Michael Behe and his detractors
Peter Nyikos
In the wake of some specific statements of mine on "Behe visits Columbia",
Mark Koebbe and Paul Myers have tried to make it look like there
is no essential difference between what I wrote and what they
have said in the past about Behe.
The truth is that a little over a month ago, they were making
a very big deal indeed about the difference between what
they claimed and what Julie suspected Behe to have said. They
bore down hard on Julie, repeatedly claiming that Behe had
said the Journal of Molecular Evolution does not publish papers
on molecular evolution.
Watch in the following long post by Mark J. Koebbe just how hard they
bore down on her. I've added names in brackets throughout; otherwise
the post is exactly as it appeared. I've posted snippets from
it in quite a few posts on "Behe visits Columbia"; now you
can see it in all its nefarious glory.
===================================== begin included post
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Dorit Tries to Critique Behe (was Re: A Rebuttal of Behe)
Date: 4 Jan 1999 18:04:59 -0500
Message-ID: <36914BF8...@pond.com>
References: <3687a...@newsread3.dircon.co.uk> <769hjb$pqq$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu> <368867d7....@news3.enter.net> <76c02r$icb$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <368986fa....@news3.enter.net> <76c6c3$dnh$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <3689a10f....@news3.enter.net> <76c8o4$soh$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu> <368ACC...@softdisk.com> <76f700$r5e$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu> <myers-31129...@chestnut1-11.slip.netaxs.com> <76grc5$4po$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <368DACB5...@pond.com> <myers-02
0199103...@chestnut1-17.slip.netaxs.com> <76qvm4$j9t$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Julie Thomas wrote:
>
> In a previous article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) says:
[Julie:]
> I wrote:
>
> >Concerning the pack's feeding frenzy on Behe's speech,
> >I wrote in reply to Paul:
> >>And BTW, what *is* your point? Are you suggesting
> >>tha because Behe made erroneously claimed there
> >>was no work being published on molecular evolution
> >>in a speech that we can ignore the arguments
> >>he makes in pp. 173-78 of his book? Nice logic.
> >
> >Paul replied:
> >
> >>We have another problem here. You say Behe is making one set
> >>of claims in his book (sorry, but my copy is at work, so I can't
> >>check your specific pages today). You suggest that he does respect
> >>the work of molecular biology right now, and obviously you rely
> >>heavily on that same work for your summaries. However, at the same
> >>time, Behe is flying around the country and giving public lectures
> >>that say something completely different. We have documented the
> >>content of talks at Philadelphia and Allentown here, and Behe told
> >>me himself that he'd given the same talk in Oregon the week before.
[Julie:]
> So I replied:
>
> >Documented? You have quite a lofty view of your subjective
> >impressions. I suppose you think they have been corroborated
> >with standard pack mentality too.
>
> Paul replies:
>
> >This is the strangest thing. We've had four people say that he has
> >said this. I personally heard him, and took notes.
>
[Julie:]
> So what? You forget that I have seen a dozen people on this board,
[Mark:]
She moves the goal posts again.
[Julie:]
> including you, misrepresent my views (and often, sharing in
> the same misrepresentation).
[Mark:]
There was 0 to misinterpret.
[Paul Myers:]
> >Why don't you get it up front and just call us all liars?
[Julie:]
> Why? I don't think you are lying.
[Mark:]
The goal posts move back again.
[Julie:]
I think you misunderstood
> Behe's point because you were too busy filtering his talk.
[Mark:]
Not hard to filter what wasn't there.
[Julie:]
> I suspect also that when people laughed at the big zero, this
> really bothered you and thus your emotional reaction further
> clouded your impressions.
[Mark:]
As opposed to what wasn't there...and Julie's righteous reaction.
[Julie:]
It's not a question of your
> morality. It's a question of psychology.
[Mark:]
Its a question of fact. Or perhaps we should have been 'psychic'.
[Julie:]
I'm sorry
> Paul, but your brief synopsis of Behe's talk seems
> to support this point.
[Mark:]
And the others....watch her move the posts back again.
Forward...backward....wherever she wants.
[Julie:]
> Like I said.
>
> >Okay, let's take a looksie. Me thinks your bogeyman
> >ship just hit an iceberg.
[Myers:]
> >>What he is saying in those lectures is quite explicit. Here in
> >>Philadelphia he showed an overhead of the table of contents of an
> >>issue of JME, and went on at some length about what we ought to be
> >>seeing published in such a journal.
[Julie:]
> >Tsk, tsk. Up to this point, all the pack members have omitted this most
> >crucial qualifier. Pay attention kiddies:
> >
> >" and went on at some length about what we ought to be seeing
> >published in such a journal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Well, well.
> >
> >When he went on at some length about what we ought
> >to be seeing published in JME, explain what he said.
> >What ought we be seeing? His book is explicit and he
> >even suggests how these studies might be titled (p. 176)
[Julie:]
> Paul doesn't tell us what Behe said when he went on at some
> length about what we ought to be seeing published in JME.
[Mark:]
Because he didn't...and I and others concur. Watch the goal posts move
again.
[Julie:]
> This is most crucial, as it seems very important to consider
> the context of any single statement (have not the creationist's
> quotes taught us this?).
[Mark:]
You mean yours? The critical content of your statements are often very
hard to distinguish from a creationist....might have something to do
with no testable hypothesis of IC.
[Julie:]
And if we consider this context, I
> suspect that Behe's talk sounds precisely like a synopsis
> of pp. 173-78 from his book.
[Mark:]
If the book mentioned the 'types' of experiments...he most certainly did
not mention them at the talk. Get back on point, Julie.
[Julie:]
It sounds like he said,
> "we ought to see this, but we don't." Now, people
> can disagree about what we ought to see in JME, but I
> do't think it fair to transform "we ought to see this,
> but we don't" into a charge that Behe is claiming no
> studies are being done on molecular evolution.
[Mark:]
Then the overhead with the 0...sans a detailed explanation...was
entirely unwarranted and most certainly unprofessional.
[Julie, quoting Paul and then herself:]
> Paul:
>
> >>To paraphrase him, he said, 'with a title like the Journal of Molecular
> >Evolution, they ought
> >>to be publishing articles on the evolution of molecules. I've looked
> >>carefully at the last 5 years of this journal.' He then asked the
> >>audience the rhetorical question, 'How many articles on evolution
> >>do you think they've published?' before putting up a cheesy overhead
> >with nothing but the numeral 0 on it, in big, bold print.
> >
>
> Me:
>
> >Interpreted in light of his setting the stage where he
> >went on at some length about what we ought to be seeing
> >published in such a journal," I might have to agree. Things
> >seem very different from the way you originally portrayed them.
>
> Paul:
>
> >Why, no they don't.
[Julie:]
> Yes they do. You originally did not mention that Behe
> " went on at some length about what we ought to be
> seeing published in such a journal." That changes everything.
[Mark:]
Because he didn't in his talk....
[Paul Myers:]
> >When Behe says JME publishes no articles on molecular evolution,
> >he says JME publishes no articles on molecular evolution.
[Julie:]
> No, it sounds like he has a type of article in mind. Y'know,
> like the ones he went on at some length about what we ought to be
> seeing published in such a journal.
[Mark Koebbe:]
Is there a meter which detects cognitive dissonance?
[Paul Myers:]
> >Having Julie Thomas now waffling and saying, "what he *really* meant was...",
> >or pointing to his book and telling us he said something different
> >there, does not help your case.
[Julie:]
> I'm not waffling. For it looks like Behe said in his talk what is
> written in his book and you simply had one of your knee-jerk
> responses to that talk.
[Mark:]
Except that there more then two knees...jerking. How many knees do you
need? One more then the number at the talk?
[Paul Myers:]
> >This is what I meant when I said in an earlier post that you and he
> >seem to be making your own private definitions of what constitutes
> >an appropriate article.
[Julie:]
> And judging from the context of his talk, Behe explained his definition
> of what constitutes an appropriate article and his big zero applied to this.
[Mark:]
Nope.
[Julie:]
> You want Behe's zero to apply to your definition so you can attack him.
[Mark:]
There was no definition, which made the '0' border on the ludicrous.
[Julie:]
> It's just the same old common type of misrepresentation, followed by
> character attack, that y'all subject me to on a regular basis. It's
> quite transparent.
[Mark:]
To one who pegs the CD meter.
[Paul Myers:]
> >Now, if Behe had said that JME hasn't published any summaries of
> >the evidence for 'darwinian' evolution of the cilium, you'd have a
> >case. I wouldn't even have found anything objectionable in that
> >statement, and wouldn't have brought it up.
[Julie:]
> Then tell me what Behe said when "he went on at some length
> about what we ought to be seeing published in JME."
Them goal posts.....
[Paul Myers:]
> >That's not what he said. He flatly claimed, with great emphasis,
> >that there were ZERO articles on molecular evolution.
[Julie:]
> After setting a context that you won't explain.
[Mark:]
Nothing presented to explain...except that 0.
[Paul Myers:]
> >And the small crowd of supporters applauded. Perhaps if he had been in front
> of
> >a more critical audience, he would have been more thorough in qualifying
> >his comments. In front of this group, though, he was clearly pandering
> >by playing up some outrageousness -- and your rationalizations now do
> >not change the facts.
[Julie:]
> The only fact I see is that you have negative impressions about Behe's talk.
[Mark:]
As opposed to the possibility that negative impressions in lieu of
specific definition of articles....was his 'designed' purpose.
[Paul Myers:]
> >>[she's takin' on water, skipper]
> >
> >>>So don't go criticizing MY logic. Explain this. Behe has strongly and
> >>>loudly and publicly said that there are no articles on molecular
> >>>evolution in this one journal in all this time.
[Julie:]
> >>Yes, I will criticize your logic. You ignore the manner in which
> >>Behe set up his argument by failing to explain his claim was made
> >>from within the context of what he thought ought to be in JME
> >>(if there was truth to the darwinian origin of IC systems). That is
> >>a VERY significant omission. It doesn't matter if you agree with
> >>Behe about what ought to be in JME. It matters only when you
> >>engage in ad hominem arguments against him.
> >>
> >>Hmmm. We might have to replace the phrase "quotes like a
> >>creationist" with "quotes like Myers." ;)
[Paul Myers:]
> >I recited as carefully as I could the words that Behe used in his
> >seminar.
[Julie:]
> By ignoring the context he set up.
[Mark:]
Without words....
[Paul Myers:]
> >Others who have heard him speak have commented on the
> >accuracy of my recall...
[Julie:]
> Some of those "others" have a strong track record of having
> faulty perceptions and perpetuating misrepresentations.
[Mark:]
Last I heard...I didn't need a hearing aid. Poisoning the well is a
logical fallacy. Another is the fallacy of extended argument.
[Julie:]
But
> of course, this just means there are others who can help
> you explain what Behe said when he went on at some
> length describing what ought to be in JME just prior
> to making the claim that has you upset. Thus far, not
> one has done so.
[Mark:]
Them goalposts....
[Julie:]
> Were you guys *really* listening?
[Mark:]
Were you?
[Paul Myers:]
> >maybe not word for word perfect, but this
> >flat denial of the existence of any relevant research is honestly
> >what he said.
[Julie:]
> Well, I question your assessment of "relevant research" when
> it comes to the origin of the type of systems Behe is interested
> in (judging from the way you thought those 108 articles
> on cilia were relevant to the origin of cilia).
[Paul Myers:]
> >Even here, you have used my recollection of the talk
> >to try and justify his comments -- how can you then claim that I
> >have dishonestly omitted something?
[Julie:]
> No, I have not said you are being dishonest. Notice how quickly
> you jump to an extreme conclusion that is an erroneous
> impression. Notice you easily you misinterpret what I write to
> cast me in a negative light. Why should I not think you are doing
> the exact same thing with Behe's talk??
[Mark:]
Fallacy of extended analogy....
[Paul Myers:]
> >Now you want to make this little exercise in denial, rather than
> >face the possibility that Behe might have said something disagreeable.
> >You are saying that I was lying in my description of the talk, and
> >at the same time you have the gall to claim I'm the one engaging in
> >ad hominem arguments.
[Julie:]
> No, I am not saying you are lying (I think you misunderstood Behe's
> point). See how easily you arrive at faulty perceptions?
[Mark:]
As opposed to the perception of someone absent from the talk.
Sorry Paul...I had to do it again.
MJK
>
> [to be continued]
> --
> "Intolerance does not arise when I think I have found the truth.
> Rather, it comes about only when I think that, because I have found it,
> everyone else should agree with me." - Mike Behe [DBB, p. 250]
>
=========================== end included post
Note that Mark's entire case collapses with the information
that there WAS something else on the transparency besides
the zero; namely, the following description:
Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Mark J. Koebbe
1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
competency.
2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
anthropomorphic examples of design.
3) he spends all his time discussing apparent frauds and straw men
arguments about evolution, never taking time to discuss the specific
flaws and lack of evidence for his position.
Peter then goes on and think it has to do with 'personalities' rather
than basic failings in logic and substantial redress of the issues. Why
am I not surprised?
Quibble on Peter. The above are the big detractors...not the persons
who point out the logical failings of his arguments.
Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip repost of quibbles]
>
> Note that Mark's entire case collapses with the information
> that there WAS something else on the transparency besides
> the zero; namely, the following description:
Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
'0'.
>
> Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
> detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
'0'. And we're still waiting for a specific example of 'evidence' for
design. Nay, even a constraint on how to 'detect' design.
Rave on, black knight.
MJK
howard hershey
>
> Behe's detractors are;
>
> 1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
> competency.
> 2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
> anthropomorphic examples of design.
> 3) he spends all his time discussing apparent frauds and straw men
> arguments about evolution, never taking time to discuss the specific
> flaws and lack of evidence for his position.
>
>
> Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
> '0'.
>
> >
> > detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
>
Behe (and his lawyer, Nyikos) and the posters complaining about this
transparancy are right.
Behe probably did put in the qualifications above. But those
qualifications are simply lawerly 'weasel-words' that allow him to use
that big fat zero on the transparancy that appeals to the
anti-creationist yahoos and ignoramuses with what (to him at least) is a
clear conscience. They are 'weasel-words' that would rightly (in my
estimation) allow Behe a valid defense against a charge of perjury in
presenting the transparancy, just as similar lawerly use of 'sexual
relations' defined as genital-genital but not genital-oral contact might
be a valid defense against a charge of perjury (I think I have heard of
that one before). But that does not mean that the intent was anything
but an attempt to mislead the audience into thinking that he meant that
the JME publishes nothing of interest on the topic of the evolution of
even his complex systems.
First, he means that the *titles* of the articles do not clearly
indicate that their main focus was to discuss models for the production
of complex biochemical structures. Behe knows, but the yahoos and
ignoramuses in the audience who do not regularly read the scientific
literature probably do not, that it would be highly unusual to have such
a title in a research journal, even if it were the topic of the
article. Research articles are focused on a narrow subject where the
new research was performed. If the 'system' as a whole is discussed in
such articles, it will be in the discussion section. Review articles
inherently represent a small fraction of the papers in a research
jounal. Even if there were a paper on the origin of parts of one of his
'systems' - such as sequence evidence indicating that two proteins in
the system were homologous or that one was homolgous to a protein
outside the system performing a slightly different function, Behe could
claim that such an article did not meet his qualifying criteria.
Second, what Behe really means with his qualifiers is that they do not
present a complete explanation of 'systems *I* regard as IC'.
Typically, he has chosen those systems with the least evidence amenable
to research and ignores those IC systems that are more amenable to
solution, I think it fair to say that he was doing a limited search of
the literature. Besides, since he has set himself up as arbiter of what
qualifies and what doesn't without specifying what rules he is using, it
again becomes possible for him to 'honestly' state that there are zero
articles that meet *his* qualifications. And I really do mean that he
could do this in all 'honesty'.
OTOH, it is perfectly clear what the *intent* of the 'big fat zero' is.
It is an attempt to claim that there is no reasearch at all on these
questions, rather than merely none that satisfy Behe. It is this
maddening, evasive, and misleading but technically not perjurious
presentation of a big fat zero that has Paul and others so upset.
So I would merely favor strongly censuring Behe for his misleading
transparancy (used to transparantly manipulate the grand jury of the
audience) rather than convict him of criminal perjury. Being fair, I
would have to do the same for others in similar situation.
Of course, taken as a whole, Behe's argument is still a load of horse
manure.
PZ Myers
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>Mark J. Koebbe wrote:
>>
>> Behe's detractors are;
>>
>> 1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
>> competency.
>> 2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
>> anthropomorphic examples of design.
>> 3) he spends all his time discussing apparent frauds and straw men
>> arguments about evolution, never taking time to discuss the specific
>> flaws and lack of evidence for his position.
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
>> '0'.
>>
>> >
>> > Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
>> > detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
>>
You, at least, got my point. As I said in the original post that started
all this nonsense, I was not attempting to make a verbatim transcription
of Behe's words. I do not argue that Nyikos took pains to make a much more
accurate copy of what he said. I think I also got across the sense of what
Behe was saying before he put up the contentious "0" -- he told us what he
thought the journal *ought* to publish. I also don't think he said anything
that was an out-and-out lie in the talk, and I didn't accuse him of that.
However, he was taking a cheap shot for easy points with an ignorant
audience here. He picked a journal with an obvious name, Journal of
Molecular Evolution, and said the work therein had nothing to do with
his topic. It doesn't matter that he was defining his topic in a way to
allow his claim -- the point was an attempt to manipulate a naive
audience.
--
PZ Myers
Peter Nyikos
"points" up before.
I suspect Koebbe is just trying to make me argue Julie's
case all over again without having touched it with a ten
foot pole when she was arguing biochemistry and IC systems.
"Mark J. Koebbe" <mko...@pond.com> writes:
>Behe's detractors are;
Koebbe, Silberstein, Hines, Hershey, Myers, Isaak, Dorman.
Have I left anyone out?
>1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
>competency.
Nobody has undermined his claim about the bacterial flagellum
being IC to my knowledge, despite two years of debate in t.o.
including people highly motivated
Nobody has been able to undermine Julie Thomas's claims about
a number of other systems being IC.
You never even tried to argue about them with her, did you?
Are you just parroting arguments you've seen from others,
(or just from Paul Myers?) without bothering to see how Julie
and I dealt with them? It sure looks that way.
>2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
>anthropomorphic examples of design.
The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
flagella are lacking. Hershey made a stab at identifying them
but had no real scenario for them coming together in a way
that natural selection could properly produce the flagellum.
Myers never told you about any of this, did he? Do you
even know anything about the exchange to which I am referring
here?
>3) he spends all his time discussing apparent frauds and straw men
>arguments about evolution,
I'd say only about one third of his time is spent arguing that.
A hefty hunk of the rest is devoted to talking about such systems
as the gene replication system, the cilium, and the flagellum.
never taking time to discuss the specific
>flaws and lack of evidence for his position.
There's plenty of time in the question-and-answer sessions and
receptions. It's pretty obvious to me that you are trying
to replace your earlier, slanderous "quibbles" with new ones.
Are you sure you know what the term "moving the goalposts" means?
>Peter then goes on and think it has to do with 'personalities' rather
>than basic failings in logic and substantial redress of the issues.
Because of the damning evidence in the post to which you
are following up, all of which you deleted.
Because of two years of debate here including the Pack attacking
Julie and her biochemical statements, and falling flat on their
faces; even Laurence A. Moran had to agree to disagree with her.
>Quibble on Peter. The above are the big detractors...not the persons
>who point out the logical failings of his arguments.
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>[snip repost of quibbles]
The quibbles were yours and Myers's against Julie. You
flamed the bejesus out of her, based on fabricated testimony
by Myers on what actually happened there.
>>
>> Note that Mark's entire case collapses with the information
>> that there WAS something else on the transparency besides
>> the zero; namely, the following description:
>Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
>'0'.
Note that Julie Thomas is so good at arguing Behe's case here,
Paul Myers has long been reduced to *ad hominem* attacks against
Julie and Behe.
By the way, when did YOU ever try to argue with Julie on-topic?
>Rave on, black knight.
Still addicted to Pee Wee Hermanisms, I see.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
PZ Myers
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>I'd say only about one third of his time is spent arguing that.
>A hefty hunk of the rest is devoted to talking about such systems
>as the gene replication system, the cilium, and the flagellum.
Talking about? Yes, he recited facts about them. He went over the
components of the visual transduction pathway, and the pieces of
the flagellum.
However, he really didn't make any case with them. It was more of
a "gosh, aren't these complicated?" sort of summary, with no more
science to it than the descriptive passages I could pull out of an
introductory biology text.
What he *ought* to have talked about is how he has or could test
his hypothesis of design vs. natural origins for these structures.
But you know what?
Number of testable hypotheses and scientific assessments presented
by Michael Behe in support of his ideas for the origin of complex organelles:
0
[snip]
>
>Note that Julie Thomas is so good at arguing Behe's case here,
>Paul Myers has long been reduced to *ad hominem* attacks against
>Julie and Behe.
>
Really? What ad hominems have I used against them? I think I've
been pretty well focused in attacking their arguments and interpretations.
I don't know Thomas at all, and when I met Behe he seemed like a
decent fellow. I don't know how you could suggest that I've used
ad hominem against them, since I have no issue against either of them
as people.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
gro...@my-dejanews.com
> competency.
I'm not sure I agree with this. It doesn't require too much imagination to
see some of Behe's (or Julie's) examples as IC. Remove one component and the
system doesn't function, or is at least severely impaired.
But that isn't the point. IC is just a label. The question is: can an IC
system evolve? This is where I think Behe raises a straw man. His main line
of attack is to say that a system of n parts cannot evolve by starting off
with n-x parts, progressively adding parts up to n-1 (all of which lack
function), at which point the final part is added and the system becomes
functional. Problem is, I don't know of anyone who seriously thinks that
evolution works like that. It certainly isn't goal-directed like desugn is.
Behe does, however, concede that IC systems *can* evolve by what he refers to
as an "indirect, circuitous route", and has said in e-mail to me that he
envisages a Darwinian mechanism for such a route. He believes that as a
system becomes more complex, the chances of such evolution becomes less and
less likely.
What isn't clear to me is how he arrives at the conclusion that design is
somehow more likely than this indirect, circuitous route.
Regards,
Andy
<rest of post snipped>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Wade Hines
> "Mark J. Koebbe" <mko...@pond.com> writes:
> >Behe's detractors are;
> Koebbe, Silberstein, Hines, Hershey, Myers, Isaak, Dorman.
> Have I left anyone out?
George Acton. He has posted a number of times about the many and
varied types of bacterial flagella.
> >1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
> >competency.
I wouldn't think it possible, as the definition of IC is fraught with
arbitrary distinctions of parts and systems and functions such that
you couldn't competently discuss it. Breaking coagulation down until
the only parts you have left are necessary is rather absurd but this
has been addressed at length.
> Nobody has undermined his claim about the bacterial flagellum
> being IC to my knowledge, despite two years of debate in t.o.
> including people highly motivated
You conveniently ignore George. And you likewise ignore the flawed
foundations of the whole IC notion.
>
> Nobody has been able to undermine Julie Thomas's claims about
> a number of other systems being IC.
Previously Peter disagreed with Julie about "thematic IC" but he
doesn't seem to remember it. Julie's OriC was an example of Behe
level IC failing Behe level tests. Turning Behe IC to science is
another matter.
> You never even tried to argue about them with her, did you?
> Are you just parroting arguments you've seen from others,
> (or just from Paul Myers?) without bothering to see how Julie
> and I dealt with them? It sure looks that way.
> >2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
> >anthropomorphic examples of design.
> The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
> doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
> given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
> flagella are lacking. Hershey made a stab at identifying them
> but had no real scenario for them coming together in a way
> that natural selection could properly produce the flagellum.
Well there's designing and there's intelligent designing.
People already design via evolution which isn't what most
people mean by intelligent design.
Of course, we all must bow to Nyikos's superior knowledge of
the design of biochemical machines. His experise is legendary.
Don Cates
wrote:
[snip]
>"Mark J. Koebbe" <mko...@pond.com> writes:
[snip]
>>2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
>>anthropomorphic examples of design.
>The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
>doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
>given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
>flagella are lacking.
I find this to be an extraordinary claim. It's possible that the
requisite techniques are available but it seems to me that, even
knowing the construction and operation of the flagella, the knowlege
of how to get the various bits and pieces of preexisting parts to form
a flagella is still much beyond us.
Perhaps some of the 'design' people could come up with a reasonably
detailed scenario for such a designed flagella? Say, as detailled as
they would find acceptable in an evolutionary scenario?
[snip]
Peter Nyikos
>On 10 Feb 1999 10:49:10 -0500, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
>wrote:
>[snip]
>>"Mark J. Koebbe" <mko...@pond.com> writes:
>[snip]
>>>2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
>>>anthropomorphic examples of design.
>>The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
>>doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
>>given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
>>flagella are lacking.
>I find this to be an extraordinary claim.
No more extraordinary than the claim that the flagellum
evolved by generally understood evolutionary processes.
>It's possible that the
>requisite techniques are available but it seems to me that, even
>knowing the construction and operation of the flagella, the knowlege
>of how to get the various bits and pieces of preexisting parts to form
>a flagella is still much beyond us.
I was thinking in terms of time when I said "much". A thousand
years of biochemical progress at our present rate should be ample
even if the pre-existing parts are completely remote from each other.
>Perhaps some of the 'design' people could come up with a reasonably
>detailed scenario for such a designed flagella? Say, as detailled as
>they would find acceptable in an evolutionary scenario?
That *might* be like asking Mendel to come up with
a detailed scenario for producing feats of genetic engineering
that we take for granted nowadays.
If so, you get a stalemate. Nobody who believes the
flagellum is designed will be convinced by any of Behe's
critics at the rate they are coming up with scenarios;
nobody who believes the flagellum evolved will
be convinced by any of Behe's supporters until they
get cracking on the details of how design could be achieved.
Still, surprises might come from either quarter. The design
people have a huge advantage: they don't need
to produce intermediate organisms that can compete in the
big outside world. They can put together the genome of
the bacterium the way some would put together a car from
a bunch of parts of several cars, re-shaping some parts so
they mesh well together.
I don't minimize the difficulty. They would have to study how
the intracellular transport system is configured, what it takes to modify
this or that part of this or that path. But if they can
gather and put together all the little bits and
pieces of information, they should be able to tell how to change
the bacterium to make it produce flagella.
That's without peeking at the genome of the bacteria WITH
flagellae. If they peek, it should be child's play.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Mark J. Koebbe
>
> CC: Julie, wondering whether she ever saw Koebbe bring these
> "points" up before.
>
> I suspect Koebbe is just trying to make me argue Julie's
> case all over again without having touched it with a ten
> foot pole when she was arguing biochemistry and IC systems.
She never established the constraints on an IC system....just
knowledgeable discussions about facts of biochemistry.
>
> "Mark J. Koebbe" <mko...@pond.com> writes:
>
> >Behe's detractors are;
>
> Koebbe, Silberstein, Hines, Hershey, Myers, Isaak, Dorman.
> Have I left anyone out?
>
> >1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
> >competency.
>
> Nobody has undermined his claim about the bacterial flagellum
> being IC to my knowledge, despite two years of debate in t.o.
> including people highly motivated
Guess I have to repeat the phrase so that the logically compromised
might register it on a second lesson. He has no IC system that HE has
verified as IC. That includes bacterial flagellum. The default of 'I
don't know' is not 'gee, see, its IC'. Based on his other 'IC' systems
like antibodies and the clotting cascade, the default should be 'I don't
know'.
>
> Nobody has been able to undermine Julie Thomas's claims about
> a number of other systems being IC.
Irrelevant to the fact that she can't constrain the boundary conditions
for 'design', 'purpose', or IC/'ur' systems.
>
> You never even tried to argue about them with her, did you?
Didn't need to....Larry and others had repeatedly shown the failed logic
of such an approach.
>
> Are you just parroting arguments you've seen from others,
Are you parroting Julie? Pot meet kettle black. Irrelevant to whether
or not IC has been shown to exist. Quit quibbling.
> (or just from Paul Myers?) without bothering to see how Julie
> and I dealt with them? It sure looks that way.
I read them. You only deal with invective and spiteful dialogue. Most
people realize that that is not a sufficient 'dealing' with the problem
at any level of logical competence. At least Julie
keeps it toned down some...except the occasional outburst.
>
> >2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
> >anthropomorphic examples of design.
>
> The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum.
Boink! Is a bacterial flagellum an anthropomorphic 'design'? Provide
the 'human' like constraints that apply.
It
> doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
> given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
> flagella are lacking.
Signifcant notes;
1) current technology
2) human technology
3) many parts used in entirely different functions/purposes than
motility.
Cognitive dissonance must be a wonderful thing for you peter.
Hershey made a stab at identifying them
> but had no real scenario for them coming together in a way
> that natural selection could properly produce the flagellum.
Neither did Julie....and Howard discussed why 'I don't know' is the
better position in science when the subject is not as well studied.
Until you provide the constraints (discussions about cars don't hack
it), it is indistinguishable from 'I don't know'.
>
> Myers never told you about any of this, did he? Do you
> even know anything about the exchange to which I am referring
> here?
Why should that matter when your arguments are inherently so illogical.
Even a freshman could see how poor they are.
> >3) he spends all his time discussing apparent frauds and straw men
> >arguments about evolution,
>
> I'd say only about one third of his time is spent arguing that.
And 0/3 discussing how to constrain design.,,,,other then providing
'human' examples of design without any correlation to biological
'design'.
> A hefty hunk of the rest is devoted to talking about such systems
> as the gene replication system, the cilium, and the flagellum.
Without constraining design to other than...'gee, it looks designed
because evolution doesn't have a current detailed explanation'.
Funny, how he ignores the next obvious question....what is the evidence
FOR IC. As you stated in another post.....nothing.
>
> never taking time to discuss the specific
> >flaws and lack of evidence for his position.
>
> There's plenty of time in the question-and-answer sessions and
> receptions. It's pretty obvious to me that you are trying
> to replace your earlier, slanderous "quibbles" with new ones.
Relevance...other then pursueing your incredibly weak attempt to 'poison
the well'? Did you pass logic in college?
BTW, I haven't heard from any attorneys yet. I thought such comments
were libelous or slanderous by legal criteria. When can I expect the
legal hearings to start? I'm just a 'coward' waiting for your
'god-like' adjudication.
I can't wait to see a judge try and figure out the legality of 'crypto'
lies. Or perhaps have him find the code on 'weasily-crypto lies'.
>
> Are you sure you know what the term "moving the goalposts" means?
Yes, it is demonstrated by the following responses;
____________________________________________________________
> >1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of > >scientific competency.
>
> Nobody has undermined his claim about the bacterial flagellum
> being IC to my knowledge, despite two years of debate in t.o.
> including people highly motivated
The issue is scientific competency....your response does not show that
he has addressed the argument scientifically....that is moving the goal
posts away from the intial statement.
> >2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
> >anthropomorphic examples of design.
>
> The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum.
Two fallacies in one. I said anthropmorphic examples....you offer
bacteria flagellum (moving away from anthropomorphic). The second
fallacy is begging the question of proving with scientific competency
that the flagellum is 'designed' let alone 'human'-like designed. He
presents no 'evidence' and neither do you.
> >3) he spends all his time discussing apparent frauds and straw men
> >arguments about evolution,
>
> I'd say only about one third of his time is spent arguing that.
For once, I might agree....however he spends NO time on defining the
constraints on design other then anthropomorphic examples of
design...like mouse traps, Catholicism, etc.
Leaving the glaringly obvious failure of his argument at any level of
scientific competence. Back to #1 Petey.
___________________________________________________________
>
> >Peter then goes on and think it has to do with 'personalities' rather
> >than basic failings in logic and substantial redress of the issues.
>
> Because of the damning evidence in the post to which you
> are following up, all of which you deleted.
Quibble on.....oh master of logic (see above).
>
> Because of two years of debate here including the Pack attacking
> Julie and her biochemical statements,
Not the biochemistry....peter....the interpretation of the biochemistry
without constraints and claiming by fiat....design/IC/ur/IPU. No
scientific competence in the interpretation whatsoever.
and falling flat on their
> faces; even Laurence A. Moran had to agree to disagree with her.
Are you parrotting Larry? I guess not because you left out what Larry
discussed. Larry did a nice job of fairly
assessing Julies' biochemistry expertise, but castigated her
'predictions' argument. Ignore the obvious peter....and focus once
again on the trivia.
>
> >Quibble on Peter. The above are the big detractors...not the persons
> >who point out the logical failings of his arguments.
>
> >Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> >[snip repost of quibbles]
>
> The quibbles were yours and Myers's against Julie.
Uh..huh...and I supposed you have some land in Florida that you want to
sell me.
You
> flamed the bejesus out of her, based on fabricated testimony
The fabrication of a '0' without a scientifically competent argument.
Yeah, oh wait, I thought you were talking about Behe....
> by Myers on what actually happened there.
>
> >>
> >> Note that Mark's entire case collapses with the information
> >> that there WAS something else on the transparency besides
> >> the zero; namely, the following description:
>
> >Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
> >'0'.
>
> Note that Julie Thomas is so good at arguing Behe's case here,
> Paul Myers has long been reduced to *ad hominem* attacks against
> Julie and Behe.
Only ad hominums? Is this another one of your 'crypto' type ad
hominums? No wait, I apologize....if Peter offers this type of
argument, it is 'good' against 'evil' and therefore justified if there
be a 'just' god. Which begs the next question, 'who died and made Peter
'god'? Of course, if the 'pack' offers the same argument as Peter, then
it is mere ad hominum (in a strictly 'cryptic' sense).
>
> By the way, when did YOU ever try to argue with Julie on-topic?
Relevance?
>
> >Rave on, black knight.
>
> Still addicted to Pee Wee Hermanisms, I see.
Only responding to the one who brought it up....Pee Wee.
I do seem to be parrotting Peter, but he doesn't seem to register the
irony that his own logic is his downfall.
MJK
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> University of South Carolina
howard hershey
>
> catHO...@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates) writes:
>
> >On 10 Feb 1999 10:49:10 -0500, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
> >wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
>
> >>>2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
> >>>anthropomorphic examples of design.
>
> >>doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
> >>given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
> >>flagella are lacking.
>
>
> No more extraordinary than the claim that the flagellum
> evolved by generally understood evolutionary processes.
>
> >It's possible that the
> >requisite techniques are available but it seems to me that, even
> >knowing the construction and operation of the flagella, the knowlege
> >of how to get the various bits and pieces of preexisting parts to form
> >a flagella is still much beyond us.
>
> I was thinking in terms of time when I said "much". A thousand
> years of biochemical progress at our present rate should be ample
> even if the pre-existing parts are completely remote from each other.
>
> >Perhaps some of the 'design' people could come up with a reasonably
> >detailed scenario for such a designed flagella? Say, as detailled as
> >they would find acceptable in an evolutionary scenario?
>
> That *might* be like asking Mendel to come up with
> a detailed scenario for producing feats of genetic engineering
> that we take for granted nowadays.
Uh, Peter. Didn't you just say a few paragraphs higher up?:
********
> >>The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
> >>doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
> >>given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
> >>flagella are lacking.
********
Which is correct, Peter? That it doesn't take much beyond current day
technology or that it is so far beyond us that it is like asking Mendel
to splice genes? Apparent self-contradiction in the same post is a
pretty good start for an argument. It allows you to talk up either
side.
> If so, you get a stalemate. Nobody who believes the
> flagellum is designed will be convinced by any of Behe's
> critics at the rate they are coming up with scenarios;
I have an evolutionary scenario that you might buy into. It involves
sexual selection on an island the size of Borneo. It should be
attractive precisely because it is irrefutable, being based on the total
absence of contradictory information or any information altogether. In
short, it is just as well-supported as the HYPE hypothesis.
> nobody who believes the flagellum evolved will
> be convinced by any of Behe's supporters until they
> get cracking on the details of how design could be achieved.
>
> Still, surprises might come from either quarter. The design
> people have a huge advantage: they don't need
> to produce intermediate organisms that can compete in the
> big outside world. They can put together the genome of
> the bacterium the way some would put together a car from
> a bunch of parts of several cars, re-shaping some parts so
> they mesh well together.
These HYPEs can do anything you want them to do. But let's constrain
the process a little bit. Did the designers put in flagella in the LCA
(last common ancestor) of the eubacteria with all the eubacteria that
lack flagella being secondary or did the HYPEs introduce flagella after
the divergence of eubacteria without flagella? Or some combination of
both? Did the flagella get put in the FIRST bacterium and survive in
the LCA of eubacteria? When and where did the HYPE put in the flagella
that *some* current eubacteria have? What supporting evidence do you
have for this?
>
> I don't minimize the difficulty. They would have to study how
> the intracellular transport system is configured, what it takes to modify
> this or that part of this or that path. But if they can
> gather and put together all the little bits and
> pieces of information, they should be able to tell how to change
> the bacterium to make it produce flagella.
>
> That's without peeking at the genome of the bacteria WITH
> flagellae. If they peek, it should be child's play.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
it soon becomes obvious that he is on Myers' side. Trouble
is, he acts as though he were ignorant about the huge deal Myers
made about certain differences in earlier posts.
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>Mark J. Koebbe wrote:
[...]
>> Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
>> '0'.
This is Mark pontificating about two years' of debate in
talk.origins involving Julie Thomas and me, among others,
whose very existence Mark has shown no sign of yet.
>> > Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
>> > detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
>>
>I haven't commented on this yet, but in different senses I think both
>Behe (and his lawyer, Nyikos)
I am not Behe's lawyer. As I have said, I leave all legal
decisions in these matters up to Behe's actual lawyer.
> and the posters complaining about this
>transparancy are right.
>Behe probably did put in the qualifications above.
He did, not just in the transparency but in his talk.
But those
>qualifications are simply lawerly 'weasel-words'
How can you call a perfectly straightforward, factual statement
about the JME weasel-worded?
Myers himself made a big deal, when arguing with Julie back in
December, about the
difference between such factual statements and the things
he falsely claimed Behe has said, such as:
He explicitly says that no studies
of evolution have been published in the Journal of Molecular Evolution
for at least the past five years.
Subject: Dorit Tries to Critique Behe (was Re: A Rebuttal of Behe)
Date: Dec 30 98
[I'd give the url, but the one I pulled down from Deja News didn't work]
that allow him to use
>that big fat zero on the transparancy that appeals to the
>anti-creationist yahoos and ignoramuses with what (to him at least) is a
>clear conscience. They are 'weasel-words' that would rightly (in my
>estimation) allow Behe a valid defense against a charge of perjury in
>presenting the transparancy, just as similar lawerly use of 'sexual
>relations' defined as genital-genital but not genital-oral contact might
>be a valid defense against a charge of perjury (I think I have heard of
>that one before).
How sleazy can you get with your fallacious comparisons?
But that does not mean that the intent was anything
>but an attempt to mislead the audience into thinking that he meant that
>the JME publishes nothing of interest on the topic of the evolution of
>even his complex systems.
There was no such attempt. He explained very clearly what
kinds of articles JME does publish.
>First, he means that the *titles* of the articles do not clearly
>indicate that their main focus was to discuss models for the production
>of complex biochemical structures.
Are you suggesting that you can read Behe's mind?
>jounal. Even if there were a paper on the origin of parts of one of his
>'systems'
Watch the bait-and-switch here, folks:
- such as sequence evidence indicating that two proteins in
>the system were homologous or that one was homolgous to a protein
>outside the system performing a slightly different function, Behe could
>claim that such an article did not meet his qualifying criteria.
Of course not, unless the article addressed the issue
of how the system could have arrived at its present form.
Have you even come across a paper that claimed that such and such a
sequence probably represented the common ancestor of plasminogen
and prothrombin? Not even Kevin O'Brien ever touched that topic.
By the way, have you noticed how my critique of Kevin's so-called
scenario for evolution of the clotting system has not been
replied to by anyone, least of all Kevin?
>Second, what Behe really means with his qualifiers is that they do not
>present a complete explanation of 'systems *I* regard as IC'.
What are you raving about? Where do you see the word "Irreducible"
in Behe's words up there?
I've been through this very issue with Myers:
============================== begin excerpt from followup to Myers:
In the talk he gave here,
he said the words "How many proposed detailed models for the
Darwinian evolution of systems like the flagellum or cilium?"
He evidently doesn't like repeating himself any more than
I do.
> Peter, you specifically said that what was on the overhead were the words:
>
> "Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
> detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:"
Yep. Not only did I personally copy most of that down during
his talk from the slide, but
I was careful to take the above directly
from an e-mail Behe sent me.
> Is "models for the production of complex biochemical structure"
> synonymous with "models for IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX biochemical systems"?
No, but both statements are true.
============================= end of excerpt
Are you sure you understand all the huge distinctions Myers
keeps making?
>Typically, he has chosen those systems with the least evidence amenable
>to research and ignores those IC systems that are more amenable to
>solution,
Which ones would those be? I don't recall you mentioning
a single one in the last two years. If you're thinking of the Krebs
cycle--didn't both Robison and Thomas agree that it is not irreducibly
complex?
> I think it fair to say that he was doing a limited search of
>the literature.
You are welcome to your unsupported opinions. Just don't expect
anyone to agree to them with the amount of evidence you
are presenting here for this one:
0
[...]
>OTOH, it is perfectly clear what the *intent* of the 'big fat zero' is.
>It is an attempt to claim that there is no reasearch at all on these
>questions, rather than merely none that satisfy Behe.
Wrong. It is a specific claim about articles in a specific journal.
It is this
>maddening, evasive, and misleading but technically not perjurious
>presentation of a big fat zero that has Paul and others so upset.
Get real. "technically not perjurious"???
Your description "maddening, evasive, and misleading" is technically
not perjurious, but it comes a lot closer to perjury than Behe's factual
statement.
>So I would merely favor strongly censuring Behe for his misleading
>transparancy (used to transparantly manipulate the grand jury of the
>audience) rather than convict him of criminal perjury. Being fair, I
>would have to do the same for others in similar situation.
>Of course, taken as a whole, Behe's argument is still a load of horse
>manure.
Thanks for letting us all know what a hilariously biased person
you are on the subject of Michael Behe.
[pun intended]
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
on this subject and a few other goodies, I see that Myers has
dug himself in even deeper than I thought. Some of my
findings are recounted below.
CC: Julie and Michael Behe
my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ Myers) writes:
>In article <36C15A...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
><hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
[snip wild speculation and propaganda by Hershey, already dealt with
in direct followup to his post]
>You, at least, got my point. As I said in the original post that started
>all this nonsense, I was not attempting to make a verbatim transcription
>of Behe's words.
The original post that started all this nonsense was:
http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=427142356
And the sum total of your contribution to the question of
what Behe said was the following excerpt. I see no attempt
to claim that you weren't attempting to make a verbatim
transcript of what Behe said:
================================ begin included excerpt
Yes, he says things like this. He explicitly says that no studies
of evolution have been published in the Journal of Molecular Evolution
for at least the past five years. He says sequence analysis has no
relevance. He claims that people dismiss him solely because he goes
to church. He says that Intelligent Design is disregarded because it
has theological implications.
Behe says a lot that is wrong.
When I heard him speak, I thought he sounded incredibly paranoid and
defensive, and made a lot of arguments that were scientifically unsound...
but played well to a crowd of non-scientists.
========================================== end included excerpt
I do not argue that Nyikos took pains to make a much more
>accurate copy of what he said.
You took no pains to make a copy, period. What you wrote
reads like third-hand gossip about what Behe actually said.
Were you writing down your guesses as to what a scientifically
ignorant creationist would take away from Behe's lecture?
Such guesses, coming from you, are worth as much
as your slanderous claims that Teebken indulged in "fraud and
dishonesty" in his posts on Shapiro. [See the documentation
in the thread, "Tim Teebken and his detractors".]
Your alleged thoughts about how Behe sounded are worth about
that much, too. As for the supposedly factual first paragraph...
Every single thing you attribute to him in the first paragraph
is a distortion; the first is a flagrant, defamatory
misrepresentation. So is the third. The other two are
ambiguous, but in a later post you remove most ambiguity about
the second, "He says sequence analysis has no relevance." See
http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=427274588
...where you compound your initial misdeeds with the following
statement:
But in this case, I am giving you the straightforward
story of what he said at a lecture: he did deny that ANY research in
molecular evolution was being done, and claimed that sequence analysis had
no relevance at all to studying molecular evolution.
Both claims are defamatory misrepresentations. Earlier in
the same post, you alleged:
I did not misrepresent him in the least. Next time I'm at my office,
I have my notes from his lecture and can explicitly quote him; however,
he did NOT say that the JME had failed to publish any studies of his
specific systems of interest, he said it had published *zero studies
of molecular evolution*, period.
Of course, you never explicitly quoted him. You quoted your
gossipy, frivolous take on what he actually said.
Here are Behe's exact words, from an audiotape of the lecture he
gave at Temple University:
Of those thousand papers, how many addressed the
Darwinian step-by-step evollution of complex molecular machines,
such as the cilium or flagellum?
It's a round number. There aren't any.
You can't have it both ways, Myers. You can't say that "he said
it had published *zero studies of molecular evolution*, period."
and claim that this captures the gist of what he wrote on the slide,
and say at the same time that he made no such statement about
the specific systems of interest--two of which are the cilium
and the flagellum.
I think I also got across the sense of what
>Behe was saying before he put up the contentious "0" -- he told us what he
>thought the journal *ought* to publish.
No, he never did that. He told you in considerable detail what
it DID publish and what it did NOT publish. That you choose
to read prescriptions into descriptions is your problem, not
Behe's.
I also don't think he said anything
>that was an out-and-out lie in the talk, and I didn't accuse him of that.
FWIW. You did accuse him of saying one thing after another
which many if not most of your readers here in talk.origins would take
to be out-and-out lies, had Behe actually said them.
>However, he was taking a cheap shot for easy points with an ignorant
>audience here. He picked a journal with an obvious name, Journal of
>Molecular Evolution, and said the work therein had nothing to do with
>his topic. It doesn't matter that he was defining his topic in a way to
>allow his claim -- the point was an attempt to manipulate a naive
>audience.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
With you the most ignorant and naive one of all.
He manipulated you into making all those wild claims about
what he said. Where does he get such fantastic powers
of manipulation from?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
PZ Myers
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>Here are Behe's exact words, from an audiotape of the lecture he
>gave at Temple University:
>
> Of those thousand papers, how many addressed the
> Darwinian step-by-step evollution of complex molecular machines,
> such as the cilium or flagellum?
>
> It's a round number. There aren't any.
>
>You can't have it both ways, Myers. You can't say that "he said
>it had published *zero studies of molecular evolution*, period."
>and claim that this captures the gist of what he wrote on the slide,
>and say at the same time that he made no such statement about
>the specific systems of interest--two of which are the cilium
>and the flagellum.
[snip]
Why, yes I can. If Behe can have it both ways, so can I.
Behe singled out the JME, and said what it *ought* to be publishing.
How can he do that? Because he has his own little definition of what
evolutionists ought to be studying. That's what allows him to put up
that big "0" in his talk.
Now if he had picked on the "Journal of Summary Reviews of Darwinian
Step-by-Step Evolution of Complex Molecular Machines", you'd have a good
case that he had been explicit and clear in his meaning throughout, and
that the journal was a misleading failure. But nooooo, he put up one
overhead with "Journal of MOLECULAR EVOLUTION" followed by another
overhead with "0" on it. Like it or not, he left the clear impression
that the JME was a lie.
No journal even pretends to be the JSRDSSECMM. Behe was busy building
a straw man, hanging the placard "Journal of Molecular Evolution" on it,
and then tearing it down, and that is what I object to.
It played well to the idiots in the audience. But then, you know that --
you ate it up, didn't you?
--
PZ Myers
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> "Mark J. Koebbe" <mko...@pond.com> writes:
>> >Behe's detractors are;
>> Koebbe, Silberstein, Hines, Hershey, Myers, Isaak, Dorman.
>> Have I left anyone out?
>George Acton. He has posted a number of times about the many and
>varied types of bacterial flagella.
And Julie dealt with that quite handily, as I recall.
George Acton hasn't dared to
follow up to me for over a year now, even though I do
detailed exposes of his ignorant anti-Julie, anti-Behe propaganda.
His ignorance of the importance of autocatalycity is exceeded
only by the flagrant rewritings of that aspect of Usenet
history you, Hershey and Myers have been responsible for. Some
of those flagrant rewritings are documented in "Spotlight on `howard hershey'",
especially in my reposting of the following:
http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=265187822
That was one where Myers and
several others collaborated in rewriting Usenet history.
Here's my expose of how Hershey aided, abetted, and comforted
Myers in his rewriting of Usenet history:
http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=269884672
This was also reposted to that "Spotlight..." thread.
Nothing daunted by that thread, both you and Myers collaborated
on a new rewriting of Usenet history, once again as regards
autocatalicity and . It happened about a month ago, but I won't
bother looking up the url for that one. In fact, I can promise never to
bring it up again to your face if you promise never again to pull such a
dirty debating trick again about "gene duplication and subsequent
divergence".
>> >1) he has no IC system that has been verified to any level of scientific
>> >competency.
>I wouldn't think it possible, as the definition of IC is fraught with
>arbitrary distinctions of parts and systems and functions such that
>you couldn't competently discuss it.
You are so surreal, I doubt that you can understand any
distinctions you want to ignore.
Breaking coagulation down until
>the only parts you have left are necessary is rather absurd but this
>has been addressed at length.
Pathetically, by y'all.
I've explained the significance of an "IC core," but you
are too steeped in surrealism to take notice of it, so you
continue to think the idea absurd.
Note to readers: If Andy Groves or some other sincere-sounding
person wants to know what an IC core is all about, just
ask and I will explain even before this month is up. It's
pretty clear I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to Wade again.
>> Nobody has undermined his claim about the bacterial flagellum
>> being IC to my knowledge, despite two years of debate in t.o.
>> including people highly motivated
>You conveniently ignore George.
You've got that backwards. There's a prefix I could have
attached to "backwards" but such things are your specialty,
not mine.
And you likewise ignore the flawed
>foundations of the whole IC notion.
Not only do I not ignore it, I've addressed it at length,
not least in the drafts for a FAQ on the subject.
>> Nobody has been able to undermine Julie Thomas's claims about
>> a number of other systems being IC.
>Previously Peter disagreed with Julie about "thematic IC" but he
>doesn't seem to remember it.
I haven't been able to undermine those claims either.
Julie's OriC was an example of Behe
>level IC failing Behe level tests.
Do you know this, or are you just taking your recollection
of Julie's words for this?
>> You never even tried to argue about them with her, did you?
>
>> Are you just parroting arguments you've seen from others,
>> (or just from Paul Myers?) without bothering to see how Julie
>> and I dealt with them? It sure looks that way.
>
>> >2) he has no evidence of constrained design at any level outside of
>> >anthropomorphic examples of design.
>
>> The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
>> doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
>> given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
>> flagella are lacking. Hershey made a stab at identifying them
>> but had no real scenario for them coming together in a way
>> that natural selection could properly produce the flagellum.
>Well there's designing and there's intelligent designing.
>People already design via evolution
and by genetic engineering.
which isn't what most
>people mean by intelligent design.
You seem to be referring to design by an all-powerful creator.
Go discuss that with some creationist; neither Julie nor
I are interested at the present time in a biochemical context.
[sarcastic comment by Wade deleted here]
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Andy Groves
<snip>
> Nothing daunted by that thread, both you and Myers collaborated
> on a new rewriting of Usenet history, once again as regards
> autocatalicity and . It happened about a month ago, but I won't
> bother looking up the url for that one. In fact, I can promise never to
> bring it up again to your face if you promise never again to pull such a
> dirty debating trick again about "gene duplication and subsequent
> divergence".
>
I would be interested to learn what has been discussed in the past about
gene duplication and divergence, as it represents one mechanism by which a
complex system could evolve.
<snip again>
>
> I've explained the significance of an "IC core," but you
> are too steeped in surrealism to take notice of it, so you
> continue to think the idea absurd.
>
> Note to readers: If Andy Groves or some other sincere-sounding
> person wants to know what an IC core is all about, just
> ask and I will explain even before this month is up. It's
> pretty clear I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to Wade again.
>
Please do. I'm away at a meeting for a week, but I'd be glad to read your
post on my return.
Regards,
--
Andy Groves
howard hershey
>
> Howard tries to sound neutral in his first sentence, but
> it soon becomes obvious that he is on Myers' side. Trouble
> is, he acts as though he were ignorant about the huge deal Myers
> made about certain differences in earlier posts.
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >Mark J. Koebbe wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
> >> '0'.
>
> This is Mark pontificating about two years' of debate in
> talk.origins involving Julie Thomas and me, among others,
> whose very existence Mark has shown no sign of yet.
>
> >> > Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
> >> > detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
> >>
> >I haven't commented on this yet, but in different senses I think both
> >Behe (and his lawyer, Nyikos)
>
> I am not Behe's lawyer. As I have said, I leave all legal
> decisions in these matters up to Behe's actual lawyer.
I know you are not Behe's lawyer. But you certainly have the right
temperament to be an excellent defense lawyer. And the right scruples.
>
> > and the posters complaining about this
> >transparancy are right.
>
> >Behe probably did put in the qualifications above.
>
> He did, not just in the transparency but in his talk.
>
> But those
> >qualifications are simply lawerly 'weasel-words'
>
> How can you call a perfectly straightforward, factual statement
> about the JME weasel-worded?
Because they produce a strawman argument that lets Behe reject as
'inadequate' essentially *any* article that he chooses to reject that
would actually be published in JME (which is not a Journal of Review
Articles And Unsupported Hypotheses About Large Grand Ideas). Science
research journals are narrowly focused on the largest specifically
answerable question. Anyone with any knowledge of what gets published
in research journals (and Behe ought to qualify on this score; his
articles are as narrowly focused as any other) would know that. That
makes these weasel words (that specifically ask that the JME be
something it is not) indications that the true purpose was to mislead an
audience that is likely to be unaware of what actually gets published in
research journals into thinking that the JME (and evolution more
generally) has nothing of importance to say and is a fraud.
[snip]
>
> that allow him to use
> >that big fat zero on the transparancy that appeals to the
> >anti-creationist yahoos and ignoramuses with what (to him at least) is a
> >clear conscience. They are 'weasel-words' that would rightly (in my
> >estimation) allow Behe a valid defense against a charge of perjury in
> >presenting the transparancy, just as similar lawerly use of 'sexual
> >relations' defined as genital-genital but not genital-oral contact might
> >be a valid defense against a charge of perjury (I think I have heard of
> >that one before).
>
> How sleazy can you get with your fallacious comparisons?
Haven't been reading your medical journals, I see. A recent article,
the publication of which got its editor fired, essentially says that
*many* people (especially young people) think that genital-oral contact
does not constitute "sexual relations". Others regard using such a
definition as a weasely, but not perjurious way to use ambiguity about
intentions to redefine the situation to one's own advantage. Still
others regard it as perjurious, pure and simple. How is this a
'fallacious' comparison? Even Paul got caught into thinking that Behe's
intention was to say that the big fat 0 of JME's articles 'about
evolution' on the transparancy was the main point. Are you saying that
all the creationist and panspermist scientifically illiterate
ignoramuses in the audience all understood (or were meant to understand)
that the specific qualifications that Behe made would automatically
allow him to rule out nearly all the articles the journal would be
likely to publish, and thus said a lot less than they thought it did?
It was a transparant ploy using a transparancy with a big fat 0 to get
across the point he wanted to make and a bunch of legalistic weasel-word
small print to salve his conscience. Are you saying that it was not
Behe's *intent* to mislead by choosing a definition of what should be in
JME (in fine print) that essentially rules out any article likely to be
published in that type of journal? Isn't that, in essence, the same as
choosing a definition of "sexual relations" that rules out the behavior
you engaged in with the intent to mislead and misdirect an audience that
wasn't necessarily using the same definition and which would likely
ignore the fine print? Neither would be technically perjurious, of
course. That does not mean that it isn't misleading.
>
> But that does not mean that the intent was anything
> >but an attempt to mislead the audience into thinking that he meant that
> >the JME publishes nothing of interest on the topic of the evolution of
> >even his complex systems.
>
> There was no such attempt. He explained very clearly what
> kinds of articles JME does publish.
Like all research journals they concentrate on the largest specifically
answerable question rather than a review of the literature.
>
> >First, he means that the *titles* of the articles do not clearly
> >indicate that their main focus was to discuss models for the production
> >of complex biochemical structures.
>
> Are you suggesting that you can read Behe's mind?
>
> >jounal. Even if there were a paper on the origin of parts of one of his
> >'systems'
>
> Watch the bait-and-switch here, folks:
>
> - such as sequence evidence indicating that two proteins in
> >the system were homologous or that one was homolgous to a protein
> >outside the system performing a slightly different function, Behe could
> >claim that such an article did not meet his qualifying criteria.
>
> Of course not, unless the article addressed the issue
> of how the system could have arrived at its present form.
Saying that parts of the system likely arose by duplication and
divergence from a protein that likely served function Y doesn't count in
Behe's book.
>
> Have you even come across a paper that claimed that such and such a
> sequence probably represented the common ancestor of plasminogen
> and prothrombin? Not even Kevin O'Brien ever touched that topic.
>
> By the way, have you noticed how my critique of Kevin's so-called
> scenario for evolution of the clotting system has not been
> replied to by anyone, least of all Kevin?
>
> >Second, what Behe really means with his qualifiers is that they do not
> >present a complete explanation of 'systems *I* regard as IC'.
>
> What are you raving about? Where do you see the word "Irreducible"
> in Behe's words up there?
Redefining the clotting system until one comes to the parts that are
indispensible means that IC is not as precise as Behe would like. What
constitutes an IC system is partly in the eye of the beholder. For
example, the only systems that Behe considers are, what for lack of
better word, are those IC systems with *many* parts of often unknown
origin. He patently ignores all the co-evolved two part (currently IC)
systems of 'known' origin like the globins of hemoglobin and all the
(currently IC) systems that are IC by simplification from more complex
states (mitochondria and chloroplasts). [He also ignores the JME
articles that contradict his own article about the 'invariability' of
the lysine residue in histone H1 that appeared just after his own JMB
paper. But that is another story.]
>
[snip]
>
> >Typically, he has chosen those systems with the least evidence amenable
> >to research and ignores those IC systems that are more amenable to
> >solution,
>
> Which ones would those be? I don't recall you mentioning
> a single one in the last two years. If you're thinking of the Krebs
> cycle--didn't both Robison and Thomas agree that it is not irreducibly
> complex?
Even better are any of the co-evolved two part systems like hemoglobin.
Clearly the alph and beta are derived by duplication and divergence.
>
> > I think it fair to say that he was doing a limited search of
> >the literature.
>
> You are welcome to your unsupported opinions. Just don't expect
> anyone to agree to them with the amount of evidence you
> are presenting here for this one:
>
> 0
>
> [...]
>
> >OTOH, it is perfectly clear what the *intent* of the 'big fat zero' is.
> >It is an attempt to claim that there is no reasearch at all on these
> >questions, rather than merely none that satisfy Behe.
>
> Wrong. It is a specific claim about articles in a specific journal.
With fine print designed to forordain the conclusion and mislead the
audience.
>
> It is this
> >maddening, evasive, and misleading but technically not perjurious
> >presentation of a big fat zero that has Paul and others so upset.
>
> Get real. "technically not perjurious"???
>
> Your description "maddening, evasive, and misleading" is technically
> not perjurious, but it comes a lot closer to perjury than Behe's factual
> statement.
Just what seems to me to be a factual description of the audience
reaction (from the interpretations of those who were in the audience, as
presented here). Perhaps you would like to poll the audience next time
to see if they concentrated on the big fat zero rather than the
'weasel-wording' of his fine print. And you could then find out whether
they understood that the fine print essentially allowed Behe to exclude
any article he felt did not meet this specific criteria, criteria
carefully chosen to exclude most research articles and chosen so that
Behe could ignore any system he chose not to consider as IC enough for
him. Perhaps you would like to poll the audience as to whether they
thought he was saying that evolution is without any evidence and that
all the so-called reasearch on it is evasive, incompetent, and
irrelevant and, to use a word tossed around a lot, "fraudulent". Or did
he allow the audience to use that big zero as a Rorshach blot in which
you see what you want to see? I think "maddening, evasive, and
misleading" is just about right.
>
> >So I would merely favor strongly censuring Behe for his misleading
> >transparancy (used to transparantly manipulate the grand jury of the
> >audience) rather than convict him of criminal perjury. Being fair, I
> >would have to do the same for others in similar situation.
>
> >Of course, taken as a whole, Behe's argument is still a load of horse
> >manure.
>
> Thanks for letting us all know what a hilariously biased person
> you are on the subject of Michael Behe.
Do you have some evidence that his argument isn't a load of horse manure
any more? They sure were odiferous in the original book. Has he done
some actual research supporting his ideas since the publication of DBB
that shows how his ideas actually have scientific merit? Even Julie no
longer regards it as 'science'.
>
> [pun intended]
You would need to spell 'hilariously' with two 'l's. But, *mon, I ca*n
certainly Tripp up on some details in perjurious versus merely
intentionally misleading *Behe*vior.
Peter Nyikos
caught Myers obfuscating shamelessly (if not lying outright)
on the threads with "Haeckel" or "Gill" in the title.
His behavior there is of a piece with his deceitful behavior
here--and also on the thread "Teebken and his detractors",
which shows that Behe and I aren't the only people Myers lies about.
Well--not quite: Myers's degree of dishonesty on these Behe threads
outstrips that on either of those other two topics so far;
that may be because this thread is older, or it may
be because he is more highly motivated to lie about
Behe than he is about Teebken or about gill slits.
my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ Myers) writes:
>In article <1999021220...@milo.Math.Sc.Edu>, Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>[snip]
You snipped your falsehoods that give meaning to the first statement
you left in.
============================= repost of Myers's falsehoods
http://x5.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=427274588
...where you compound your initial misdeeds with the following
statement:
But in this case, I am giving you the straightforward
story of what he said at a lecture: he did deny that ANY research in
molecular evolution was being done, and claimed that sequence analysis had
no relevance at all to studying molecular evolution.
Both claims are defamatory misrepresentations. Earlier in
the same post, you alleged:
I did not misrepresent him in the least. Next time I'm at my office,
I have my notes from his lecture and can explicitly quote him; however,
he did NOT say that the JME had failed to publish any studies of his
specific systems of interest, he said it had published *zero studies
of molecular evolution*, period.
Of course, you never explicitly quoted him. You quoted your
gossipy, frivolous take on what he actually said.
================================= end of repost
Right after that, I wrote:
>>Here are Behe's exact words, from an audiotape of the lecture he
>>gave at Temple University:
>>
>> Of those thousand papers, how many addressed the
>> Darwinian step-by-step evollution of complex molecular machines,
>> such as the cilium or flagellum?
>>
>> It's a round number. There aren't any.
>>
>>You can't have it both ways, Myers. You can't say that "he said
>>it had published *zero studies of molecular evolution*, period."
>>and claim that this captures the gist of what he wrote on the slide,
>>and say at the same time that he made no such statement about
>>the specific systems of interest--two of which are the cilium
>>and the flagellum.
>[snip]
>Why, yes I can. If Behe can have it both ways, so can I.
Actually, you can't have it either way, but I gave you
an inch so you could see that even your *internal logic*
was faulty and that you weren't just indulging in GIGO.
>Behe singled out the JME, and said what it *ought* to be publishing.
What you snipped the second time around addressed this false
claim directly:
========================= begin second repost
I think I also got across the sense of what
>Behe was saying before he put up the contentious "0" -- he told us what he
>thought the journal *ought* to publish.
No, he never did that. He told you in considerable detail what
it DID publish and what it did NOT publish. That you choose
to read prescriptions into descriptions is your problem, not
Behe's.
================================== end of second repost
You deleted these words just so you could repeat your
lie, eh, Myers?
>How can he do that? Because he has his own little definition of what
>evolutionists ought to be studying.
It's not a "little" definition. "Complex molecular machines"
is a huge area, and one would think that as much effort
would be devoted to them as there is effort devoted
to abiogenesis. The contrast is stupefying.
That's what allows him to put up
>that big "0" in his talk.
>Now if he had picked on the "Journal of Summary Reviews of Darwinian
>Step-by-Step Evolution of Complex Molecular Machines", you'd have a good
>case that he had been explicit and clear in his meaning throughout, and
>that the journal was a misleading failure.
He never said anything disparaging of JME, prevaricator.
But nooooo, he put up one
>overhead with "Journal of MOLECULAR EVOLUTION"
Wrong. It was a title page about which he said a great deal.
All having to do with sequence analysis. Then he went on
to talk about the thousand or so other articles JME published,
to lead up to a different topic.
followed by another
>overhead with "0" on it.
And a lot else that you lied wasn't there.
Like it or not, he left the clear impression
>that the JME was a lie.
In your hate-ravaged mind, maybe.
>No journal even pretends to be the JSRDSSECMM. Behe was busy building
>a straw man, hanging the placard "Journal of Molecular Evolution" on it,
>and then tearing it down, and that is what I object to.
The foregoing bears about as much resemblance to what Behe
actually said and did as one of Picasso's highly abstract
"portraits" from the 1950's bears to the subjects who
sat for them.
>It played well to the idiots in the audience. But then, you know that --
>you ate it up, didn't you?
I listened carefully to what was on the tape of his Temple
lecture and carefully transcribed it. It was straightforward
down-to-earth stuff, hardly the thing to which "ate it up"
could apply.
Stay tuned.
Peter Nyikos
Uh, Howard, what part of my first paragraph in response
to Don don't you understand? Why are you asking me a question
which sounds like a Silbersteinesque attempt to evolve
truth into falsehood, or vice versa?
or that it is so far beyond us that it is like asking Mendel
>to splice genes?
Mendel lived only a little more than a hundred years ago. Are
you under the delusion that a hundred years is more than a
thousand years?
Apparent self-contradiction in the same post is a
>pretty good start for an argument. It allows you to talk up either
>side.
Apparent dishonesty by you is a pretty good start for
an argument too, as well as flaunting the fact that you
can get away with it even in this flagrant form.
But then, you need all the practice you can get if you
wish to be in harmony with the arrogant dishonesty of Myers
detailed in the thread, "VERDICT PLEASE: HONEST PARAPHRASAL?"
>> If so, you get a stalemate. Nobody who believes the
>> flagellum is designed will be convinced by any of Behe's
>> critics at the rate they are coming up with scenarios;
Farcical response by Howard deleted here.
>> nobody who believes the flagellum evolved will
>> be convinced by any of Behe's supporters until they
>> get cracking on the details of how design could be achieved.
>>
>> Still, surprises might come from either quarter. The design
>> people have a huge advantage: they don't need
>> to produce intermediate organisms that can compete in the
>> big outside world. They can put together the genome of
>> the bacterium the way some would put together a car from
>> a bunch of parts of several cars, re-shaping some parts so
>> they mesh well together.
>These HYPEs can do anything you want them to do.
This is a bare-faced lie in the context of what you say next.
But let's constrain
>the process a little bit. Did the designers put in flagella in the LCA
>(last common ancestor) of the eubacteria
Not according to my hypothesis. That constraint was
there two years ago. I've even threatened to boycott
any posts where you pretend I've never dealt with this
issue.
I'll let this one go by because you may have made this post
before seeing that threat.
> with all the eubacteria that
>lack flagella being secondary
For the umpteenth time, NO!
> or did the HYPEs introduce flagella after
>the divergence of eubacteria without flagella?
That's all they had to work with, eubacteria of Xordax that
lacked flagella. As I've said numerous times over the
last two years.
Or some combination of
>both? Did the flagella get put in the FIRST bacterium and survive in
>the LCA of eubacteria?
For the umpteenth time, my hypothesis gives a negative answer.
> When and where did the HYPE put in the flagella
>that *some* current eubacteria have?
In Xordax, some time before sending them here. As I've
said elsewhere, some time in the million or so years
preceding launch, by my hypothesis.
They might have tried to seed a million or so planets
before they also tried to seed earth, after all.
What supporting evidence do you
>have for this?
As much as you have for:
Mother Earth did it, this I know
For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
No, you never said this, but all your sarcasm of the last
two years (IPU, HYPE, etc.) and all your dirty debating
tricks (see above for a tiny sample) pander to the
talk.origins participants who think it and even
give paraphrasals of it. Like Myers's ally and co-liar-about-Behe
Mark Koebbe.
[Hey, if Myers can call misrepresentations
paraphrasals, I can call mere hyperbole paraphrasal.]
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Howard tries to sound neutral in his first sentence, but
>> it soon becomes obvious that he is on Myers' side. Trouble
>> is, he acts as though he were ignorant about the huge deal Myers
>> made about certain differences in earlier posts.
>>
>> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>>
>> >Mark J. Koebbe wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> Note that Peter's and Behe's case had collapsed by even offering the
>> >> '0'.
>> This is Mark pontificating about two years' of debate in
>> talk.origins involving Julie Thomas and me, among others,
...whose very existence Mark has shown no sign of knowing
about yet. In particular, the case against Behe by
people like Coyne, Doolittle, Dorit, and Orr collapsed even
before they wrote their so-called reviews, as Julie and
I have explained in threads over the past two years whose
titles include the word string, "tries to critique Behe",
the subjects of the sentences being Coyne, etc.
>> >> > Number of papers in the Journal of Molecular Evolution that discuss
>> >> > detailed models for the production of complex biochemical structure:
>> >>
>> >I haven't commented on this yet, but in different senses I think both
>> >Behe (and his lawyer, Nyikos)
>>
>> I am not Behe's lawyer. As I have said, I leave all legal
>> decisions in these matters up to Behe's actual lawyer.
No one should be fooled by Hershey's opening comment below, which
is reminiscent of Mark Antony saying several times in
his speech in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_ that if he only
had the eloquence of Brutus, he would stir the Romans to
"mutiny," etc.
This is the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech which
far outshone Brutus's simple speech in eloquence, and did
indeed incite the listeners to "mutiny".
[Hershey:]
>I know you are not Behe's lawyer. But you certainly have the right
>temperament to be an excellent defense lawyer. And the right scruples.
I am a very scrupulous person, quite unlike Howard Hershey. But
in this case he may be right, though in a manner utterly
unlike his intended meaning: if anyone were foolish enough
to sue Behe, the simple truth will be enough to win the
case for Behe if his lawyer does not blow it by appearing
too naive or trying to outshine the opposing lawyer
in polemical tricks.
It is the defense of Myers that will require all the
shyster-lawyer lack of scruples that Hershey has displayed
all thru the last two years. I wonder if even Hershey
is quite up to handling the evidence I've begun to post on
"VERDICT PLEASE: HONEST PARAPHRASAL?".
>> > and the posters complaining about this
>> >transparancy are right.
>>
>> >Behe probably did put in the qualifications above.
>>
>> He did, not just in the transparency but in his talk.
See "VERDICT PLEASE: HONEST PARAPHRASAL?" for what Behe said.
>> But those
>> >qualifications are simply lawerly 'weasel-words'
>>
>> How can you call a perfectly straightforward, factual statement
>> about the JME weasel-worded?
>Because they produce a strawman argument that lets Behe reject as
>'inadequate' essentially *any* article that he chooses to reject that
>would actually be published in JME (which is not a Journal of Review
>Articles And Unsupported Hypotheses About Large Grand Ideas).
As you can see from what I documented on "VERDICT PLEASE: HONEST PARAPHRASAL?",
Behe has no intentions of "rejecting" any articles by JME as
being uninteresting, or not relevant to certain aspects of
molecular evolution.
Science
>research journals are narrowly focused on the largest specifically
>answerable question. Anyone with any knowledge of what gets published
>in research journals (and Behe ought to qualify on this score; his
>articles are as narrowly focused as any other) would know that.
He does know it. It is Myers who put his foot in it
by claiming that Behe made statements about what JME
"ought to" be publishing. See that VERDICT thread for
details.
JME can only publish what is submitted for publication,
and Behe seems to have the impression that no one has ever
submitted any articles for the step-by-Darwinian-step
evolution of complex molecular machines.
> That
>makes these weasel words (that specifically ask that the JME be
>something it is not)
Ridiculous. A simple description does NOT ask JME to do
anything, least of all something that JME is unable to
do because of what is submitted to it.
indications that the true purpose was to mislead an
>audience that is likely to be unaware of what actually gets published in
>research journals into thinking that the JME (and evolution more
>generally) has nothing of importance to say and is a fraud.
Like a lawyer ready to defend Myers to the hilt, you are simply taking at face
value all the bilge that Myers has been spewing.
TO BE CONTINUED
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >> catHO...@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates) writes:
>
> >> >It's possible that the
> >> >requisite techniques are available but it seems to me that, even
> >> >knowing the construction and operation of the flagella, the knowlege
> >> >of how to get the various bits and pieces of preexisting parts to form
> >> >a flagella is still much beyond us.
>
> >> I was thinking in terms of time when I said "much". A thousand
> >> years of biochemical progress at our present rate should be ample
> >> even if the pre-existing parts are completely remote from each other.
Pre-existing parts? Are you saying that the Xordaxians are using
(co-opting) pre-existing parts that evolved for different purposes to
'design' the bacterial flagella? Do I see the hint of a mechanism?
Please expand on this evol..., er, design mechanism, especially why this
could not happen absent a designer and why it must have happened on
Xordax rather than on the earth.
>
> >> >Perhaps some of the 'design' people could come up with a reasonably
> >> >detailed scenario for such a designed flagella? Say, as detailled as
> >> >they would find acceptable in an evolutionary scenario?
>
> >> That *might* be like asking Mendel to come up with
> >> a detailed scenario for producing feats of genetic engineering
> >> that we take for granted nowadays.
>
> >Uh, Peter. Didn't you just say a few paragraphs higher up?:
> >********
> >> >>The evidence is in structures like the bacterial flagellum. It
> >> >>doesn't take much beyond current day technology to design such a thing,
> >> >>given that many of the genes for the parts are in bacteria where
> >> >>flagella are lacking.
> >********
>
> >Which is correct, Peter? That it doesn't take much beyond current day
> >technology
>
> Uh, Howard, what part of my first paragraph in response
> to Don don't you understand? Why are you asking me a question
> which sounds like a Silbersteinesque attempt to evolve
> truth into falsehood, or vice versa?
>
> or that it is so far beyond us that it is like asking Mendel
> >to splice genes?
>
> Mendel lived only a little more than a hundred years ago. Are
> you under the delusion that a hundred years is more than a
> thousand years?
Actually, I would say that in terms of actually splicing in genes and/or
modifying them *in vitro* prior to introducing them into bacteria, I am
not at all sure that you need much, if anything, beyond current
biotechnology techniques. Mendel to now is probably a much bigger leap
than any leap from today to the biotechnology the Xordaxians might
need. The intellectual leap to imagining features that have no
relationship to anything that you can observe in organisms on your
Xordax, where procaryotes do just fine without flagella, is more of a
problem. It is the equivalent of adding a hydrogen bladder to organisms
to generate an ecospace of organisms floating in the air when you have
no idea that such a thing is possible much less viable.
Your twitting on about the difference between 100 and 1000 years to
justify what you said is just more of the petty 'weasel-word' games we
have all come to know and love from you.
>
> Apparent self-contradiction in the same post is a
> >pretty good start for an argument. It allows you to talk up either
> >side.
>
> Apparent dishonesty by you is a pretty good start for
> an argument too, as well as flaunting the fact that you
> can get away with it even in this flagrant form.
You *were* saying both that it "doesn't take much beyond current day
technology to design such a thing, given that many of the genes for the
parts are in bacteria where flagella are lacking" and also that
designing such a thing was equivalent to "asking Mendel to come up with
a detailed scenario for producing feats of genetic engineering that we
take for granted nowadays". That looks like an apparent
self-contradiction to me, weasel-words about 100 and 1000 years
notwithstanding. How can something that is "not much beyond current
technology" require a 1000 years of further knowledge to acheive when it
only took 100 years to go from Mendel to the current technology?
>
> But then, you need all the practice you can get if you
> wish to be in harmony with the arrogant dishonesty of Myers
> detailed in the thread, "VERDICT PLEASE: HONEST PARAPHRASAL?"
Didn't I agree with you on this. Given the weasel-words that Behe used,
it is unlikely that any research journal would ever publish an article
that met his requirements, even if every article published were directly
on the evolution of every protein in the bacterial flagella. Putting a
big 0 on the page containing the qualifiers he did is misleading,
pandering to the ignorant, and irritating to the knowledgeable, but is
not actionable perjury. It is just like saying that you did not have
sexual relations when all you did have was oral-genital contact. Didn't
I say that in my one post on this topic?
>
> >> If so, you get a stalemate. Nobody who believes the
> >> flagellum is designed will be convinced by any of Behe's
> >> critics at the rate they are coming up with scenarios;
>
> Farcical response by Howard deleted here.
Please leave in my farces if you post late. My previous post has gone
off into the ether, and I can no longer look at my farces. We all enjoy
a good farce.
>
> >> nobody who believes the flagellum evolved will
> >> be convinced by any of Behe's supporters until they
> >> get cracking on the details of how design could be achieved.
> >>
> >> Still, surprises might come from either quarter. The design
> >> people have a huge advantage: they don't need
> >> to produce intermediate organisms that can compete in the
> >> big outside world. They can put together the genome of
> >> the bacterium the way some would put together a car from
> >> a bunch of parts of several cars, re-shaping some parts so
> >> they mesh well together.
>
> >These HYPEs can do anything you want them to do.
>
> This is a bare-faced lie in the context of what you say next.
Whoa. What I say next is an attempt on my part to put some meat on the
ethereal HYPE. If you want to constrain the HYPE in other ways, do so.
Currently the HYPE seems to change so that no matter what the evidence,
the HYPE does just enough to still be there.
>
> But let's constrain
> >the process a little bit. Did the designers put in flagella in the LCA
> >(last common ancestor) of the eubacteria
>
> Not according to my hypothesis. That constraint was
> there two years ago.
Sorry. Say that again? Are you saying both that the designers did not
put flagella in the LCA of the eubacteria (when you say "not according
to my hypothesis") *and* that this "constraint was there two years
ago"? Does that mean that you changed from having the flagella in the
LCA two years ago to not having it now? Or is this another example of
your clear, concise mathematical mind at work?
> I've even threatened to boycott
> any posts where you pretend I've never dealt with this
> issue.
Given the above, is it any wonder I'm confused about what you mean?
>
> I'll let this one go by because you may have made this post
> before seeing that threat.
Please. Please! Please!! Boycott me.
>
> > with all the eubacteria that
> >lack flagella being secondary
>
> For the umpteenth time, NO!
>
> > or did the HYPEs introduce flagella after
> >the divergence of eubacteria without flagella?
>
> That's all they had to work with, eubacteria of Xordax that
> lacked flagella. As I've said numerous times over the
> last two years.
And now you are saying that flagella were only put in some of the
bacteria shipped to the earth. Were there any other differences between
the ones shipped with and those shipped without flagella? Why did the
Xordaxians choose to flagellate :-) some bacteria and not others? Did
some of them 'ask' to be flagellated, the masochistic sluts?
>
> Or some combination of
> >both? Did the flagella get put in the FIRST bacterium and survive in
> >the LCA of eubacteria?
>
> For the umpteenth time, my hypothesis gives a negative answer.
Again, pardon me for being confused by answers like the ones above.
>
> > When and where did the HYPE put in the flagella
> >that *some* current eubacteria have?
>
> In Xordax, some time before sending them here. As I've
> said elsewhere, some time in the million or so years
> preceding launch, by my hypothesis.
But what evidence do you have for this? Your bacterial flagella are
getting closer to being designed by a process which is becoming sneakily
like what I expect would happen by evolution (co-opting features evolved
for other purposes). You just prefer that it happen elsewhere and posit
a rather unnecessary (AFAICT) HYPE. I still think that you will have
some problems with secondary loss of flagella during evolution on the
earth and horizontal transfer of flagella as well when you actually
print out the phylogeny of bacteria and their associated flagella.
>
> They might have tried to seed a million or so planets
> before they also tried to seed earth, after all.
>
> What supporting evidence do you
> >have for this?
>
> As much as you have for:
>
> Mother Earth did it, this I know
> For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
Well, Ockham's Razor does lead to a preference for mechanisms that are
known natural mechanisms (unless explicitly refuted) rather than
mechanisms that require unnecessary HYPEs. If you consider mechanisms
which do not require unnecessary and unevidenced HYPEs to be "Mother
Earth", so be it.
>
> No, you never said this, but all your sarcasm of the last
> two years (IPU, HYPE, etc.) and all your dirty debating
> tricks (see above for a tiny sample) pander to the
> talk.origins participants who think it and even
> give paraphrasals of it. Like Myers's ally and co-liar-about-Behe
> Mark Koebbe.
I take credit for the sarcasm of HYPE (which, however, is *also*
strictly accurate, since you *are* positing a hypothetical entity). IPU
was before me, and is more sarcastic than HYPE, since most HYPE
proponents are not thinking of HYPEs that are invisible pink unicorns.
>
> [Hey, if Myers can call misrepresentations
> paraphrasals, I can call mere hyperbole paraphrasal.]
>
> >> I don't minimize the difficulty. They would have to study how
> >> the intracellular transport system is configured, what it takes to modify
> >> this or that part of this or that path. But if they can
> >> gather and put together all the little bits and
> >> pieces of information, they should be able to tell how to change
> >> the bacterium to make it produce flagella.
> >>
> >> That's without peeking at the genome of the bacteria WITH
> >> flagellae. If they peek, it should be child's play.
Huh? Wouldn't they have to invent the flagella from scratch rather than
modeled off existing flagella?