? Personal opinion without addressing to specific
> concept raised by Axe's work, that's why i didn't reply to the " next
> part of the sentence"..
Of course it's personal opinion. That's what analysis is. The above is
my evaluation of the problem with Axe's reasoning, which is what you
asked for. And it doesn't address the specifics of the work because,
as I've told you at least three times, it's not the specifics that I
have a problem with - it's the illegitimate inferences he draws, or
suggests might be drawn.
Do I have to translate this into Italian for you to understand it?
That's just nonsense. See my comments above.
> > When I get a chance to read the paper, I'll come back and reply to the
> > next part of your post..
>
> Oh, finally...That's a good point!
The point you miss is that the next part of your post dealt with
details of the research, for which any comment would require having
read the paper. The larger and much more important arguments I've been
making deal with the conclusions suggested in the abstract and, one
would suspect, the conclusions or discussion parts of the paper. Those
points, which somehow continue to elude you, do not depend upon having
read the entire paper.
> > "..Using appropriate caution, we conclude not that paralogous
> > evolution absolutely cannot have accomplished a functional jump like
> > the one examined here, but rather that there is now a scientific case
> > for doubting this particular jump to be evolutionarily feasible."
>
> > It would seem even Axe doesn't believe he has done anything but cast a
> > bit of doubt upon some particular mechanism. This is, again, an
> > excellent example of my problem with his work. It's not his science,
> > it's the fact that he finds support in incomplete knowledge of some
> > structure or function for a rhetorically wild and logically invalid
> > leap to Intelligent Design. That inference simply doesn't follow from
> > his own data.
>
> No, tht's not the story.
>
> As you can see from this link..
>
> http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-co...
>
> Axe's work want to "..test how well Darwin’s mechanism works on this
> more modest scale where things that already work are adjusted to work
> differently.." and to "..to identify what ought to be a relatively
> easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is.."
>
> What' the point? "..Whether or not a particular conversion ever
> occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it
> occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the
> point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to
> be among the most feasible […] and then to assess how feasible this
> innovation is.."
>
> So, about the processes, "..we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would
> need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or
> more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that
> we studied..".
>
> So tht'a equal to say that ET can't tell whole story, i.e. it's a
> wrong theory based on speculations in the macro world.
>
> And this doesn't came from "incomplete knowledge of some structure or
> function", as you've said, but exactly from the opposite..From what a
> scientist can do with all his intellectual honesty: experiments,
> proofs, real data, not opinion.
No, you need to read it again, this time without being willing to
suspend critical thinking.
The real data in this case does *not* represent reality. It's Axe's
personal concoction of a function he suggests evolutionary mechanisms
"ought" to be able to perform,
"Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a paralogous
innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it did) is not
the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to identify the kind
of functional innovation that ought to be among the most feasible […]
and then to assess how feasible this innovation is."
Axe is not testing reality here, he is setting up a strawman, then
knocking it down.
I'll say again, just in case you feel compelled to continue your
whining about Axe being a real scientist, that I'm not criticizing the
research itself. Axe may have actually been quite meticulous in his
work. He may, in fact, have actually discovered through his model some
actual inconsistency in evolutionary processes. But he doesn't know
that, I don't know that and you don't know that. All Axe knows is that
his test of a model of a process he thinks evolution *should* be
capable of doesn't turn out the way he thinks it's *supposed to*.
That's a problem with the inferences he draws from the work, not the
work itself. It's wishful thinking.
RLC
Jonin
I well know what's the use of an abstracts but you have always wrote
opinions
about on what Axe's work is based, i.e. on the contents on the paper.
With your phrase "..Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass
of haziness and equivocation.." you're saying that his conclusions
don't come
from his scinetific work but from "haziness" and "equivocation",
adjectives
referred to more than the abstract..
A conclusion come from the core of a study or an experiment, therefore
here
you are making personal assumptions that derive from
your opinion, exclusively expressed having read only the abstract and
the conclusion, but
regarding *all* his work. Simply you can't say that the conclusion
hang on
something or something else because you didn't go deep into his
method.
>
> > "Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass of haziness and
> > equivocation"..See? Personal opinion without addressing to specific
> > concept raised by Axe's work, that's why i didn't reply to the " next
> > part of the sentence"..
>
> Of course it's personal opinion. That's what analysis is. The above is
> my evaluation of the problem with Axe's reasoning, which is what you
> asked for. And it doesn't address the specifics of the work because,
> as I've told you at least three times, it's not the specifics that I
> have a problem with - it's the illegitimate inferences he draws, or
> suggests might be drawn.
>
> Do I have to translate this into Italian for you to understand it?
In almost 12 years of internet, writing in english on several forums,
this is the first time that
I receive a language discrimination comment like this one.
Obviously it doesn't bother me at all, but may be revealing on how you
are the one that
perhaps need to calm down (and to respect a little more the peoples
who
don't have your same mother language).
Do you want to translate in italian? I didn't know that you were a
humorist...If you dare,
go ahead...We can carry on the topic in italian, if you prefer, so
maybe you will understand
how funny is to write about subjects like this one in a second
language...
My point is: But HOW the hellicopter you can say that the inferences
are illegitimate if you don't
know how he drawn those conclusions????
From the abstract? You can judge only the abstract having read the
abstract! Got it?
If you want to judge the whole point you must read all the stuff and
next address to a
specific fallacy, or wrong method, or whatever.
Your points don't elude me, they simply are worthless to me for the
discussion.
Ok, you don't like the abstract and the conclusion, but, as I've wrote
above, you
should tell us WHY, referring though to the "hard" contents of the
study.
Otherwise, you're not making a sensible, worthwhile and clever
discussion, IMHO.
> work. He may, in fact, have actually discovered through his model some ...
>
> leggi tutto
Axe's work is simply about logic...
Proteins must have evolved from a "simpliest" protein, only speaking
in terms
of residues quantity, to a "bigger" one, right?
His work try to identify the simpliest "step" that can be taken from a
*working* protein
to another *working* protein (by selecting the most similar enzymes,
BioF and Kbl) and then calculate the lowest number of this necessary
steps: the truth is that just for this simpliest "jump" the chances
are really-really few (using an generous term) and the time of the
life on earth is not enough for such an "enhancement"..
That's all.
Now, If you want to discuss on some point he uses for this assumption,
ok; otherwise, there's no more need for your opionion about the
abstract or the conclusion, since you don't refer to a specific method
or reasoning.
Nevertheless, I appreciated your comments "He may, in fact, have
actually discovered through his model some
actual inconsistency in evolutionary processes" but why did you wrote
"But he doesn't know
that, I don't know that and you don't know that"? I didn't got the
point of this one, really..
Robert Camp
> On 13 Mag, 16:50, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 12:48 am, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Mag, 17:20, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 12, 7:14 am, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 10 Mag, 17:42, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 10, 4:20 am, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 9 Mag, 15:57, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:52 am, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 9 Mag, 03:07, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:14 pm, Jonin <carloalberto.coss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Did you read his most recent work?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
<snip repetition>
> A conclusion come from the core of a study or an experiment, therefore
> here
> you are making personal assumptions that derive from
> your opinion, exclusively expressed having read only the abstract and
> the conclusion, but
> regarding *all* his work. Simply you can't say that the conclusion
> hang on
> something or something else because you didn't go deep into his
> method.
Of course I can. Do you really not understand this?
I don't have to go into his method at all because I don't question it.
I have no complaint about the details of the experiment. My problem is
with the assumptions he makes (i.e., that his model represents
evolutionary processes) and the inferences he draws (that failure of
his model demonstrates a problem with evolutionary processes, and that
there is a dichotomy which leaves ID as the only logical alternative).
His work falls far short of demonstrating any of these things.
> > > "Axe's conclusions hang entirely on this huge mass of haziness and
> > > equivocation"..See? Personal opinion without addressing to specific
> > > concept raised by Axe's work, that's why i didn't reply to the " next
> > > part of the sentence"..
>
> > Of course it's personal opinion. That's what analysis is. The above is
> > my evaluation of the problem with Axe's reasoning, which is what you
> > asked for. And it doesn't address the specifics of the work because,
> > as I've told you at least three times, it's not the specifics that I
> > have a problem with - it's the illegitimate inferences he draws, or
> > suggests might be drawn.
>
> > Do I have to translate this into Italian for you to understand it?
>
> In almost 12 years of internet, writing in english on several forums,
> this is the first time that
> I receive a language discrimination comment like this one.
It's not a language discrimination comment. I respect, and even envy,
your facility with a second language. I would like to be as capable in
another tongue.
It was a comment about your apparent, and ongoing, inability to think
clearly.
> My point is: But HOW the hellicopter you can say that the inferences
> are illegitimate if you don't
> know how he drawn those conclusions????
>
> From the abstract? You can judge only the abstract having read the
> abstract! Got it?
>
> If you want to judge the whole point you must read all the stuff and
> next address to a
> specific fallacy, or wrong method, or whatever.
Okay, I'm starting to think your ignorance is willful at this point.
Your only argument seems to be "Well, if you haven't read everything
in the paper, you can't say anything about the paper." That's just
nonsense. If you've never skipped the Materials and Methods section of
a scientific paper you clearly haven't read very many papers.
In any case, I'll be happy to point out some of the fallacies
therein.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1
In the introduction Axe offers up some gap-based dubiety,
"However, whether the standard neo-Darwinian model adequately explains
enzymatic innovation on either scale remains an open question, as does
its adequacy for explaining innovation generally [2–4]."
But of course inferences to "Intelligent Design" do not follow from
"open questions."
Just a bit later in that same section he offer us this
misunderstanding of burdens of proof,
"Either way, the underlying assumption is that the structural
requirements for small-scale innovation are not prohibitively
stringent."
But of course that's the underlying assumption, because we have lots
of examples of protein species, observations of their similarity, and
a hierarchical theory that explains their origins and development such
that there is no earthly reason to assume any "prohibitively
stringent" requirements. In addition, we have exactly *zero* evidence
for any other explanation. Yet Axe somehow still seems to think the
relative volume of evidence for either a biological or ID explanation
is equivalent enough that he's willing to suggest there is hasty
presumption going on. This is an example of Axe's a priori beliefs
distorting his ability to reason.
Next, we have a nice example of a mistake so many of the more
scientifically adept creationists are prone to. When considering test
results of their model that seem to indicate a problem with the
current consensus it never occurs to them to question the accuracy of
their model.
"It is further assumed that these beneficial functions, which may
initially be performed quite poorly, readily evolve to become the
highly efficient functions we associate with natural enzymes.
These ideas have motivated a great many experimental projects aimed at
harnessing the supposed power of mutation and selection. The results,
however, have generally fallen well short of what might have been
expected."
Though Axe is speaking here of models proposed and tested by others
the implications he draws are clearly different from those of other,
shall we say less partisan, scientists. However this is not to say
that Axe is incapable of understanding the issue of model
applicability. In fact he makes clear one of the central problems of
the conclusions he draws from this work when he says,
"A reasonable assumption, consistent with methods used for
reconstructing evolutionary histories, is that enzyme pairs with high
structural similarity should be most amenable to functional
conversion. Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a
paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it
did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to
identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to be among the
most feasible within this superfamily and then to assess how feasible
this innovation is."
The point here, as I said before, is that Axe is not testing
evolutionary processes. He's testing a model of what he thinks
evolutionary processes might look like. And until it can be
demonstrated that his model is entirely representative of reality, the
result can only be considered leading, perhaps suggestive of further
research, but certainly not a reflection of the inadequacy of
evolutionary theory.
In fact Axe actually understands this point. He comments,
"The most obvious explanation for the unexpected difficulty of
functional interconversion is that the degree of structural similarity
that justifies co-classification within a fold family does not justify
the assumption of scaffold equivalence. In other words, many of the
relatively small structural differences that are overlooked for the
purposes of classification may in fact be important for function. If
so, then scaffolds should be thought of not merely as holding active
sites, but rather as providing them with the precise structural
framework that enables them to perform their specific functions. It
follows that scaffolds and active sites must be well-matched in order
to work together, which explains why simply transplanting active-site
residues fails to cause functional conversion, in our study and
elsewhere (e.g., [17])."
This is critical. Axe has just told us what the most obvious
explanation for the failure of his model, and other models, of protein
evolution is. It is that the model does not account for possible
crucial structural parameters. In this one paragraph Axe has given a
clear and succinct refutation of all of the inferences he draws later
in his discussion of the implications of this work, and it is this:
"My model cannot be construed as demonstrating a problem with the
evolution of proteins because it is very likely not an accurate
representation of the relevant processes."
But to his discredit, in the next paragraph he says this,
"The finding that functional conversions within fold families are much
harder to achieve in the laboratory than was expected raises the
question of their evolutionary feasibility."
This contradiction boggles the mind, and makes one sad for a career in
science that need not have been wasted on extended exercises in
confirmation bias. And it helps to put into perspective the "huge mass
of haziness and equivocation" to be found at the end of the
Discussion,
"We agree with their rejection of chance, but we argue here that the
Darwinian explanation also appears to be inadequate. Its deficiencies
become evident when the focus moves from similarities to
dissimilarities, and in particular to functionally important
dissimilarities—to innovations. The extent to which Darwinian
evolution can explain enzymatic innovation seems, on careful
inspection, to be very limited. Large-scale innova- tions that result
in new protein folds appear to be well outside its range [5]. This
paper argues that at least some small-scale innovations may also be
beyond its reach. If studies of this kind continue to imply that this
is typical rather than exceptional, then answers to the most
interesting origins questions will probably remain elusive until the
full range of explanatory alternatives is considered."
Axe's work in this paper doesn't support either the conclusions he
reaches or the inferences he suggests others might take. As I've said
before, the problem is not with his science, it's with his willingness
to find confirmation for his beliefs in unwarranted assumptions,
personal incredulity, false dichotomies and flawed reasoning.
RLC
<snip>