A Rebuttal of Behe
eddie broadsword
A discussion of biochemical evolution with reference to Darwin's Black
Box by Michael Behe and to a review of this book by Phillip Johnson.
The essay discusses several examples described in Behe such as
vision, synthesis of Adenine, blood clotting and cilia. The paper is aimed
at a well informed audience interested in the problems of evolution and
the origin of life. It acknowledges that the origin of many processes is
obscure but maintains that natural selection operates at the level of
biochemistry just as it does at the level of morphology.
Henry Barwood
eddie broadsword wrote:
> A Rebuttal of Behe:
Expect to be excoriated by the Mad Gamecock for your temerity!
Barwood
Julie Thomas
But it's really not a very good rebuttal (in my opinion).
I'll post a reply to this rebuttal in the next week or so.
--
"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]
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ed...@dircon.co.uk (eddie broadsword) says:
>
>>A Rebuttal of Behe:
>>A discussion of biochemical evolution with reference to Darwin's Black
>>Box by Michael Behe and to a review of this book by Phillip Johnson.
>>The essay discusses several examples described in Behe such as
>>vision, synthesis of Adenine, blood clotting and cilia. The paper is aimed
>>at a well informed audience interested in the problems of evolution and
>>the origin of life. It acknowledges that the origin of many processes is
>>obscure but maintains that natural selection operates at the level of
>>biochemistry just as it does at the level of morphology.
>>
>>http://www.eddyb.dircon.co.uk/
>
>But it's really not a very good rebuttal (in my opinion).
>I'll post a reply to this rebuttal in the next week or so.
>
there are, of course, numerous rebuttals to behe's slanted view of
evolution. robert dorit, an evolutionary biologist at yale wrote one
in the 'american scientist' earlier this year in which he shows behe
either doesnt KNOW enough about biology to criticize it, OR is being
deliberately evasive on the evidence. the review is available on the
web.
Wade Hines
>
> In a previous article, ed...@dircon.co.uk (eddie broadsword) says:
>
> >A Rebuttal of Behe:
> >A discussion of biochemical evolution with reference to Darwin's Black
> >Box by Michael Behe and to a review of this book by Phillip Johnson.
> >The essay discusses several examples described in Behe such as
> >vision, synthesis of Adenine, blood clotting and cilia. The paper is aimed
> >at a well informed audience interested in the problems of evolution and
> >the origin of life. It acknowledges that the origin of many processes is
> >obscure but maintains that natural selection operates at the level of
> >biochemistry just as it does at the level of morphology.
> >
> >http://www.eddyb.dircon.co.uk/
>
> But it's really not a very good rebuttal (in my opinion).
> I'll post a reply to this rebuttal in the next week or so.
I read it finally. I tried 3 times before I could actually do
it. The first 2 times I kept skipping forward to look for the
meaty parts of the rebuttal. Come to think of it, maybe I
slept through the third reading because I seem to have missed
the parts that weren't just meandered posturing.
One wonders what there is to respond to.
Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wad...@ix.netcom.com (Wade Hines) says:
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>> In a previous article, ed...@dircon.co.uk (eddie broadsword) says:
>>
>> >A Rebuttal of Behe:
>> >A discussion of biochemical evolution with reference to Darwin's Black
>> >Box by Michael Behe and to a review of this book by Phillip Johnson.
>> >The essay discusses several examples described in Behe such as
>> >vision, synthesis of Adenine, blood clotting and cilia. The paper is aimed
>> >at a well informed audience interested in the problems of evolution and
>> >the origin of life. It acknowledges that the origin of many processes is
>> >obscure but maintains that natural selection operates at the level of
>> >biochemistry just as it does at the level of morphology.
>> >
>> >http://www.eddyb.dircon.co.uk/
>>
>> But it's really not a very good rebuttal (in my opinion).
>> I'll post a reply to this rebuttal in the next week or so.
>
>I read it finally. I tried 3 times before I could actually do
>it. The first 2 times I kept skipping forward to look for the
>meaty parts of the rebuttal. Come to think of it, maybe I
>slept through the third reading because I seem to have missed
>the parts that weren't just meandered posturing.
In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
common among Behe critics).
>One wonders what there is to respond to.
Come now, Wade. Trying to lower expectations, eh?
While it's too late to test now, I would have predicted
that if you had posted this article pretending you
were the author, you'd be getting lots of POTM nominations
from the t.o. gang. And it will be interesting to see
how many t.o. members rush to defend Stevens' points
from my critique. ;)
>Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
>Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
>of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
Julie Thomas
wf3h wrote:
>there are, of course, numerous rebuttals to behe's slanted view of
>evolution.
I have already pointed out some of the problems in
the rebuttals and critical reviews written by the following people:
H. Allen Orr
Jerry Coyne
Keith Robison
Andrew Pomiankowski
If I can get enough money, I hope to set up a web page sometime
next year where I will list these reviews (along with lots of other stuff).
It should be fun. ;)
>robert dorit, an evolutionary biologist at yale wrote one
>in the 'american scientist' earlier this year in which he shows behe
>either doesnt KNOW enough about biology to criticize it, OR is being
>deliberately evasive on the evidence. the review is available on the
>web.
Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>"Will you honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged)
>whether you believe that the shape of my nose was ordained and
>'guided by an intelligent cause?'" In exasperation, but not without
>humor, Charles Darwin posed this question to Charles Lyell in 1860,
>the year Darwin dealt with the maelstrom unleashed by the
>publication of The Origin of Species. In both the popular and the
>scientific press, Darwin had to contend with the wrath of those for
>whom the notion of a living world based on accident, time and natural
>selection was simply too disquieting. Look around, Darwin's critics
>argued, and see the evidence of design. And where there is design,
>there must be a designer.
>One hundred thirty-six years later, this argument makes a
>reappearance in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
At this point, we can see that Dorit engages a form of
sloppy thinking that raises serious suspicions on his
intellectual capability to objectively review Behe's book.
The sloppy thinking he employs is the projection
of the common stereotypical argument upon Behe's thesis.
This stereotypical approach is the either/or approach which
views the dispute as one whereby everything is either
designed or everything has evolved without intelligent
intervention. When this approach is adopted, Darwin's
nose becomes erroneously relevant. For if Darwin's nose
is not designed, then everything is not designed. And since
everything is not designed, the either/or approach allows
us to infer that everything is evolved, right? Dorit seems
oblivious to the fact that Behe does not argue that
everything is designed. In fact, he accepts evolutionary
explanations for many things. Darwin's nose is irrelevant.
>Adorned this time around with the language of molecular
>biology, spiced up with charges of a conspiracy of scientists,
>masquerading as an appeal for truth and not for theology,
>it is nonetheless the same old thing:
Here it becomes clear that Dorit did not seriously read Behe's
book. Instead, I suspect he skimmed through it and relied on
his stereotypes. Behe does not make any charge of a conspiracy
of scientists. Anyone who objectively reads chapter 11 would
see that Behe attempts to explain the scientific resistance to
the concept of design *without* appealing to a conspiracy.
But what's worse, Dorit implies that Behe is engaged in a sort of
conspiracy, where he masquerades his appeal for theology as an
appeal for truth. I'm disappointed that a scientist from Yale apparently
relies on such superficial and unjustified claims.
>There cannot be design without a designer. Although I do not
>doubt the sincerity of the author, nor scoff at his unease with a
>world apparently lacking purpose, the case for intelligent design
>put forth in Darwin's Black Box is built on some deep
>misunderstandings about evolution, molecular organization
>and, ultimately, about the nature of scientific inquiry.
Where does Behe express unease with a world apparently lacking
purpose? This is the typical, lazy cheap-shot that seems to run
as a common thread among Behe's critics. If critics like
Dorit wish to make the "lack of purpose" an issue,
I wish they'd develop this into an argument instead of
making one-line cheap-shots. If they did try to make
it into an argument, we'd have to inquire about Dorit's mindset
and ability to accept a world that has at least some purpose.
And I'd wager he would come off worse than Behe.
>Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed
>on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking:
>Biological order and design emerge from the workings
>of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer.
Is Dorit speaking of all biological order and design? If so, he
is talking metaphysics (which is ironic that he is one who wants
to preach about the " the nature of scientific inquiry"). We'll
return to this claim at the end of my review.
>This book will, no doubt, find its defenders. Those who are
>uneasy with a materialist explanation of the living world will
>welcome this attack on the Darwinian worldview. But as a
>practicing biologist, and a card-carrying molecular evolutionist,
>I cannot but find the premise of this book-that molecular
>discoveries have plunged a wooden stake through the heart
>of Darwinian logic-ludicrous.
Here we see more of Dorit's mind enslaved-and-shaped-by-stereotype.
He sets up the dispute as between those who are "uneasy with
a materialist explanation" (while failing to define 'materialist')
against a "practicing biologist and card-carrying molecular
evolutionist." Well, if we are to go down this route, we have
to wonder if Dorit took Behe's critique personally. After all,
we might expect a "card-carrying molecular evolutionist" to
be offended and insulted by Behe's claims and thus react
emotionally and reflexively. After all, our "card-carrying
molecular evolutionist" could have taken the time to explain
how Behe's IC systems did indeed evolve via neo-Darwinism.
But he doesn't.
>This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
>has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
>end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
>been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
>is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
>Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
emotionally upset.
>And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably
>the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and
>the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were
>probably not bad, either).
Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
an article critiquing Behe's argument?
>For the first time we have molecular methods that allow
>the generation of massive amounts of detailed data relevant
>to a host of evolutionary questions. We have techniques that
>allow us to follow the control and expression of single genes
>in living organisms. We can now move genes from one
>species to another to test their function in a novel genetic context.
>Computational power now allows us to compare tens of
>thousands of DNA sequences to one another in search for
>conserved motifs, shared functions and common ancestry.
>We can carry out simulations of complex biological
>phenomena and find solutions to quantitative problems
>that seem to defy analytic solutions. Not bad at all, I thought.
Yes, we have many ways to detect and create patterns around
similarities. These patterns can then be used to infer common
descent. But evidence of common descent is not evidence of
natural selection. And all of the work that Dorit cites doesn't
indicate that these IC systems evolved via neo-darwinism.
Dorit misses the point.
>What then is Behe's argument? The central point of Darwin's
>Black Box is not always easy to spot, but it appears to rely on
>Behe's notion of irreducible complexity. Molecular systems,
>defined to include both linked sets of biochemical reactions
>the clotting cascade) and aspects of cellular organization (cilia
>and flagella), for example, are apparently "irreducibly complex":
>They only work when all the pieces are in place and finely tuned.
>Any single component, on its own, is useless. If there is a single
>missing piece, the whole apparatus ceases to function, like a
>mousetrap without a spring. Such complex mechanisms, argues
>Behe, could not have arisen "in a Darwinistic manner." Their
>complexity shows an intelligent designer at work. But this is a
>conclusion reached only by stacking misunderstandings of the
>evolutionary process upon misrepresentations of the practice
>of evolutionary biology. I emphasize six fallacies inherent in
>Behe's claim, although there are many others where these
>came from.
Okay, let's look at the six fallacies "inherent" in Behe's claim:
>Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world
>and other levels of biological organization.
Hmmm. I don't recall Behe making this claim.
>By the author's own admission, the Darwinian argument appears
>to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization-
>bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms.
I don't recall Behe agreeing that the *Darwinian* argument appears to
suffice for such things as the origin of bird flight (in fact, I cannot find
where Behe discussed the origin of bird flight). Of course, it is possible
that Behe accepts the evolution of birds, but this would not necessarily
translate as the acceptance of the *Darwinian* evolution of birds (and
bird flight). A nice critique of the Darwinian evolution of bird flight
can be found in Michael Denton's original book, Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis. Years later, Richard Dawkins discussed the origin of bird flight
in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable. Dawkins not only ignores
Denton's criticisms, but simply retells the same old pair of just-so stories
concerning this event. And when it comes to such just-so stories:
"Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible stories
concerning the evolution of a given biological feature. But
plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to
an evolutionary hypothesis." - Robert Dorit
Did Dorit forget his own advise?
>Only at the molecular level does the argument somehow
>fail. But, in fact, there is no fundamental discontinuity between
>the molecular and the supramolecular level in biology. The
>traditions, tools and approaches of the molecular biologist may
>differ radically from those of the functional morphologist, but
>the fabric of living systems is seamless. There is nothing that
>makes design at the molecular level any more special than design
>or organization at any other level in biology. If anything, molecular
>design may be somewhat easier to account for, because the
>components of molecular machines are frequently the products
>of identifiable genes.
If there is no discontinuity between the molecular and
supramolecular level in biology, why are humans and
chimps 99% genetically identical, yet so different on
the supramolecular level? Why are some species of frog
almost identical at the supramolecular level, yet quite different
at the molecular level? I don't know if there truly is a
discontinuity, but if there was, reductionism would be
dealt a huge blow (thus we would expect great resistance
to this idea).
Nevertheless, Dorit misses the point. Behe focuses on
irreducibly complex machines and circuits, because, as
Dorit admits, " If anything, molecular design may be
somewhat easier to account for, because the components
of molecular machines are frequently the products of
identifiable genes." Thus, the failure of Darwinian
evolution to account for the origin of such machines
is all the more meaningful.
Dorit's fallacy is in thinking that acceptance of evolution at
higher levels of organization translates to mean one is
obligated to accept Darwinism as the explanation for
the origin of IC molecular machines. First, the acceptance
of evolution at higher levels may merely be the acceptance
of common descent, which is not the same as the acceptance
of the Darwinian explanation as a mechanism for the
evolutionary change that has occurred since the last common
ancestor. Secondly, evolution at higher levels appears to amount
to nothing more than new versions of old themes. As far as I
can tell, most of the core molecular machinery behind all life appeared
long ago and things have evolved *because* of this machinery.
For example, regulatory mutations have been proposed as the means
of generating new body plans, but I fail to see how they would
generate an IC machine de novo. Put simply, the evolution of bird
flight gives me NO reason to think the bacterial flagellum evolved
via a Darwinian mechanism. To think otherwise is to engage in
simple hand-waving.
Of course, it is becoming even more ironic that a "practicing biologist"
and "card-carrying molecular evolutionist," working in "the golden age of
evolutionary biology", and dealing with a topic that "may be somewhat
easier to account for, because the components of molecular machines
are frequently the products of identifiable genes," relies on hand-waving
instead of explaining the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's
IC systems.
>Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature
>(molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature
>originally evolved.
Dorit then goes on to explain how the components of
an IC system may have originally served other functions
and only later became recruited into the IC system under
question. After going through an example, Dorit concludes
"Design-from-scratch and direct routes are not luxuries
afforded to the evolutionary process."
I think Dorit's point is entirely valid. Unfortunately, critics
of IC tend to use concepts like redundancy and recruitment
in a purely apologetic fashion. For example, Dorit's example
of recruitment involved the homeobox genes. Yet Behe never
discusses this phenomena. Why doesn't Dorit use his explanation
of recruitment to simply explain one of Behe's examples? Because
he is using the concept in an apologetic fashion where somehow
the reality and possibility of recruitment magically explains the
IC systems in question. This probably stems from the black-and-white
thinking which views one example of evolution to mean everything
has evolved without intelligent intervention.
While folks like Dorit and Orr use the concept of recruitment in
an apologetic fashion, I use it in a much more objective and
investigative manner. Namely, if there is evidence to think
such an explanation *applies*, I do not use IC to score
a design event (as with the Krebs Cycle). But if such explanations
fail (as they do with the bacterial flagellum, chromosome replication,
cell wall, and ATP synthases), then the design inference proceeds.
Maybe this is why my views generate such hostility - I take these
evolutionary explanations for the origin of IC beyond the realm
of apologetics and demonstrate a far more open-minded approach
than IC critics.
>Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for
>each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary
>bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.
>There has always been a version of popular evolution that
>consists of identifying some curious feature of the living
>world, speculating on why that feature might be "good for
>the organism" and imagining how that feature may have come
>to pass. Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible
>stories concerning the evolution of a given biological feature.
>But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply
>to an evolutionary hypothesis.
Dorit makes a good point here, except that such explanations
have not been restricted to "popular evolution" (okay, okay,
I do realize they put food and expensive silverware
on Richard Dawkins table).
>Evolutionary biology may finally be coming of age precisely
>because we are moving away from particularistic, speculative
>scenarios-the just-so stories.
Maybe, but much of Darwinism is nothing more than such
speculative just-so story telling. Take away the just
so stories, and Darwinism has no place in an explanation
about a change in the past. What Dorit refers to below
deals only with common descent.
>The rigorous testing of evolutionary hypotheses depends
>on the use of comparative data, on an understanding of
>mechanism and, increasingly, on the experimental manipulation
>of components of the system. It does not (see fallacy two)
>depend on inventing an "advantage" for a partially evolved
>flagellar motor. In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he
>argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of
>the flagellar motor or of the clotting cascade.
Of course, notice that Dorit fails to use this
"coming of age," more rigorous approach to outline
the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's IC
systems. Dorit again misses the point.
>Unsolved questions, however, are the
>hallmark of an exciting science.
Except, of course, if the explanation involves design. :)
>Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of
>sequences, some math, and no answers."
>In a peculiar quest for an article or book that "tells us how
>specific biochemical structures came to be," Behe has made
>glancing contact with the literature of my field.
Yet note once again that Dorit fails to tell us how
his "field" provides the evidence for the Darwinian
evolution of Behe's IC systems.
>What he has found apparently dismays him. The basic
>tools of the trade-the comparative analysis of sequences
>and structures, the mathematical modeling of the evolutionary
>process and the experimental generation of biologically
>relevant molecules in abiotic systems-are summarily dismissed.
Dorit is again confusing common descent and the mechanism
of natural selection. He also once again fails to tell us how these
approaches provide the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
of Behe's IC systems. As for the experimental generation of
biologically relevant molecules, Behe doesn't dismiss
this. He mistakenly accepts the relevance of the abiotic
generation of adenine in his chapter on AMP synthesis.
Yet even granting this, Behe goes on to outline some serious
problems for Darwinism, problems that has been ignored by
every one of Behe's critics to date. Why should Dorit be
any different?
>What then is left? Would the accumulating evidence
>that myriad novel molecular functions for proteins and
>nucleic acids can be evolved (not engineered) in vitro
>count as evidence against intelligent design?
Why would it?
>How about the observation in real time of the
>acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria?
>Drug resistance by viruses? Herbicide resistance
>by weeds?
Dorit is again relying on his faulty perception whereby
everything in the world is either design or evolved without
intelligent intervention.
>I suspect that in the end nothing would cause the
>author to abandon his commitment to intelligent design.
Ah, the delicious irony.. In my opinion, Behe is
far more open-minded than Robert Dorit. Behe seems
to accept both evolution and design as explanations for
the various aspects of the biological world. Dorit, on the other
hand, seems to be so convinced of his way of thinking that
nothing Behe has said seems to have caused him to entertain even
the slightest suspicion that design might be behind some aspect
of biology. I suspect that in the end nothing would cause
Dorit to abandon his commitment to Darwinian evolution
as an explanation for everything.
>Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among
>scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.
>Anyone who has ever attended a scientific meeting will
>find the notion of a conspiracy of silence-well, unlikely.
>The meetings I go to are usually characterized by N scientists
>voicing at least N+1 opinions on the topic at hand. When
>Behe reviews the indices of several major biochemistry
>textbooks and finds that fewer than one percent of the entries
>deal with evolution, I fear he may be onto something:
>Molecular biologists and biochemists often have no training
>in evolution. Given my conference experience, however, that
>does not always stop them from voicing a personal opinion
>about the evolutionary process. But like my personal opinions
>about the analysis of detailed crystallographic data, such
>opinions should not be mistaken for expertise.
Consider what Dorit has just done. He erroneously projects
a "conspiracy" claim on Behe. Then after setting up his
straw man, he knocks it down with nothing more than
personal, biased perceptions about his personal, anecdotal
experiences.
Yes, it is true that meetings often entail many opinions about
a topic on hand (although I think Dorit exagerates). Yet all
those opinions fall under the conforming umbrella of a belief
where all biological phenomena have evolved (and life arose
from non-life without intelligent intervention). This conformity
stems from the ground rules of science, where design is not
considered a scientific explanation. Thus, anyone at a meeting
speaking of design, or denying that evolution occurred with
the topic at hand, would be like (let's be honest) someone
who farts in a church. It would be interesting to scientifically
study scientific meetings to measure the amount of emotional
and reflexive reaction that would occur if something like this
happened. But unfortunately, the only thing science refuses
to scientifically analyze is the practice of science itself.
>Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed
>and unexplained.
>The very definition of complexity, and the rules
>that govern its emergence, are indeed critical
>issues in evolutionary biology. But the problem
>becomes deeply uninteresting if the only legitimate
>approach to solving it is the demonstration of "a
>direct, gradual route [leading to] irreducibly complex
>systems." We are still deciding how to measure complexity,
>debating whether the history of life shows a tendency
>toward increased complexity and arguing about whether
>biological organization is but a subset of the larger problem
>of order and complexity. We do not as yet know what form
>the answers will take, but mathematical models, computational
>simulations and, increasingly, experimental results suggest
>that complexity and organization may be inexorable outcomes
>in multicomponent systems.
Instead of all the hand-waving, why doesn't Dorit just spit out
the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's IC systems?
According to my word processor, Dorit's review used 1971
words. Yet not one word was used to highlight the
evidence for such evolution.
>If our hypotheses about complexity
>are to be of any use, however, they will have to be materialist
>explanations grounded in material cause.
Of course, I have found the concepts of IC and design
to be quite useful when exploring the biological world.
I'd probably take Dorit's assertion more seriously if
had once actually tried to use these concepts. But as is
usual, those who assert IC/design are of no use are
those who don't use and have never seriously tried
to use such concepts. They speak merely from a
position of ignorance.
>I've often wondered why the argument from
>design so appeals to engineers and chemists. I
>suspect that the problem derives from the day-to-day
>experience of these professions. Engineers and
>chemists know that they do not get a desired outcome-
>stable bridge or purified compound-from random inputs,
>time and a statistical principle for differential representation.
>In these professions, there is no design without a designer,
>no desired outcome without careful and intelligent planning.
>But personal experience is not always the best guide.
Yet what is most interesting is that Bruce Alberts, president
of the National Academy of Sciences, has recently written
how biologists need to consult engineers to better understand
their field of study. Alberts essentially argues that for biology
to advance, biologists need to begin thinking more and more
like engineers.
>Behe's argument for intelligent design ultimately
>fails because it is a belief and not a potential explanation.
Actually, this claim fails because it is only a belief. Dorit's
belief that IC and design are "not potential explanations"
is simply wrong. They might not be the type of explanations
Dorit can accept, but that does not mean they fail as potential
explanations.
>The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not,
>nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.
I suspect this is Dorit's way of saying that science cannot
accept design as part of a scientific explanation. But this
means that when Dorit says such things as, " Biological order
and design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary
process and not from the hand of a designer," he is simply
repeating the only conclusion that science can ever reach.
Of course, as a practicing biologist and card-carrying
molecular evolutionist, Dorit would assert such a claim.
He can not say anything else (regardless of the
evidence). Since a designer is prohibited as part of
a scientific explanation, even the weakest possible
evidence means biological features stem from the workings
of the evolutionary process. It can be no other way.
That's why even though Dorit admits that evolutionary
biology is just now "coming of age," for decades prior,
the "nothing in science makes sense except in the light
of evolution" polemic was repeated countless times.
This is why I believe something like SIBO is helpful
when trying to discover what happened.
In summary, I was not impressed at all with Robert Dorit's
critical review. In my opinion, he has done a nice job
of tap-dancing around the real issues and does a good
job of knocking down straw man positions. I suspect he
wrote this review because he felt personally insulted because
Behe made claims about his "field" that he found down right
offensive. Oh well.
Anyway, since Dorit liked to mention fallacies, lets look at
some that he employed in his critique.
Fallacy one: The dispute about origins breaks down
to a question where everything is either designed
or evolved.
Fallacy two: The only reason to reject a neo-Darwinian
explanation for the origin of a biological system is
that it means the world has no purpose.
Fallacy three: The dispute about origins breaks
down into a dispute between those opposed to "materialist
explanations" and science (it's the "warfare between
religion and science" meme).
Fallacy four - Attribute straw man positions to your
opponent - ex., accuse Behe of invoking a conspiracy theory.
Fallacy five: Assumes that one's anecdotal experience
with scientific meetings is relevant to anything about
the way science works.
Fallacy six: Assume that evidence of common descent
is evidence of natural selection as the mechanism of
evolution of some ancient system.
Fallacy seven: Assume that the evolution of bird flight
means the bacterial flagellum evolved via Darwinism.
And to quote Dorit, " there are many others where these
came from," but, alas, I am tired.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>common among Behe critics).
julie's arrogance betrays the fact she's never heard behe speak, or
heard him say the reason scientists dont accept design is because
we're 'anti-religious'.
a little pot and kettle going on here.
>
>"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]
>
>
it would be nice if behe took his own advice and rejected 'design'
because, according to him, any theory which doesnt produce results
should be discarded. design is 200 yrs old and its produced nothing at
all.
in addition, behe says he's doing science. julie says design isnt
science...be nice if y'all would play nice together.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) says:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 29 Dec 1998 20:23:11 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>>>meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>>>But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>>>common among Behe critics).
>>
>>julie's arrogance betrays the fact she's never heard behe speak, or
>>heard him say the reason scientists dont accept design is because
>>we're 'anti-religious'.
>
>What does wf3h's hearsay have to do with my point?
>
>>a little pot and kettle going on here.
>
>One wonders if wf3h has been smoking the former.
>
>>>
>>>"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]
>>>
>>>
>>it would be nice if behe took his own advice and rejected 'design'
>>because, according to him, any theory which doesnt produce results
>>should be discarded. design is 200 yrs old and its produced nothing at
>>all.
>
>And who, in the last 200 years, has actually tried to *apply*
>the concept of design only to produce nothing at all?
>
>>in addition, behe says he's doing science. julie says design isnt
>>science...be nice if y'all would play nice together.
>
>It's understandable how pack members would find independent
>thinking troublesome. Go play in the pack, wf3h. It's safe
>there - that's where others can tell you what to think.
Did I say pack? I meant flock....as in parrot.
--
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>wf3h wrote:
>
>>there are, of course, numerous rebuttals to behe's slanted view of
>>evolution.
>
>I have already pointed out some of the problems in
>the rebuttals and critical reviews written by the following people:
>
>H. Allen Orr
>Jerry Coyne
>Keith Robison
>Andrew Pomiankowski
>
>If I can get enough money, I hope to set up a web page sometime
>next year where I will list these reviews (along with lots of other stuff).
>It should be fun. ;)
>
>>robert dorit, an evolutionary biologist at yale wrote one
>>in the 'american scientist' earlier this year in which he shows behe
>>either doesnt KNOW enough about biology to criticize it, OR is being
>>deliberately evasive on the evidence. the review is available on the
>>web.
>
>Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
>September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>
>(snip)
>
>At this point, we can see that Dorit engages a form of
>sloppy thinking that raises serious suspicions on his
>intellectual capability to objectively review Behe's book.
>The sloppy thinking he employs is the projection
>of the common stereotypical argument upon Behe's thesis. \
julie's never heard behe's talks. julie's never heard behe tell an
audience why no scientist accepts his 'design' theory. his reason:
(and i quote from his talk at the cathedral church of the nativity in
bethlehem, pa, nov 22)
'scientists are anti-religious'. yep. all of 'em. when i pointed out
this was absurd (considering his host at the talk was a PhD chemist,
and a communicant of the episcopal church) behe revised his statement
to say all LEADING scientists and those who are one the editorial
boards of leading journals are anti-religious
you were saying about stereotypes?
>This stereotypical approach is the either/or approach which
>views the dispute as one whereby everything is either
>designed or everything has evolved without intelligent
>intervention.
since intelligent design is, a priori, not science, its not hard to
set up such an approach.
Dorit seems
>oblivious to the fact that Behe does not argue that
>everything is designed. In fact, he accepts evolutionary
>explanations for many things. Darwin's nose is irrelevant.
dorit's argument is, of course, that behe ignores perfectly
scientific, rational evolutionary arguments in favor of his mystical
approach to science.
>>Adorned this time around with the language of molecular
>>biology, spiced up with charges of a conspiracy of scientists,
>>masquerading as an appeal for truth and not for theology,
>>it is nonetheless the same old thing:
>
>Here it becomes clear that Dorit did not seriously read Behe's
>book.
unfortunately, you're wrong and dorit is right. behe DOES have a
conspiratorial view of scientists, because I MYSELF have heard him
talk about it, as i stated above.
Instead, I suspect he skimmed through it and relied on
>his stereotypes. Behe does not make any charge of a conspiracy
>of scientists.
funny that dorit thinks so. and, as i say, i have heard behe MYSELF
say LITERALLY that ALL scientists are 'anti-religious'.
.. I'm disappointed that a scientist from Yale apparently
>relies on such superficial and unjustified claims.
im disappointed you overlook what behe himself claims about scientists
as a rationalization for the reason his 'theory' is not even seriously
discussed in science.
dorit's not the only one saying behe thinks there's a conspiracy. i do
to because i heard behe say it.
>Where does Behe express unease with a world apparently lacking
>purpose? This is the typical, lazy cheap-shot that seems to run
>as a common thread among Behe's critics.
well, hell, julie, perhaps if you'd seen behe appear on the catholic
right wing program 'the abundant life' with johnette benkovic on EWTN
earlier this year, where evolution was called the 'philosophy of
naziism' by the journalist george sims johnson, you wouldnt be so
quick to call 'cheap shots' everytime someone points out behe's
biases.
>>Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed
>>on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking:
>>Biological order and design emerge from the workings
>>of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer.
>
>Is Dorit speaking of all biological order and design? If so, he
>is talking metaphysics (which is ironic that he is one who wants
>to preach about the " the nature of scientific inquiry"). We'll
>return to this claim at the end of my review.
so julie here is saying that there is no order in biological systems?
that 'order' is a metaphysical term? so a pond full of scum is as
ordered as a bacteria?
>
>>This book will, no doubt, find its defenders. Those who are
>>uneasy with a materialist explanation of the living world will
>>welcome this attack on the Darwinian worldview. But as a
>>practicing biologist, and a card-carrying molecular evolutionist,
>>I cannot but find the premise of this book-that molecular
>>discoveries have plunged a wooden stake through the heart
>>of Darwinian logic-ludicrous.
>
>Here we see more of Dorit's mind enslaved-and-shaped-by-stereotype.
julie, calm down. its behe's claim, not dorit's that scientists are
anti-religious. its behe's participation in right wing programming
where evolution = naziism that leads to stereotyping, not dorit.
>He sets up the dispute as between those who are "uneasy with
>a materialist explanation" (while failing to define 'materialist')
>against a "practicing biologist and card-carrying molecular
>evolutionist."
perhaps if julie were more widely read, and had visited phillip
johnson's writings on the 'access research network' she'd see how the
design folks define 'materialism'. basically its anything that
contradicts good biblical creationism.
>
>>This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
>>has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
>>end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
>>been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
>>is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
>>Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
>
>I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
>emotionally upset.
gee cant imagine why. knowing that the right wing, and their house
mascot, behe, think scientists are elitist atheists, no wonder some
folks get indignant.
>Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
>molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
>evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
>Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
>an article critiquing Behe's argument?
gee julie you snipped the article, didnt you? you didnt quote from the
article, did you? dorit asks, for example, how blood clotting could be
IC if it can occur in both aerobic and anaerobic environments. if ALL
the components are required to be IC, then blood clotting should occur
in only one environment. dorit goes to great lengths in his review to
discuss behe's lack of objectivity in his 'design' theory.
>
>Yes, we have many ways to detect and create patterns around
>similarities. These patterns can then be used to infer common
>descent. But evidence of common descent is not evidence of
>natural selection. And all of the work that Dorit cites doesn't
>indicate that these IC systems evolved via neo-darwinism.
>Dorit misses the point.
now lets see...julie says 'design' isnt science, but here she says it
is. dorit's claim is that behe, who rejects darwinian evolution,
rejects it on the basis of a selective use of evidence. julie herself
usually DOES get confused over the idea that 'absence of evidence is
evidence of absence'. neither behe, nor julie has established that
evolution CANT produce the systems behe calls IC.
>Okay, let's look at the six fallacies "inherent" in Behe's claim:
>
>>Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world
>>and other levels of biological organization.
>
>Hmmm. I don't recall Behe making this claim.
behe does make this claim because his argument seems to be restricted
to biochemistry/molecular biology. he seems to accept morphology as
being produced by darwinian evolution.
>
>>By the author's own admission, the Darwinian argument appears
>>to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization-
>>bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms.
>
>I don't recall Behe agreeing that the *Darwinian* argument appears to
>suffice for such things as the origin of bird flight (in fact, I cannot find
>where Behe discussed the origin of bird flight). Of course, it is possible
>that Behe accepts the evolution of birds, but this would not necessarily
>translate as the acceptance of the *Darwinian* evolution of birds (and
>bird flight).
at the november 22 discussion, someone in the audience asked behe if
darwinian evolution could co-exist with 'design'. his answer was yes.
again, dorit seems to have behe's claim correct.
>
>Nevertheless, Dorit misses the point. Behe focuses on
>irreducibly complex machines and circuits, because, as
>Dorit admits, " If anything, molecular design may be
>somewhat easier to account for, because the components
>of molecular machines are frequently the products of
>identifiable genes." Thus, the failure of Darwinian
>evolution to account for the origin of such machines
>is all the more meaningful.
again, julie is saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
thats shoddy thinking, and weak logic. dorit himself points out that
there are numerous homologs in different species, thus common descent
is has abundant evidence. and, again, in 200 yrs, design has NEVER
been testable, and has NEVER yielded even ONE concept that could be
brought into the lab.
thats why behe HIMSELF has been unable to show ANY system in nature
that's designed, relying, instead on 'absence of evidence is evidence
of absence'.
>
>Dorit's fallacy is in thinking that acceptance of evolution at
>higher levels of organization translates to mean one is
>obligated to accept Darwinism as the explanation for
>the origin of IC molecular machines.
hmmm julie here is saying the laws of nature, miraculously, and
magically become inapplicable at some level of evolution.
why? neither she, nor behe will say. gee, aint it wonderful!
First, the acceptance
>of evolution at higher levels may merely be the acceptance
>of common descent, which is not the same as the acceptance
>of the Darwinian explanation as a mechanism for the
>evolutionary change that has occurred since the last common
>ancestor.
which, we've seen, both dorit, and i say behe agrees DOES happen
(darwinian evolution, that is)
.. Put simply, the evolution of bird
>flight gives me NO reason to think the bacterial flagellum evolved
>via a Darwinian mechanism. To think otherwise is to engage in
>simple hand-waving.
ROFLMAO!!! again, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. thats
your ONLY argument!! we SEE evolution produce new species, we see
evolution tinker with the molecular machinery of populations, but
julie says that because we cant produce ALL the answers, we have to
rely on magic.
>
>
>Dorit then goes on to explain how the components of
>an IC system may have originally served other functions
>and only later became recruited into the IC system under
>question. After going through an example, Dorit concludes
>"Design-from-scratch and direct routes are not luxuries
>afforded to the evolutionary process."
>
>I think Dorit's point is entirely valid. Unfortunately, critics
>of IC tend to use concepts like redundancy and recruitment
>in a purely apologetic fashion. For example, Dorit's example
>of recruitment involved the homeobox genes. Yet Behe never
>discusses this phenomena. Why doesn't Dorit use his explanation
>of recruitment to simply explain one of Behe's examples? Because
>he is using the concept in an apologetic fashion where somehow
>the reality and possibility of recruitment magically explains the
>IC systems in question. This probably stems from the black-and-white
>thinking which views one example of evolution to mean everything
>has evolved without intelligent intervention.
ahem...apologetic? you mean dorit is the first person to think of this
argument? you mean no one practicing in molecular biology knows about
recruitment and homeobox genes except dorit? this is somehow unique?
THAT would make it 'apologetic'. however, i dont think dorit invented
that idea, so it existed BEFORE behe made his argument, and thus is
NOT 'apologetics'. if im wrong, if dorit, smart as he is, INVENTED,
and is the ONLY holder of these ideas, perhaps you'll tell us.
as to 'intelligent intervention'...how, julie, does it work? behe
hasnt been able to tell us how this WONDERFUL new theory of biology
works, how its testable, how it does what it does, where we can see it
in action. he hasnt said a single word about it.
perhaps you'll tell us!
>
>While folks like Dorit and Orr use the concept of recruitment in
>an apologetic fashion, I use it in a much more objective and
>investigative manner.
now lets see...dorit was writing an article in response to a biased
fundamentalist christian attack on science...apologetics, or
explanation in direct response?
i think julie is confused.
Namely, if there is evidence to think
>such an explanation *applies*, I do not use IC to score
>a design event (as with the Krebs Cycle). But if such explanations
>fail (as they do with the bacterial flagellum, chromosome replication,
>cell wall, and ATP synthases), then the design inference proceeds.
>Maybe this is why my views generate such hostility - I take these
>evolutionary explanations for the origin of IC beyond the realm
>of apologetics and demonstrate a far more open-minded approach
>than IC critics.
okay lets take julies way. lets all be open minded. tomorrow,
astrology is taught with astronomy. voodoo is taught with medicine.
alchemy and chemistry are taught together
there is a difference between being open minded and being gullible.
there is NO justification for 'design' in science. none. julies ONLY
defense so far has been 'gee, darwinists cant explain it, so its GOTTA
be magic!!'. sorry, thats not science.
if 'design' WERE science, design theorists would be able to tell us
why evolution CANT produce the systems we see, instead of just telling
us we DONT KNOW. they would be able to tell us how design works. they
would be able to tell us how to test it in a lab
they havent told us one, single, solitary blessed thing, besides 'all
you guys are biased'. and they're right; we are biased. scientists
like to have scientific explanations for things instead of 'golly, we
dont know HOW that happened, so lets say god did it'.
>
>>Evolutionary biology may finally be coming of age precisely
>>because we are moving away from particularistic, speculative
>>scenarios-the just-so stories.
>
>Maybe, but much of Darwinism is nothing more than such
>speculative just-so story telling
yeah, i can see why julie gets frustrated with science, and prefers
the made up answers of religion. its so much simpler. no evidence...no
questioning, just make up an answer, and thats it.
if julie can tell us WHICH science doesnt have 'just so stories' that
are scientifically based, she'll have enlightened us beyond that which
designers have so far. 'design' isnt even a 'just so story'. as sagan
once said, its not even right enough to be wrong.
.. Take away the just
>so stories, and Darwinism has no place in an explanation
>about a change in the past. What Dorit refers to below
>deals only with common descent.
except, unless you're prepared to argue the universe is a chaotic,
random, chance based place, the laws of science we observe today
probably held in the past. we see evolution today. we see common
descent today. we DONT see 'design' or creation today, and we've NEVER
seen a hint of it ever.
>
>>Unsolved questions, however, are the
>>hallmark of an exciting science.
>
>Except, of course, if the explanation involves design. :)
gee, julie, i thought you said, ad nauseum, design ISNT science ;-)
as to design and science, can you tell us which science allows an
undefined, unspecified, untestable 'something' to produce events in
nature? we can see common descent happen today. we dont see 'design'.
>
>
>Dorit is again confusing common descent and the mechanism
>of natural selection. He also once again fails to tell us how these
>approaches provide the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
>of Behe's IC systems.
absence of evidence...evidence of absence...she gets alot of mileage
out of that idea.
>
>Dorit is again relying on his faulty perception whereby
>everything in the world is either design or evolved without
>intelligent intervention.
hardly, since behe himself has sympathy with this argument as both
dorit and i think he does.
>Ah, the delicious irony.. In my opinion, Behe is
>far more open-minded than Robert Dorit.
to julie, open minded= gullible.
Dorit, on the other
>hand, seems to be so convinced of his way of thinking that
>nothing Behe has said seems to have caused him to entertain even
>the slightest suspicion that design might be behind some aspect
>of biology
you have, julie. you've said its not science. thus you agree with
dorit.
or are you changing your mind?
as to design, perhaps you'll tell us which science DOES entertain
design? biology developed later than either chemistry or physics. yet
none of those, simpler, sciences, needs design. if its a facet of
nature, it should be abundantly clear in those sciences.
it isnt.
.. I suspect that in the end nothing would cause
>Dorit to abandon his commitment to Darwinian evolution
>as an explanation for everything.
meaningless
>
>>Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among
>>scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.
>
>
>Consider what Dorit has just done. He erroneously projects
>a "conspiracy" claim on Behe. Then after setting up his
>straw man, he knocks it down with nothing more than
>personal, biased perceptions about his personal, anecdotal
>experiences.
except dorit thinks behe states there's a conspiracy. and i HEARD
behe discuss it in a lecture here in allentown, PA, where behe
teaches. its hardly a magical coincidence that a number of observers
think behe is saying this. and its not limited to behe. johnson says
the same thing. 'conspiracy' theories are rife within the design
community. if you disagree, perhaps you'll call phillip johnson and
tell him to knock it off.
>
>Yes, it is true that meetings often entail many opinions about
>a topic on hand (although I think Dorit exagerates). Yet all
>those opinions fall under the conforming umbrella of a belief
>where all biological phenomena have evolved (and life arose
>from non-life without intelligent intervention). This conformity
>stems from the ground rules of science, where design is not
>considered a scientific explanation.
no more so than any other type of magic.
Thus, anyone at a meeting
>speaking of design, or denying that evolution occurred with
>the topic at hand, would be like (let's be honest) someone
>who farts in a church. It would be interesting to scientifically
>study scientific meetings to measure the amount of emotional
>and reflexive reaction that would occur if something like this
>happened. But unfortunately, the only thing science refuses
>to scientifically analyze is the practice of science itself.
ever hear of alan sokal? not familiar with how scientists are doing
science today, are you julie?
>
>>Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed
>>and unexplained.We do not as yet know what form
>>the answers will take, but mathematical models, computational
>>simulations and, increasingly, experimental results suggest
>>that complexity and organization may be inexorable outcomes
>>in multicomponent systems.
>
>Instead of all the hand-waving, why doesn't Dorit just spit out
>the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's IC systems?
ROFLMAO!!! here dorit says and i QUOTE:
>We do not as yet know what form
>>>the answers will take
IOW WE DONT KNOW, but julie, 'open minded' as always, is willing to
consider tarot card reading, shamanism, and tea leaf reading as other
possible evidence
>
>Of course, I have found the concepts of IC and design
>to be quite useful when exploring the biological world.
>I'd probably take Dorit's assertion more seriously if
>had once actually tried to use these concepts. But as is
>usual, those who assert IC/design are of no use are
>those who don't use and have never seriously tried
>to use such concepts. They speak merely from a
>position of ignorance.
yes, you're right. and its ignorance caused by 'design theorists'
because NONE, not behe, not denton, not thomas has EVER defined
1. how 'design' works
2. where we can see it work
3. how we can test it
so, if there's ignorance afoot, its caused by 'design' theorists.
>
>>Behe's argument for intelligent design ultimately
>>fails because it is a belief and not a potential explanation.
>
>Actually, this claim fails because it is only a belief. Dorit's
>belief that IC and design are "not potential explanations"
>is simply wrong. They might not be the type of explanations
>Dorit can accept, but that does not mean they fail as potential
>explanations.
you're right. they are potential explanations, as are the babylonian
creation myths, the native american creation myths, etc.
>
>Of course, as a practicing biologist and card-carrying
>molecular evolutionist, Dorit would assert such a claim.
>He can not say anything else (regardless of the
>evidence). Since a designer is prohibited as part of
>a scientific explanation,
julie hasnt proven this is the case. if designers WERE able to show a
design mechanism like evolutionary biologists can demonstrate natural
selection, they'd have a case. but they havent.
even the weakest possible
>evidence means biological features stem from the workings
>of the evolutionary process. It can be no other way.
>That's why even though Dorit admits that evolutionary
>biology is just now "coming of age," for decades prior,
>the "nothing in science makes sense except in the light
>of evolution" polemic was repeated countless times.
>This is why I believe something like SIBO is helpful
>when trying to discover what happened.
design theory is 50 yrs older than darwinism. darwinism has been a
great success. design is a desperate theory, clinging to a single,
solitary 'scientist's' explanation of the way the world works. im a
graduate of lehigh. i got my M.S there. ive talked with behe, and i
did research at lehigh. its a great university. but behe isnt isaac
newton. its a mark of the shallowness of design theory that 200 yrs
after its conception, the only scientist who thinks its valid is a guy
doing biochemistry on the south side of bethlehem, pa...and who thinks
everyone else is out to get him.
>
>In summary, I was not impressed at all with Robert Dorit's
>critical review.
WHAT?? im SHOCKED!! shocked to find out that GAMBLING has been going
on here (apologies to rick)
In my opinion, he has done a nice job
>of tap-dancing around the real issues
says the person whose ONLY support is 'absence of evidence is evidence
of absence'. who has NEVER been able to tell us HOW design works. who
has NEVER been able to tell us how we can test for it in a lab.
>Anyway, since Dorit liked to mention fallacies, lets look at
>some that he employed in his critique.
>
>Fallacy one: The dispute about origins breaks down
>to a question where everything is either designed
>or evolved.
merely a reflection of behe's argument itself.
>
>
>Fallacy three: The dispute about origins breaks
>down into a dispute between those opposed to "materialist
>explanations" and science (it's the "warfare between
>religion and science" meme).
see above. its behe bringing teleology into the argument, not dorit
>
>Fallacy four - Attribute straw man positions to your
>opponent - ex., accuse Behe of invoking a conspiracy theory.
since a number of us have HEARD behe say this, and since phillip
johnson makes the SAME argument, this is one of design's weak
points..and its a fact it DOES say there's a conspiracy afoot.
>
>Fallacy six: Assume that evidence of common descent
>is evidence of natural selection as the mechanism of
>evolution of some ancient system.
gee, you mean assume that natural laws are valid over great time
spans...hmmm...imagine that.
okay julie, tell us how design handles life in a universe where the
laws of nature change from day to day.
>
>Fallacy seven: Assume that the evolution of bird flight
>means the bacterial flagellum evolved via Darwinism.
see above
>
all you have to do...all behe has to do is this
tell us how design works
tell us how to see it
tell us how to test for it in a lab.
then the battle would be over. instead, designers merely bleat that
"yes we ARE doing science, and im gonna hold my breath until you say
we are"
i hope you can hold your breath for a LONG time.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>On 29 Dec 1998 20:23:11 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
heard? The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
review. If Dorit wants to review Behe's speech or TV appearance,
that would be different. Of course, I don't expect
wf3h to understand this (being the Crusader that he is).
But perhaps he would understand it if I reviewed a Dawkins'
book through the filter of Dawkins' antireligious comments
elsewhere.
As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 29 Dec 1998 20:23:11 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>>>meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>>>But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>>>common among Behe critics).
>>
>>julie's arrogance betrays the fact she's never heard behe speak, or
>>heard him say the reason scientists dont accept design is because
>>we're 'anti-religious'.
>
>What does wf3h's hearsay have to do with my point?
ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses make 'hearsay'? first julie points out
robert dorit in a WRITTEN article which SHE referenced states that
behe pushes a conspiracy. all i did was say ive heard the same thing.
aint it amazing..everybody is involved in 'hearsay' even when its
written and SHE quotes it!
>
>>a little pot and kettle going on here.
>
>One wonders if wf3h has been smoking the former.
now THERE'S a lucid argument!!
>
>>it would be nice if behe took his own advice and rejected 'design'
>>because, according to him, any theory which doesnt produce results
>>should be discarded. design is 200 yrs old and its produced nothing at
>>all.
>
>And who, in the last 200 years, has actually tried to *apply*
>the concept of design only to produce nothing at all?
>
>>in addition, behe says he's doing science. julie says design isnt
>>science...be nice if y'all would play nice together.
>
>It's understandable how pack members would find independent
>thinking troublesome. Go play in the pack, wf3h. It's safe
>there - that's where others can tell you what to think.
>
'pack members' indeed...ah, what were you saying about conspiracies?
gee...imagine, all the worlds scientists stating that science has a
method, and julie saying thats a 'conspiracy'...
as to 'telling me what to think'...gee, julie, let me know when
phillip johnson and the boys stop quoting genesis.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>
>Did I say pack? I meant flock....as in parrot.
>--
<chuckle> sorry julie. seems you think having a scientific attitude is
being a 'parrot'. i can understand, with your voodoo approach to
science, why you'd think this is so.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>
>>you were saying about stereotypes?
>
>Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>heard?
ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses constitute a hearsay?? julie QUOTES a
WRITTEN article SHE references in which the author (dorit) states behe
thinks scientists are conspiratorial. all i did was say ive heard the
same thing. unless julie thinks dorit and i are in cahoots behind her
back, 'hearsay' doesnt apply
The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
my point was, and which you deceptively miss, is dorit looks at behe's
writings and things he sees conspiracies. you say this isnt what behe
says. but YOU quoted dorit. all I did was re-inforce what dorit said.
>Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>review.
meaningless. unless you can quote dorit, in context, and know how
dorit arrived at his conclusion, since independent observers have
stated EXACTLY the same thing, its hardly 'hearsay'.
but you seem to have a disregard for evidence in any case.
>
>As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
>study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
>against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
>fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
>obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>
<chuckle> yeah i know. i live about 10 miles from behe
he's got nothing better to do either, but he's the source of your
meaning of life.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>On 29 Dec 1998 21:34:42 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>
>>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>>
>>>On 29 Dec 1998 20:23:11 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>>Thomas) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>>>>meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>>>>But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>>>>common among Behe critics).
>>>
>>>julie's arrogance betrays the fact she's never heard behe speak, or
>>>heard him say the reason scientists dont accept design is because
>>>we're 'anti-religious'.
>>
>>What does wf3h's hearsay have to do with my point?
>
>ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses make 'hearsay'? first julie points out
>robert dorit in a WRITTEN article which SHE referenced states that
>behe pushes a conspiracy. all i did was say ive heard the same thing.
>aint it amazing..everybody is involved in 'hearsay' even when its
>written and SHE quotes it!
I suppose in some twisted way, wf3h has a point that is somehow
related to what I wrote above. But until I stop laughing,
I'm afraid I can't see it.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>On 29 Dec 1998 21:39:55 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Did I say pack? I meant flock....as in parrot.
>>--
><chuckle> sorry julie. seems you think having a scientific attitude is
>being a 'parrot'.
Whatever y'say, Mr. Scientist.
> i can understand, with your voodoo approach to
>science, why you'd think this is so.
Yeah, while I busy myself completing my little Dawkins
doll, I suggest you rent yourself 'Inherit the Wind.'
As you munch your crackers in bed, I suspect you'd
think you're watching a documentary and then top off
the night with a few prank calls to the 700 Club.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>On 29 Dec 1998 22:12:57 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>
>>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>>
>>>
>>>you were saying about stereotypes?
>>
>>Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>>heard?
>
>ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses constitute a hearsay??
What witnesses? I hear only you squawking.
>julie QUOTES a
>WRITTEN article SHE references in which the author (dorit) states behe
>thinks scientists are conspiratorial. all i did was say ive heard the
>same thing. unless julie thinks dorit and i are in cahoots behind her
>back, 'hearsay' doesnt apply
I'm sure you hear all kinds of things. You don't get it, do you?
> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>>Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
>
>my point was, and which you deceptively miss, is dorit looks at behe's
>writings and things he sees conspiracies. you say this isnt what behe
>says. but YOU quoted dorit. all I did was re-inforce what dorit said.
The point is that Dorit is supposed to review the claims made
in Behe's book. Everything else is irrelevant.
>>Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>>review.
>
>meaningless. unless you can quote dorit, in context, and know how
>dorit arrived at his conclusion, since independent observers have
>stated EXACTLY the same thing, its hardly 'hearsay'.
I don't care how Dorit arrived at his conclusion. It ain't
in the book and Dorit was reviewing the BOOK.
>but you seem to have a disregard for evidence in any case.
Listen here my fine-feathered crusader, I am not interested
in whether or not you have anything to back up your
paranoid conspiracy theories. I was talking about
Dorit's review of Behe's BOOK. I care not about your
obsession with Behe and the eevil threat he represents.
>>As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
>>study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
>>against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
>>fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
>>obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>>
><chuckle> yeah i know. i live about 10 miles from behe
Shouldn't take long to fly over there, right?
>he's got nothing better to do either, but he's the source of your
>meaning of life.
But not as much fun as ruffling the feathers of a parrot-on-a-mission.
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
>
> At this point, we can see that Dorit engages a form of
> sloppy thinking that raises serious suspicions on his
> intellectual capability to objectively review Behe's book.
Wow Julie, I never knew that ad hominems were an acceptable form of logic.
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
> In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
> meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
> But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
> common among Behe critics).
>
You count yourself as a critic of Behe ?
> >Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
> >Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
> >of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
>
> Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
> about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
Heck, under that definition, Behe's book was nothing more than a personal essay
about what he thought about darwinian evolution. Given the lack of supporting
evidence and the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have been shown which lead to
apparant IC systems, one wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
>
> As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>
>
The irony is killing me.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
>
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>> At this point, we can see that Dorit engages a form of
>> sloppy thinking that raises serious suspicions on his
>> intellectual capability to objectively review Behe's book.
>
>Wow Julie, I never knew that ad hominems were an acceptable form of logic.
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. But you
do understand how to delete the material that expands upon
this point in order to to accuse me of something. Wow, Pim.
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
>
> >ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses constitute a hearsay??
>
> What witnesses? I hear only you squawking.
>
Tsk tsk dear Julie, try to use a little less ad hominem.
>
> >julie QUOTES a
> >WRITTEN article SHE references in which the author (dorit) states behe
> >thinks scientists are conspiratorial. all i did was say ive heard the
> >same thing. unless julie thinks dorit and i are in cahoots behind her
> >back, 'hearsay' doesnt apply
>
> I'm sure you hear all kinds of things. You don't get it, do you?
>
See above.
> But not as much fun as ruffling the feathers of a parrot-on-a-mission.
I am glad that you realize that your comments are little more than that.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
>
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>
>> In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>> meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>> But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>> common among Behe critics).
>>
>
>You count yourself as a critic of Behe ?
And you preach of logic?
>
>> >Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
>> >Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
>> >of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
>>
>> Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
>> about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
>
>Heck, under that definition, Behe's book was nothing more than a personal essay
>about what he thought about darwinian evolution. Given the lack of supporting
>evidence and the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have been shown which lead to
>apparant IC systems, one wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
of the IC systems I have discussed at length. I'm not impressed
by vague hand-waving.
Julie Thomas
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 29 Dec 1998 21:39:55 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Did I say pack? I meant flock....as in parrot.
>>>--
>><chuckle> sorry julie. seems you think having a scientific attitude is
>>being a 'parrot'.
>
>Whatever y'say, Mr. Scientist.
you betcha!
>
>> i can understand, with your voodoo approach to
>>science, why you'd think this is so.
>
>Yeah, while I busy myself completing my little Dawkins
>doll, I suggest you rent yourself 'Inherit the Wind.'
>As you munch your crackers in bed, I suspect you'd
>think you're watching a documentary and then top off
>the night with a few prank calls to the 700 Club.
>
<chuckle> i'll take your advice. perhaps as you consult your
laboratory most people call a ouja board, you can ring up behe on it
and find out what he's got planned for next year. he hasnt had much
luck this year!
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 29 Dec 1998 21:34:42 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>>>
>>>>On 29 Dec 1998 20:23:11 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>>>Thomas) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>>>>>meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>>>>>But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>>>>>common among Behe critics).
>>>>
>>>>julie's arrogance betrays the fact she's never heard behe speak, or
>>>>heard him say the reason scientists dont accept design is because
>>>>we're 'anti-religious'.
>>>
>>>What does wf3h's hearsay have to do with my point?
>>
>>ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses make 'hearsay'? first julie points out
>>robert dorit in a WRITTEN article which SHE referenced states that
>>behe pushes a conspiracy. all i did was say ive heard the same thing.
>>aint it amazing..everybody is involved in 'hearsay' even when its
>>written and SHE quotes it!
>
>I suppose in some twisted way, wf3h has a point that is somehow
>related to what I wrote above. But until I stop laughing,
>I'm afraid I can't see it.
>
>
ah, the design folks, as always, come up with a logical argument. here
julie presents as much evidence as she ever has for her position that
a gremlin caused the universe to exist.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
>>
>>
>>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>>> meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>>> But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>>> common among Behe critics).
>>>
>>
>>You count yourself as a critic of Behe ?
>
>And you preach of logic?
>
>>
>>> >Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
>>> >Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
>>> >of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
>>>
>>> Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
>>> about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
>>
>>Heck, under that definition, Behe's book was nothing more than a personal essay
>>about what he thought about darwinian evolution. Given the lack of supporting
>>evidence and the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have been shown which lead to
>>apparant IC systems, one wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
>
>Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
>of the IC systems I have discussed at length. I'm not impressed
>by vague hand-waving.
>--
says the person who has never once...even a single time...specified a
mechanism for 'design' which she thinks is more accurate than
darwinian evolution...
hand waving indeed!
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 29 Dec 1998 22:12:57 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>you were saying about stereotypes?
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>>>heard?
>>
>>ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses constitute a hearsay??
>
>What witnesses? I hear only you squawking.
really? my name is bob, but the last name isnt dorit. YOU quoted him.
remember? but you DO seem to have a problem in that area...you forget
you claimed design 'isnt science'.
>
>>julie QUOTES a
>>WRITTEN article SHE references in which the author (dorit) states behe
>>thinks scientists are conspiratorial. all i did was say ive heard the
>>same thing. unless julie thinks dorit and i are in cahoots behind her
>>back, 'hearsay' doesnt apply
>
>I'm sure you hear all kinds of things. You don't get it, do you?
yeah. i see as much evidence for your position here as you've ever
posted in support of design:
none. none at all
>
>>
>>my point was, and which you deceptively miss, is dorit looks at behe's
>>writings and things he sees conspiracies. you say this isnt what behe
>>says. but YOU quoted dorit. all I did was re-inforce what dorit said.
>
>The point is that Dorit is supposed to review the claims made
>in Behe's book. Everything else is irrelevant.
in your humble opinion, im sure. its YOUR OPINION dorit doesnt make
his case. i said nothing about his case, merely corroborating what he
says. that you think EVERYONE is lying is just part of what makes
design so quaint!
>
>>>Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>>>review.
>>
>>meaningless. unless you can quote dorit, in context, and know how
>>dorit arrived at his conclusion, since independent observers have
>>stated EXACTLY the same thing, its hardly 'hearsay'.
>
>I don't care how Dorit arrived at his conclusion. It ain't
>in the book and Dorit was reviewing the BOOK.
hmmm so you say;
>
>>but you seem to have a disregard for evidence in any case.
>
>Listen here my fine-feathered crusader, I am not interested
>in whether or not you have anything to back up your
>paranoid conspiracy theories. I was talking about
>Dorit's review of Behe's BOOK. I care not about your
>obsession with Behe and the eevil threat he represents.
then why even bring it up? why even mention dorits view of behe's
answer as to why NO ONE accepts design?
>
>>>As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
>>>study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
>>>against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
>>>fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
>>>obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>>>
>><chuckle> yeah i know. i live about 10 miles from behe
>
>Shouldn't take long to fly over there, right?
no, i think you've got the broom concession. sorry.
>
>>he's got nothing better to do either, but he's the source of your
>>meaning of life.
>
>But not as much fun as ruffling the feathers of a parrot-on-a-mission.
yeah you folks do say that about scientists. johnson seems to think
the same way...when he takes his head out of genesis long enough to
see what's going on.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
>>
>>
>>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At this point, we can see that Dorit engages a form of
>>> sloppy thinking that raises serious suspicions on his
>>> intellectual capability to objectively review Behe's book.
>>
>>Wow Julie, I never knew that ad hominems were an acceptable form of logic.
>
>I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. But you
>do understand how to delete the material that expands upon
>this point in order to to accuse me of something. Wow, Pim.
>--
gee i suppose calling someone a 'parrot' is a term of endearment.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 29 Dec 1998 22:12:57 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>you were saying about stereotypes?
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>>>heard?
>>
>>ROFLMAO!! how many witnesses constitute a hearsay??
>
>What witnesses? I hear only you squawking.
>
>>julie QUOTES a
>>WRITTEN article SHE references in which the author (dorit) states behe
>>thinks scientists are conspiratorial. all i did was say ive heard the
>>same thing. unless julie thinks dorit and i are in cahoots behind her
>>back, 'hearsay' doesnt apply
>
>I'm sure you hear all kinds of things. You don't get it, do you?
>
>> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>>>Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
>>
>>my point was, and which you deceptively miss, is dorit looks at behe's
>>writings and things he sees conspiracies. you say this isnt what behe
>>says. but YOU quoted dorit. all I did was re-inforce what dorit said.
>
>The point is that Dorit is supposed to review the claims made
>in Behe's book. Everything else is irrelevant.
>
>>>Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>>>review.
>>
>>meaningless. unless you can quote dorit, in context, and know how
>>dorit arrived at his conclusion, since independent observers have
>>stated EXACTLY the same thing, its hardly 'hearsay'.
>
>I don't care how Dorit arrived at his conclusion. It ain't
>in the book and Dorit was reviewing the BOOK.
well, julie thinks charges of conspiracy are unwarranted by reviewers
of behe's book. she said dorit's making it up, im just pushing
'hearsay', etc...amazing how ALL of us are wrong:
> The basic premise of the book is that "Biochemistry has pushed Darwin's theory
>to the limit. It has done so by opening the ultimate black box, the cell,
>thereby making possible our understanding of how life works." Basically, life is
>so complicated, Behe claims, that it MUST have been created by divine intelligence, or at any
>rate gradual evolution could not possibly have created such complex systems, and most
>scientists ("biochemists") know this but are just too proud or embarrassed to admit the obvious
>fact of intelligent design:
> "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell
> - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear,
> piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and
> so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest
> achievements of the history of science...
> But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped.
> Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the
> stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in
> public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored.
> In private people are a bit more relaxed, many explicitly
> admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their
> heads, and let it go at that.
> Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace
> its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design
> handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while
> one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the
> other side might be labeled God." (pages 232-233).
> So basically Behe is invoking a conspiracy theory from within the scientific community, on the
>order of "X-files"
>About the author: David Ussery is currently an associate professor at the Center for Biological Sequence
>analysis (CBS) in the Institute of Biotechnology, Danish Technical University, in Lyngby, Denmark. He taught
>Genetics and Biology for non-majors at Roanoke College, in Virginia during the 1997-1998 academic year
astute readers of TO will note that I have called this the 'x-files'
theory of creationism for some time. mebbe i should sue. and we have:
>Second, the book is a misrepresentation of facts. Dr. Behe claims that science is largely silent
>on the details of molecular evolution, the emergence of complex biochemical pathways and
>processes that underlie the more traditional manifestations of evolution at the level of
>organisms. Tosh! There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of scientific papers that deal with this
>very subject. For an entry into this important and flourishing field, and an idea of the intense
>scientific effort that it represents (see the first link above). To claim that here lies a subject
>suspiciously ignored by the scientific establishment is a travesty of the truth.
'suspiciously ignored'...hmmm sounds like a conspiracy!! the above is
from peter atkin's review of behe's book
so we have 3 scientific professionals, besides myself, who have
read/seen behe, and think he sees evolutionists under the bed.
julies response: 'aint no evidence'....
of course she says the same about evolution...
Wade Hines
> >> >http://www.eddyb.dircon.co.uk/
> In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
> meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
> But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
> common among Behe critics).
Really think so? Different definitions of meat I suppose.
[Wade]
> >One wonders what there is to respond to.
> Come now, Wade. Trying to lower expectations, eh?
No. I just didn't think much of the essay. I was about to
post as much but then saw your reply so I posted my thoughts
after yours.
> While it's too late to test now, I would have predicted
> that if you had posted this article pretending you
> were the author, you'd be getting lots of POTM nominations
> from the t.o. gang. And it will be interesting to see
> how many t.o. members rush to defend Stevens' points
> from my critique. ;)
I don't think it would get any. You'll notice that there
hasn't been much comment.
> >Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
> >Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
> >of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
> Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
> about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
The author did via the title of the thread he began. Were
you confused to think that I was assigning that term to you?
Look, I saw something about biosynthesis of Adenine and looked
for some more detail and it wasn't there. There was alittle
more started with the biochemistry of the eye but that went
off to some grossly general comments about Gproteins (Henry
Bourne was recently seen looking well) but nothing was said.
I was looking for things I didn't already know or things I
did know put in a way that was effective. I didn't see that.
Henry Barwood
Julie Thomas wrote:
snipped to her response:
> Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
> heard?
The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
arguments.
> Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
> review. If Dorit wants to review Behe's speech or TV appearance,
> that would be different. Of course, I don't expect
> wf3h to understand this (being the Crusader that he is).
> But perhaps he would understand it if I reviewed a Dawkins'
> book through the filter of Dawkins' antireligious comments
> elsewhere.
The separation of arguments would not seem to matter. It is the core science, or
lack thereof, that is troubling to most reviewers. Even ardent evolutionists are
often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven. No logical test for
"design" beyond "God-did-it" or the paranormal have been proposed, AFAIK.
> As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
The idea of the underdog is nothing new. In science it happens (Consider
Chandrasekar's limit or Continental Drift!), but IF the underdog is inherently
correct, then facts (data) will win out. IF there are no facts underlying the
assertions (Consider Velikovsky or Crookes) then the "theories" will drift into
obscurity unproven. Such is the fate of Intelligent Design (my opinion!).
Barwood
Rich Daniel
> ...Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
> September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>>...This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
>>has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
>>end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
>>been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
>>is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
>>Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
> I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
> emotionally upset.
If Behe really did say that "the field of molecular evolution has
grown stale...", then he was obviously wrong, regardless of Dorit's
emotional state. Surely even you, Julie, would agree that some
excellent work is being done.
>>And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably
>>the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and
>>the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were
>>probably not bad, either).
> Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
> molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
> evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
> Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
> an article critiquing Behe's argument?...
You misunderstand the meaning of "golden age". If we could explain
everything about evolution, the field would be deadly dull. A golden
age is when rapid progress is being made, but there are still lots of
hard problems to work on. And for obvious reasons, Behe chose the hardest
problems he could find to make his case.
--
Rich Daniel rwda...@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
ber...@aol.com
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
> In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>
> "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]
>
Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
Keep up the good work.
Bertvan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Elmer Bataitis
> This stereotypical approach is the either/or approach which
> views the dispute as one whereby everything is either
> designed or everything has evolved without intelligent
> intervention. When this approach is adopted, Darwin's
> nose becomes erroneously relevant. For if Darwin's nose
> is not designed, then everything is not designed. And since
> everything is not designed, the either/or approach allows
> us to infer that everything is evolved, right? Dorit seems
> oblivious to the fact that Behe does not argue that
> everything is designed. In fact, he accepts evolutionary
> explanations for many things. Darwin's nose is irrelevant.
Darwin's nose *is* relevent. Since intelligent design theorists seem to
think that there are cellular functions inexplicable in any way other
than ID, it should be a simple matter for intelligent design theorists
to delineate what percentage of Darwin's nose was "intelligently"
designed and what percent wasn't.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
PZ Myers
<rwda...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>> ...Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
>> September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>
>>>...This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
>>>has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
>>>end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
>>>been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
>>>is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
>>>Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
>
>> I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
>> emotionally upset.
>
>If Behe really did say that "the field of molecular evolution has
>grown stale...", then he was obviously wrong, regardless of Dorit's
>emotional state. Surely even you, Julie, would agree that some
>excellent work is being done.
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.
>
>>>And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably
>>>the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and
>>>the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were
>>>probably not bad, either).
>
>> Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
>> molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
>> evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
>> Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
>> an article critiquing Behe's argument?...
>
>You misunderstand the meaning of "golden age". If we could explain
>everything about evolution, the field would be deadly dull. A golden
>age is when rapid progress is being made, but there are still lots of
>hard problems to work on. And for obvious reasons, Behe chose the hardest
>problems he could find to make his case.
Right. Why is the sole focus of Design Theory on those problems that
haven't been solved? Where is the application of these ideas to existing
models of molecular organization? How does Design Theory help us solve
problems, other than by providing a rationale by fiat?
--
PZ Myers
howard hershey
>
> wf3h wrote:
>
> >there are, of course, numerous rebuttals to behe's slanted view of
> >evolution.
>
[snip]
>
> Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
> September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>
> >whether you believe that the shape of my nose was ordained and
> >'guided by an intelligent cause?'" In exasperation, but not without
> >humor, Charles Darwin posed this question to Charles Lyell in 1860,
> >the year Darwin dealt with the maelstrom unleashed by the
> >publication of The Origin of Species. In both the popular and the
> >scientific press, Darwin had to contend with the wrath of those for
> >whom the notion of a living world based on accident, time and natural
> >selection was simply too disquieting. Look around, Darwin's critics
> >argued, and see the evidence of design. And where there is design,
> >there must be a designer.
>
> >One hundred thirty-six years later, this argument makes a
> >reappearance in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
>
> At this point, we can see that Dorit engages a form of
> sloppy thinking that raises serious suspicions on his
> intellectual capability to objectively review Behe's book.
> of the common stereotypical argument upon Behe's thesis.
> This stereotypical approach is the either/or approach which
> views the dispute as one whereby everything is either
> designed or everything has evolved without intelligent
> intervention. When this approach is adopted, Darwin's
> nose becomes erroneously relevant. For if Darwin's nose
> is not designed, then everything is not designed. And since
> everything is not designed, the either/or approach allows
> us to infer that everything is evolved, right? Dorit seems
> oblivious to the fact that Behe does not argue that
> everything is designed. In fact, he accepts evolutionary
> explanations for many things. Darwin's nose is irrelevant.
I read Behe's book, but it has been a while. Other than a few
throw-away lines, he does not go into a comparison of the specific
places where standard evolutionary mechanism works and where it
doesn't. He only presents the places where *he* thinks standard
Darwinian mechanisms are inadequate (and probably are, depending upon
how you define Darwinian mechanisms). Of course, neither he nor you
propose an alternative mechanism beyond the hand-waving "An unamed,
unevidenced designer did it." Since the places where he is supposed to
agree that evolution works (at the morphological level) are ultimately
as firmly based in biochemistry (and as IC) as the clotting mechanism
and other features he does use as examples of what cannot evolve, the
absence of discussion of these features is certainly a major defect in
his argument.
>
> >Adorned this time around with the language of molecular
> >biology, spiced up with charges of a conspiracy of scientists,
> >masquerading as an appeal for truth and not for theology,
> >it is nonetheless the same old thing:
>
> Here it becomes clear that Dorit did not seriously read Behe's
> book. Instead, I suspect he skimmed through it and relied on
> his stereotypes. Behe does not make any charge of a conspiracy
> of scientists. Anyone who objectively reads chapter 11 would
> see that Behe attempts to explain the scientific resistance to
> the concept of design *without* appealing to a conspiracy.
Perhaps. But he does imply a deliberate pigheadedness based on the
scientific elite's bias against anything hinting at a Designer. So that
looks either like conspiracy to supress that which is 'obvious' to Behe
(I think he used the analogy of not seeing the elephant in the room), or
willful stupidity on the part of scientists. Take your pick. As was
pointed out in later posts, he seems to think it *is* an atheistic
conspiracy, so Dorit was simply reading accurately between the lines.
Perhaps it is you who had some problems reading the not-so-subtle cues
in his book? Perhaps you have a tendency to read things too literally?
> But what's worse, Dorit implies that Behe is engaged in a sort of
> conspiracy, where he masquerades his appeal for theology as an
> appeal for truth. I'm disappointed that a scientist from Yale apparently
> relies on such superficial and unjustified claims.
I am glad that a scientist from Yale is not so divorced from reality
that he cannot read the subtexts in books.
>
> >There cannot be design without a designer. Although I do not
> >doubt the sincerity of the author, nor scoff at his unease with a
> >world apparently lacking purpose, the case for intelligent design
> >put forth in Darwin's Black Box is built on some deep
> >misunderstandings about evolution, molecular organization
> >and, ultimately, about the nature of scientific inquiry.
>
> Where does Behe express unease with a world apparently lacking
> purpose? This is the typical, lazy cheap-shot that seems to run
> as a common thread among Behe's critics.
Behe does not directly express unease with a world apparently lacking in
purpose (as I recall). However, anyone who seriously proposes the idea
of all complexity being designed into the initial organism does sound a
little desperate. Besides, the reason for postulating a designer is
always to introduce the idea of purpose into nature (usually a purpose
beyond our comprehending). Especially when the 'Designer' seems to be
little more than a name put on "We don't know.", as is the case for
Behe's designer (and yours too).
> If critics like
> Dorit wish to make the "lack of purpose" an issue,
> I wish they'd develop this into an argument instead of
> making one-line cheap-shots. If they did try to make
> it into an argument, we'd have to inquire about Dorit's mindset
> and ability to accept a world that has at least some purpose.
> And I'd wager he would come off worse than Behe.
>
> >Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed
> >on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking:
> >Biological order and design emerge from the workings
> >of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer.
>
> Is Dorit speaking of all biological order and design? If so, he
> is talking metaphysics (which is ironic that he is one who wants
> to preach about the " the nature of scientific inquiry"). We'll
> return to this claim at the end of my review.
>
> >This book will, no doubt, find its defenders. Those who are
> >uneasy with a materialist explanation of the living world will
> >welcome this attack on the Darwinian worldview. But as a
> >practicing biologist, and a card-carrying molecular evolutionist,
> >I cannot but find the premise of this book-that molecular
> >discoveries have plunged a wooden stake through the heart
> >of Darwinian logic-ludicrous.
>
> Here we see more of Dorit's mind enslaved-and-shaped-by-stereotype.
> He sets up the dispute as between those who are "uneasy with
> a materialist explanation" (while failing to define 'materialist')
Those who require actual material evidence for their scientific
explanations and to whom the phrase "A hypothetical designer done it" is
equivalent to "We don't know".
> against a "practicing biologist and card-carrying molecular
> evolutionist." Well, if we are to go down this route, we have
> to wonder if Dorit took Behe's critique personally. After all,
> we might expect a "card-carrying molecular evolutionist" to
> be offended and insulted by Behe's claims and thus react
> emotionally and reflexively. After all, our "card-carrying
> molecular evolutionist" could have taken the time to explain
> how Behe's IC systems did indeed evolve via neo-Darwinism.
> But he doesn't.
Behe has to present physical evidence that these systems were, in fact,
produced by a Designer. Something a little more concrete than, "We
don't know how this system appeared. Thus it was done by the invisible,
hypothetical Designer." I don't remember seeing such evidence presented
in his book.
>
> >This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
> >has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
> >end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
> >been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
> >is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
> >Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
>
> I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
> emotionally upset.
As would anyone in the field of molecular biology.
>
> >And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably
> >the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and
> >the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were
> >probably not bad, either).
>
> Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
> molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
> evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
> Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
> an article critiquing Behe's argument?
There are always systems where there is little evidence. But scientific
theories are not built on those systems. They are built on systems with
as much evidence as possible. The others can only allow presentation of
a broad outline of how they arose until more evidence is available.
Neither Behe nor you are satisfied with a broad outline based on
mechanisms that can be observed in other systems with more evidence
available. Instead, both of you prefer the comforting notion of a
purely hypothetical Designer at work in those cases until the missing
evidence appears. No attempt is being made to find out anything about
the Designer mechanism and how it differs from the evolutionary (rather
than just Darwinian) mechanisms that are known to occur. That doesn't
sound like science to me. Sounds like wishful thinking.
>
> >For the first time we have molecular methods that allow
> >the generation of massive amounts of detailed data relevant
> >to a host of evolutionary questions. We have techniques that
> >allow us to follow the control and expression of single genes
> >in living organisms. We can now move genes from one
> >species to another to test their function in a novel genetic context.
> >Computational power now allows us to compare tens of
> >thousands of DNA sequences to one another in search for
> >conserved motifs, shared functions and common ancestry.
> >We can carry out simulations of complex biological
> >phenomena and find solutions to quantitative problems
> >that seem to defy analytic solutions. Not bad at all, I thought.
>
> Yes, we have many ways to detect and create patterns around
> similarities. These patterns can then be used to infer common
> descent. But evidence of common descent is not evidence of
> natural selection. And all of the work that Dorit cites doesn't
> indicate that these IC systems evolved via neo-darwinism.
> Dorit misses the point.
It is a point that Behe carefully evades and avoids. Behe specifically
avoids all discussion of common descent of molecules. What processes
would you suggest to explain the nature of molecular common descent
other than neutral change and natural selection? Molecular change of
function certainly can be observed to occur by natural selection
(antibiotic resistance, nylon digestion). No one has observed a
potential non-human Designer changing molecular function, or, at least,
no evidence was presented that this was the case for any of the
molecular common descent events involved in, say, the clotting
mechanism.
>
> >What then is Behe's argument? The central point of Darwin's
> >Black Box is not always easy to spot, but it appears to rely on
> >Behe's notion of irreducible complexity. Molecular systems,
> >defined to include both linked sets of biochemical reactions
> >the clotting cascade) and aspects of cellular organization (cilia
> >and flagella), for example, are apparently "irreducibly complex":
> >They only work when all the pieces are in place and finely tuned.
> >Any single component, on its own, is useless. If there is a single
> >missing piece, the whole apparatus ceases to function, like a
> >mousetrap without a spring. Such complex mechanisms, argues
> >Behe, could not have arisen "in a Darwinistic manner." Their
> >complexity shows an intelligent designer at work. But this is a
> >conclusion reached only by stacking misunderstandings of the
> >evolutionary process upon misrepresentations of the practice
> >of evolutionary biology. I emphasize six fallacies inherent in
> >Behe's claim, although there are many others where these
> >came from.
>
> Okay, let's look at the six fallacies "inherent" in Behe's claim:
>
> >Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world
> >and other levels of biological organization.
>
> Hmmm. I don't recall Behe making this claim.
Isn't that what Behe is doing when he accepts changes of morphology
occurring by evolutionary mechanisms? Or are you now saying that Behe
doesn't accept *any* evidence of evolution?
>
> >By the author's own admission, the Darwinian argument appears
> >to suffice in accounting for design at visible levels of organization-
> >bird flight or the hydrodynamic design of aquatic organisms.
>
> I don't recall Behe agreeing that the *Darwinian* argument appears to
> suffice for such things as the origin of bird flight (in fact, I cannot find
> where Behe discussed the origin of bird flight). Of course, it is possible
> that Behe accepts the evolution of birds, but this would not necessarily
> translate as the acceptance of the *Darwinian* evolution of birds (and
> bird flight). A nice critique of the Darwinian evolution of bird flight
> can be found in Michael Denton's original book, Evolution: A Theory
> in Crisis. Years later, Richard Dawkins discussed the origin of bird flight
> in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable. Dawkins not only ignores
> Denton's criticisms, but simply retells the same old pair of just-so stories
> concerning this event. And when it comes to such just-so stories:
>
> "Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible stories
> concerning the evolution of a given biological feature. But
> plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to
> an evolutionary hypothesis." - Robert Dorit
>
> Did Dorit forget his own advise?
No. But the story with the most supporting evidence still holds sway as
the current best 'scientific' explanation until one with better
supporting evidence supercedes it. Scientific "truth" is not absolute
(or religious) "truth", after all. Thus, there can be several equally
well supported stories for the evolution of flight in birds. Or there
can be a favored explanation and several alternatives that have some
specific problems. The idea that a Designer put wings on birds,
however, fails the requirement for both direct evidence and the
requirement that, in the absence of direct evidence in this case that
the mechanism can work, there be direct evidence of the process in a
similar case.
>
> >Only at the molecular level does the argument somehow
> >fail. But, in fact, there is no fundamental discontinuity between
> >the molecular and the supramolecular level in biology. The
> >traditions, tools and approaches of the molecular biologist may
> >differ radically from those of the functional morphologist, but
> >the fabric of living systems is seamless. There is nothing that
> >makes design at the molecular level any more special than design
> >or organization at any other level in biology. If anything, molecular
> >design may be somewhat easier to account for, because the
> >components of molecular machines are frequently the products
> >of identifiable genes.
>
> If there is no discontinuity between the molecular and
> supramolecular level in biology, why are humans and
> chimps 99% genetically identical, yet so different on
> the supramolecular level?
Some people (not naming names) confuse the similarity of genes with
their morphological effects and think that there should be a 1:1
correspondence between sequence similarity and morphological similarity.
> Why are some species of frog
> almost identical at the supramolecular level, yet quite different
> at the molecular level? I don't know if there truly is a
> discontinuity, but if there was, reductionism would be
> dealt a huge blow (thus we would expect great resistance
> to this idea).
The reason, of course, is that sequence similarity is primarily a
function of time since divergence (since most of the change is at
neutral sites) and morphological similarity is more a function of
selection in a particular environment (change at specific sites). But
you knew that, of course.
>
> Nevertheless, Dorit misses the point. Behe focuses on
> irreducibly complex machines and circuits, because, as
> Dorit admits, " If anything, molecular design may be
> somewhat easier to account for, because the components
> of molecular machines are frequently the products of
> identifiable genes." Thus, the failure of Darwinian
> evolution to account for the origin of such machines
> is all the more meaningful.
I am confused again. What do you mean by 'Darwinian' evolution? At the
level of DNA sequences there are decidedly non-Darwinian mechanisms at
work since this is equivalent to the quantum level of physics. There
are discrete leaps involved at this level. In particular, gene and
genome duplication and rearrangement play an important role in evolution
at this level.
>
> Dorit's fallacy is in thinking that acceptance of evolution at
> higher levels of organization translates to mean one is
> obligated to accept Darwinism as the explanation for
> the origin of IC molecular machines. First, the acceptance
> of evolution at higher levels may merely be the acceptance
> of common descent, which is not the same as the acceptance
> of the Darwinian explanation as a mechanism for the
> evolutionary change that has occurred since the last common
> ancestor. Secondly, evolution at higher levels appears to amount
> to nothing more than new versions of old themes. As far as I
> can tell, most of the core molecular machinery behind all life appeared
> long ago and things have evolved *because* of this machinery.
> For example, regulatory mutations have been proposed as the means
> of generating new body plans, but I fail to see how they would
> generate an IC machine de novo. Put simply, the evolution of bird
> flight gives me NO reason to think the bacterial flagellum evolved
> via a Darwinian mechanism. To think otherwise is to engage in
> simple hand-waving.
To ascribe such events to a HYPE (hypothetical posited entity) is even
simpler hand-waving, because it is hand-waving without evidence or
mechanism. The hand-waving that scientists do is based on evidence
(which is sometimes scanty) and known mechanisms. An outline of a
process based on such scanty evidence and known mechanisms is far more
acceptable as science than the unevidenced assertion that a HYPE
designer did it.
>
> Of course, it is becoming even more ironic that a "practicing biologist"
> and "card-carrying molecular evolutionist," working in "the golden age of
> evolutionary biology", and dealing with a topic that "may be somewhat
> easier to account for, because the components of molecular machines
> are frequently the products of identifiable genes," relies on hand-waving
> instead of explaining the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's
> IC systems.
>
> >Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature
> >(molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature
> >originally evolved.
>
> Dorit then goes on to explain how the components of
> an IC system may have originally served other functions
> and only later became recruited into the IC system under
> question. After going through an example, Dorit concludes
> "Design-from-scratch and direct routes are not luxuries
> afforded to the evolutionary process."
>
> I think Dorit's point is entirely valid. Unfortunately, critics
> of IC tend to use concepts like redundancy and recruitment
> in a purely apologetic fashion.
They are mechanisms that, unlike the designer, are known to exist in
nature. Again, absent direct evidence for a particular example, science
first tries to extend known mechanisms and only if there is evidence
that this *cannot* be the case do they appeal to the idea of "We don't
know". And, as I pointed out, "We don't know" and "A designer did it."
are equivalent explanations at the present time.
> For example, Dorit's example
> of recruitment involved the homeobox genes. Yet Behe never
> discusses this phenomena. Why doesn't Dorit use his explanation
> of recruitment to simply explain one of Behe's examples? Because
> he is using the concept in an apologetic fashion where somehow
> the reality and possibility of recruitment magically explains the
> IC systems in question. This probably stems from the black-and-white
> thinking which views one example of evolution to mean everything
> has evolved without intelligent intervention.
No. It is simply a matter of extending known mechanism to cover new
situations. It is similar to the use of Newton's mechanics to find
unseen planets.
>
> While folks like Dorit and Orr use the concept of recruitment in
> an apologetic fashion, I use it in a much more objective and
> investigative manner. Namely, if there is evidence to think
> such an explanation *applies*, I do not use IC to score
> a design event (as with the Krebs Cycle). But if such explanations
> fail (as they do with the bacterial flagellum, chromosome replication,
> cell wall, and ATP synthases), then the design inference proceeds.
In what way have you shown that these events *cannot* be explained by
standard mechanisms? You keep saying that you don't have to show that
something *cannot* have evolved?
> Maybe this is why my views generate such hostility - I take these
> evolutionary explanations for the origin of IC beyond the realm
> of apologetics and demonstrate a far more open-minded approach
> than IC critics.
>
> >Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for
> >each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary
> >bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.
>
> >There has always been a version of popular evolution that
> >consists of identifying some curious feature of the living
> >world, speculating on why that feature might be "good for
> >the organism" and imagining how that feature may have come
> >to pass. Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible
> >stories concerning the evolution of a given biological feature.
> >But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply
> >to an evolutionary hypothesis.
>
> Dorit makes a good point here, except that such explanations
> have not been restricted to "popular evolution" (okay, okay,
> I do realize they put food and expensive silverware
> on Richard Dawkins table).
And I agree that such explanations should be taken with a huge grain of
salt. They are only scientific "truth" (best current explanation), not
absolute "truth". But to swallow the design hypothesis requires,
apparently, no evidence at all.
>
> >Evolutionary biology may finally be coming of age precisely
> >because we are moving away from particularistic, speculative
> >scenarios-the just-so stories.
>
> Maybe, but much of Darwinism is nothing more than such
> speculative just-so story telling. Take away the just
> so stories, and Darwinism has no place in an explanation
> about a change in the past. What Dorit refers to below
> deals only with common descent.
>
> >The rigorous testing of evolutionary hypotheses depends
> >on the use of comparative data, on an understanding of
> >mechanism and, increasingly, on the experimental manipulation
> >of components of the system. It does not (see fallacy two)
> >depend on inventing an "advantage" for a partially evolved
> >flagellar motor. In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he
> >argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of
> >the flagellar motor or of the clotting cascade.
>
> Of course, notice that Dorit fails to use this
> "coming of age," more rigorous approach to outline
> the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's IC
> systems. Dorit again misses the point.
>
> >Unsolved questions, however, are the
> >hallmark of an exciting science.
>
> Except, of course, if the explanation involves design. :)
There is *no* scientific evidence that a single one of these systems
has, in fact rather than by assertion, been designed by any specific
HYPE. There is no evidence that *any* molecular biological system has
*ever* been designed by a non-human entity. There is no design
mechanism that is known to have existed at the time the events took
place. In contrast, there *is* evidence that all the conditions needed
for natural selection, neutral drift, polyploidy, etc. existed at the
time these events occurred. Thus, one extends *known* mechanisms unless
one has evidence for alternative mechanism. Or if one has no mechanism,
one says one does not know how it happened rather than assert a
mechanism by an unevidenced HYPE.
>
> >Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of
> >sequences, some math, and no answers."
>
> >In a peculiar quest for an article or book that "tells us how
> >specific biochemical structures came to be," Behe has made
> >glancing contact with the literature of my field.
>
> Yet note once again that Dorit fails to tell us how
> his "field" provides the evidence for the Darwinian
> evolution of Behe's IC systems.
The problem is that Behe has provided no evidence for his mechanism.
That there are unanswered questions about particular systems chosen for
that reason is a given.
>
> >What he has found apparently dismays him. The basic
> >tools of the trade-the comparative analysis of sequences
> >and structures, the mathematical modeling of the evolutionary
> >process and the experimental generation of biologically
> >relevant molecules in abiotic systems-are summarily dismissed.
>
> Dorit is again confusing common descent and the mechanism
> of natural selection.
Are you claiming that natural selection did not occur in the past? That
natural selection, as a mechanism, cannot produce IC systems? What is
it that you are claiming? Do we have to know the precise conditions
that existed at every step in the past to say that it is possible for
something to arise because of selection?
> He also once again fails to tell us how these
> approaches provide the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
> of Behe's IC systems. As for the experimental generation of
> biologically relevant molecules, Behe doesn't dismiss
> this. He mistakenly accepts the relevance of the abiotic
> generation of adenine in his chapter on AMP synthesis.
> Yet even granting this, Behe goes on to outline some serious
> problems for Darwinism, problems that has been ignored by
> every one of Behe's critics to date. Why should Dorit be
> any different?
>
> >What then is left? Would the accumulating evidence
> >that myriad novel molecular functions for proteins and
> >nucleic acids can be evolved (not engineered) in vitro
> >count as evidence against intelligent design?
>
> Why would it?
>
> >How about the observation in real time of the
> >acquisition of antibiotic resistance by bacteria?
> >Drug resistance by viruses? Herbicide resistance
> >by weeds?
>
> Dorit is again relying on his faulty perception whereby
> everything in the world is either design or evolved without
> intelligent intervention.
Where is the evidence for *anything* being designed by a designer
capable of doing what you claim it did at the time it did?
>
> >I suspect that in the end nothing would cause the
> >author to abandon his commitment to intelligent design.
>
> Ah, the delicious irony.. In my opinion, Behe is
> far more open-minded than Robert Dorit. Behe seems
> to accept both evolution and design as explanations for
> the various aspects of the biological world. Dorit, on the other
> hand, seems to be so convinced of his way of thinking that
> nothing Behe has said seems to have caused him to entertain even
> the slightest suspicion that design might be behind some aspect
> of biology. I suspect that in the end nothing would cause
> Dorit to abandon his commitment to Darwinian evolution
> as an explanation for everything.
>
> >Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among
> >scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.
>
> >Anyone who has ever attended a scientific meeting will
> >find the notion of a conspiracy of silence-well, unlikely.
> >The meetings I go to are usually characterized by N scientists
> >voicing at least N+1 opinions on the topic at hand. When
> >Behe reviews the indices of several major biochemistry
> >textbooks and finds that fewer than one percent of the entries
> >deal with evolution, I fear he may be onto something:
> >Molecular biologists and biochemists often have no training
> >in evolution. Given my conference experience, however, that
> >does not always stop them from voicing a personal opinion
> >about the evolutionary process. But like my personal opinions
> >about the analysis of detailed crystallographic data, such
> >opinions should not be mistaken for expertise.
>
> Consider what Dorit has just done. He erroneously projects
> a "conspiracy" claim on Behe.
Given Behe's statements, it is more like he accurately projects a
"conspiracy" claim on Behe.
[snip rest for time constraint]
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
> In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
> >
> >
> >Julie Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
> >> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
> >> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
> >> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
> >> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The irony is killing me.
>
> As is your confusion.
>
ROTFL, the irony.....the irony...
Please stop it Julie...
Pim van Meurs
ber...@aol.com wrote:
> Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
> strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
> Keep up the good work.
>
Julie is not a defender of Darwinism Bert.
howard hershey
>
> wf3h wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, since Dorit liked to mention fallacies, lets look at
> some that he employed in his critique.
>
> Fallacy one: The dispute about origins breaks down
> to a question where everything is either designed
> or evolved.
The question revolves around how one distinguishes between the two and
the standards of evidence one uses. To say that something is 'designed'
without having either direct evidence that it was or direct evidence
that anything similar has ever happened makes that explanation
equivalent to "I don't know."
> Fallacy two: The only reason to reject a neo-Darwinian
> explanation for the origin of a biological system is
> that it means the world has no purpose.
One reason that many people object to evolutionary explanation (I will
avoid Darwinian because I am not sure what Julie means by this phrase;
whether it is inclusive of all evolutionary mechanisms or focused solely
on small stepwise processes) is because they feel that a mechanistic
description of evolutionary change strips their world of purpose. Many
biologists reject a strictly Darwinian process of evolutionary change
because they have evidence that other mechanisms also occur. OTOH,
there is no evidence that a HYPE designer was responsible for *any* of
the events involved in common descent.
> Fallacy three: The dispute about origins breaks
> down into a dispute between those opposed to "materialist
> explanations" and science (it's the "warfare between
> religion and science" meme).
Proposing an unevidenced HYPE working by unknown, unobservable
mechanisms is not a explanation acceptable as science. Proposing an
evidenced HYPE working by knowable, observable mechanisms might be. No
such mechanism or evidence has been presented.
>
> Fallacy four - Attribute straw man positions to your
> opponent - ex., accuse Behe of invoking a conspiracy theory.
Accurately, it seems.
> Fallacy five: Assumes that one's anecdotal experience
> with scientific meetings is relevant to anything about
> the way science works.
Not the whole picture. But certainly relevant.
> Fallacy six: Assume that evidence of common descent
> is evidence of natural selection as the mechanism of
> evolution of some ancient system.
Assume that natural selection works whenever and wherever there is an
organism with an imperfectly replicating genome that interacts with its
environment and is not guranteed reproductive success. I.e., assume
that mechanisms that work in the present also worked in the past as
opposed to hypothesizing mechanisms that have never been observed in the
present to be responsible for events in the past without requiring a
shred of supporting evidence except the assertion that you otherwise
don't know how to explain it. I.e., substitute "A designer did it." for
"I don't know how it happened."
> Fallacy seven: Assume that the evolution of bird flight
> means the bacterial flagellum evolved via Darwinism.
Assume that mechanisms that work to accomplish one complex event could
also produce another that has significant similarities. Nothing unusual
in that. You designologists are the ones that need to show that such
extensions of known mechanisms to currently unsolved problems *could
not* work. Asserting a designer because it is an easy solution to any
problem just won't hack it.
>
> And to quote Dorit, " there are many others where these
> came from," but, alas, I am tired.
Clark Dorman
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:
> In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
> >Julie Thomas wrote:
> >> >Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
> >> >of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
> >>
> >> Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
> >> about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
> >
> >about what he thought about darwinian evolution. Given the lack of supporting
> >evidence and the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have been shown which lead to
> >apparant IC systems, one wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
>
> Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
> of the IC systems I have discussed at length. I'm not impressed
> by vague hand-waving.
Nor am I, which is why I don't like Behe's false dichotomy (between
what he says evolution is and intelligent design) and his lack of
specifics. You know, things like what was designed and when it was
designed.
And I freely admit that we don't have an evolutionary explanation of
the cilium. Does that mean that intelligent design is correct?
Perhaps if I had an intelligent design model of when it was designed,
and in what creature, I'd be able to decide. But Behe doesn't give me
that does he?
> "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]
"[W]ithout numbers, there is no science" - Mike Behe [DBB, p. 95]
Where are Behe's numbers? Or is he not doing science? If not, does
he realize it?
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
Richard Harter
I may be alone in so feeling but I would greatly appreciate it if you
would abandon this business of making almost contentless catcalls.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I don't want justice and I don't want mercy;
I will settle for nothing less than unearned privilege.
Mark Isaak
Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>>Given the lack of supporting evidence and the fact that Darwinian
>>mechanisms have been shown which lead to apparant IC systems, one
>>wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
>
>Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
>of the IC systems I have discussed at length.
That would be relevant to Behe's examples, but irrelevant to Behe's
argument. Behe's argument is dead and buried.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Mark Isaak
Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote, a zillion times in
different ways:
>Instead of all the hand-waving, why doesn't Dorit just spit out
>the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of Behe's IC systems?
Why? There are only many billions of unexplained biological systems in
existence. When someone explains one of Behe's examples, he can just make
the same claims with one of the other systems. There's no way to explain
every possible example in anyone's lifetime.
What has been done is to show that IC systems can and do evolve naturally.
That is quite enough to show that Behe's argument is entirely worthless.
Since his conclusions follow from his argument, not from his examples, his
conclusions are unsupported.
What you are saying, Julie, is because a few things are unexplained, and
because Behe mentions them, we should believe everything Behe says. You
really have no more argument than that.
Huxter4441
no articles in the peer reviewed scientific literature dealing with the
evolution of complex biochemical systems (there were, but that is another
story), that the idea of Darwinian evolution 'should perish.' Yet, I have done
a search of the scientific literature for articles dealiong with 'Intelligent
Design," "Design Theory," and for all of Behe's published articles dealing
with design, and found NONE. Behe, the self-important "I have a special idea
and I'm the BEST" dichotomous scientist, has not published a single paper in
the peer-reviewed literature dealing with 'intelligent design.' And so, in
Behe's own words, '..it should perish.'
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>
>snipped to her response:
>
>> Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>> heard?
>
>The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
Then make it. I don't care.
>> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
>
>Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
>personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
>arguments.
Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
argument? Another clueless critic.
>> Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>> review. If Dorit wants to review Behe's speech or TV appearance,
>> that would be different. Of course, I don't expect
>> wf3h to understand this (being the Crusader that he is).
>> But perhaps he would understand it if I reviewed a Dawkins'
>> book through the filter of Dawkins' antireligious comments
>> elsewhere.
>
>The separation of arguments would not seem to matter. It is the core science, or
>lack thereof, that is troubling to most reviewers.
Nice spin.
Even ardent evolutionists are
>often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
>basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven.
Science is not about proving things. So I take with a grain of salt
your sermon about science. As for disproof, please tell me what
data could be found that would disprove the darwinian origin of
the bacterial flagellum.
No logical test for
>"design" beyond "God-did-it" or the paranormal have been proposed, AFAIK.
I've only written over 150 pages exploring such tests.
>> As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
>> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
>> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
>> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
>> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>
>The idea of the underdog is nothing new. In science it happens (Consider
>Chandrasekar's limit or Continental Drift!), but IF the underdog is inherently
>correct, then facts (data) will win out. IF there are no facts underlying the
>assertions (Consider Velikovsky or Crookes) then the "theories" will drift into
>obscurity unproven. Such is the fate of Intelligent Design (my opinion!).
More naive views about science. Please cite for me the scientists
who had argued that for philosophical and methodological reasons,
continental drift could not be part of a scientific explanation.
The notion that this issue and science has anything to do with
the "facts and data winning out" is hopelessly simplistic.
Reality, humanity and history are a MUCH more subtle and complicated story
than this.
--
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wad...@ix.netcom.com (Wade Hines) says:
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> >> >http://www.eddyb.dircon.co.uk/
>
>
>> In defense of Stevens (the author), it is a much more
>> meatier reply than those of Dorit, Orr, and Coyne.
>> But I agree it is loaded with posturing (this is
>> common among Behe critics).
>
>Really think so? Different definitions of meat I suppose.
I suppose.
>[Wade]
>> >One wonders what there is to respond to.
>
>> Come now, Wade. Trying to lower expectations, eh?
>
>No. I just didn't think much of the essay. I was about to
>post as much but then saw your reply so I posted my thoughts
>after yours.
Fair enough.
>> While it's too late to test now, I would have predicted
>> that if you had posted this article pretending you
>> were the author, you'd be getting lots of POTM nominations
>> from the t.o. gang. And it will be interesting to see
>> how many t.o. members rush to defend Stevens' points
>> from my critique. ;)
>
>I don't think it would get any. You'll notice that there
>hasn't been much comment.
Of course not. The well has been poisoned.
>> >Now as a personal essay on what one individual thinks about
>> >Behe's book, it's a fair if somewhat disorganized collection
>> >of their thoughts but to call it a rebuttal is to abuse the term.
>
>> Yet all I have seen are "personal essays on what one thinks
>> about Behe's book." And I did not call it a rebuttal.
>
>The author did via the title of the thread he began. Were
>you confused to think that I was assigning that term to you?
Just making sure to prevent typical pack confusion out there.
>Look, I saw something about biosynthesis of Adenine and looked
>for some more detail and it wasn't there. There was alittle
>more started with the biochemistry of the eye but that went
>off to some grossly general comments about Gproteins (Henry
>Bourne was recently seen looking well) but nothing was said.
>
>I was looking for things I didn't already know or things I
>did know put in a way that was effective. I didn't see that.
Can't disagree with this.
Henry Barwood
Julie Thomas wrote:
> In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>
> >
> >Julie Thomas wrote:
> >
> >snipped to her response:
> >
> >> Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
> >> heard?
> >
> >The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
>
> Then make it. I don't care.
I did. Your reply indicates that you are looking for support and are indeed sensitive
to criticism.
> >> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
> >> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
> >
> >Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
> >personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
> >arguments.
>
> Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
> argument?
WTH are you talking about? What "conspiracy"? Behe has demonstrated personal
incredulity, period. That other scientists reject his views is a part of the process.
Behe does not help his case by attending mostly religious-affiliated meetings and
preaching to the choir.
> Another clueless critic.
Whatever! Your opinion?
> >> Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
> >> review. If Dorit wants to review Behe's speech or TV appearance,
> >> that would be different. Of course, I don't expect
> >> wf3h to understand this (being the Crusader that he is).
> >> But perhaps he would understand it if I reviewed a Dawkins'
> >> book through the filter of Dawkins' antireligious comments
> >> elsewhere.
> >
> >The separation of arguments would not seem to matter. It is the core science, or
> >lack thereof, that is troubling to most reviewers.
>
> Nice spin.
Come on. At least try to be non-Nyikosian!
> Even ardent evolutionists are
> >often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
> >basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven.
>
> Science is not about proving things.
Say what? If I cannot offer evidence for a specific hypothesis, I might as well be
writing chapters in the new Bible. Opinion counts for zip. Data does!
> So I take with a grain of salt
> your sermon about science.
Take it any way you desire.
> As for disproof, please tell me what
> data could be found that would disprove the darwinian origin of
> the bacterial flagellum.
Not my area. If you would care to discuss crystallography and the early formation of
self-assembling biomolecules on inorganic substrates, have a go at it. You are the
one who is claiming to be able to test for ID, not me.
> No logical test for
> >"design" beyond "God-did-it" or the paranormal have been proposed, AFAIK.
>
> I've only written over 150 pages exploring such tests.
>
And, if I remember correctly, could not come up with one that did not require
incredulity or lack of study of the specified system as a component. Heck, I can
suggest 2-300 pages of tests for crystallographic storage of the human identify
(self-awareness) in DNA. That I can suggest such tests does not remove 1)incredulity
or 2)lack of study (chance of funding = ZERO) from the proposal.
> >> As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
> >> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
> >> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
> >> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
> >> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
> >
> >The idea of the underdog is nothing new. In science it happens (Consider
> >Chandrasekar's limit or Continental Drift!), but IF the underdog is inherently
> >correct, then facts (data) will win out. IF there are no facts underlying the
> >assertions (Consider Velikovsky or Crookes) then the "theories" will drift into
> >obscurity unproven. Such is the fate of Intelligent Design (my opinion!).
>
> More naive views about science.
Really!
> Please cite for me the scientists
> who had argued that for philosophical and methodological reasons,
> continental drift could not be part of a scientific explanation.
Are you kidding? Alfred Wegener proposed Pangea in 1915 and was nearly laughed out of
existence by the "Establishment". It was not until the ODP program detailed the
mid-Ocean ridge and associated magnetic reversals that continental drift became
accepted. Nonetheless, Wegener's reasoning was sound. He did not argue from
incredulity, but presented evidence for his proposal. Opposition to his views stemmed
from the limited nature of his evidence.
> The notion that this issue and science has anything to do with
> the "facts and data winning out" is hopelessly simplistic.
> Reality, humanity and history are a MUCH more subtle and complicated story
> than this.
Every pseudoscientist I've encountered had a similar view. "... My idea is great. If
only those #%$*&#* scientists could see the light... like me!...". Ideas are not
suppressed. They may not be accepted, as Wegener's show, but the IDEAS are still
there waiting to be resurrected when adequate data is available.
> "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]
>
Spoken like a true pseudoscientist!
Barwood
Julie Thomas
Since it is the holiday season, I have some
time to reply to some comments. Although,
I can't promise any followups (since it is
the holiday season).
I wrote:
> ...Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
> September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>>...This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
>>has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
>>end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
>>been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
>>is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
>>Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
> I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
> emotionally upset.
Rich replied:
>If Behe really did say that "the field of molecular evolution has
>grown stale...", then he was obviously wrong, regardless of Dorit's
>emotional state. Surely even you, Julie, would agree that some
>excellent work is being done.
Sure. But I don't see this excellent working providing any
evidence for the darwinian evolution of the IC systems I have
discussed. Remember that Behe is focused on the origin of
IC systems.
I wrote:
>>And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably
>>the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and
>>the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were
>>probably not bad, either).
> Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
> molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
> evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
> Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
> an article critiquing Behe's argument?...
Rich replied:
>You misunderstand the meaning of "golden age".
You are misunderstanding your private definition of "golden
age" for the Only True definition.
>If we could explain everything about evolution, the field
>would be deadly dull.
Straw man argument. No one asks to explain everything about
evolution. In fact, if you read my article on the Krebs Cycle,
I am so generous that even the most vaguely used data can
prevent me from inferring design from an IC system. Yet
on the other hand, my critics want crashed-space crafts
before they will even entertain the suspicion that something
may have been designed.
>A golden age is when rapid progress is being made,
>but there are still lots of hard problems to work on.
>And for obvious reasons, Behe chose the hardest
>problems he could find to make his case.
You thought those were the hardest problems?
I wrote:
> This stereotypical approach is the either/or approach which
> views the dispute as one whereby everything is either
> designed or everything has evolved without intelligent
> intervention. When this approach is adopted, Darwin's
> nose becomes erroneously relevant. For if Darwin's nose
> is not designed, then everything is not designed. And since
> everything is not designed, the either/or approach allows
> us to infer that everything is evolved, right? Dorit seems
> oblivious to the fact that Behe does not argue that
> everything is designed. In fact, he accepts evolutionary
> explanations for many things. Darwin's nose is irrelevant.
Elmer replied:
>Darwin's nose *is* relevent.
Why? Do you too labor under the notion that either everything
is designed or everything has evolved without intelligent
intervention.
>Since intelligent design theorists seem to
>think that there are cellular functions inexplicable in any way other
>than ID,
I don't argue this. I simply identify systems in which a pattern of
data is best explained by a design inference. You are free to
disagree. It's just that I have yet to hear any arguments/evidence
that leads me to think my tentative conclusions are false (and
my discussion on the Krebs Cycle shows I am open-minded
on this whole issue and can be made to abandon a design
inference). Tell me Elmer, what type of data would you consider
evidence for the design of some ancient biological feature?
>it should be a simple matter for intelligent design theorists
>to delineate what percentage of Darwin's nose was "intelligently"
>designed and what percent wasn't.
It may one day be, but the design approach is still in its infancy
No one has seriously tried to *use* the approach. We can discuss
the reasons for this, but if you think it is because the approach is
useless, then I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about.
Anyway, is it stands now, unless Darwin's nose existed because of
an IC molecular machine that has no antecedent in nonhumans, I'm
afraid I couldn't score it as designed.
Paul replied to Rich's reply:
I wrote:
>> ...Okay, let's look at Dorit's review which appeared in the
>> September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist:
>
>>>...This book tells me that the field of molecular evolution
>>>has "grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to dead
>>>end problems." Worse yet, it appears that the endeavor "has
>>>been moribund for decades" and that "molecular evolution
>>>is not based on scientific authority ... the assertion of
>>>Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."
>
>> I suspect when reading these claims, Dorit became
>> emotionally upset.
Rich replied:
>If Behe really did say that "the field of molecular evolution has
>grown stale...", then he was obviously wrong, regardless of Dorit's
>emotional state. Surely even you, Julie, would agree that some
>excellent work is being done.
Paul replied:
>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.
Wrong. Behe knows that studies on evolution have been published
in JME. Behe is looking for studies that outline the evidence for
the darwinian evolution of his systems. You have not read the book,
have you Paul?
So here is what I would like. You are a scientist
who can easily search JME in a few minutes. Please list for me
all the JME papers that outline the evidence for the darwinian
evolution of the IC systems I have discussed: bacterial chromosomal
replication; the bacterial flagellum; the F-ATPases; and the bacterial
cell wall. And when you provide this list (something that
should be easy to do), please don't make the blunder of listing
the type of articles Behe critics commonly cite. They think that
as long as the word "evolution" is found in the same article with
the IC system, Behe is proved wrong about his assertion. Let's
look at a glorious example.
David Ussery is a biochemist and another Behe critic with a web site.
In his article, he writes:
"This brings me to another simple statement that is easy to check
that "only two articles even attempt to suggest a model for the
evolution of the cilium that takes into account real mechanical
considerations" (page 68). A quick PubMed search
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/, (all the PubMed
searches were done in July, 1998 - here I just typed in "cilia"
and "evolution"), revealed 107 articles, many of which
discuss exactly the types of mechanisms Behe claims are
missing from the literature."
My, how could Behe miss 105 articles?? Okay, so I did
this quick search. I typed in "cilia" and "evolution."
Here are the first 20.
Norrander J, et al.
Expression of ciliary tektins in brain and sensory development.
J Neurosci. 1998 Nov 1;18(21):8912-8.
PMID: 9786996; UI: 99003423.
Neesen J, et al.
Identification of dynein heavy chain genes expressed in
human and mouse testis: chromosomal localization of
an axonemal dynein gene.
Gene. 1997 Oct 24;200(1-2):193-202.
PMID: 9373155; UI: 98038992.
Espinosa FF, et al.
Thin layer flows due to surface tension gradients
over a membrane undergoing nonuniform, periodic strain.
Ann Biomed Eng. 1997 Nov-Dec;25(6):913-25.
PMID: 9395038; UI: 98055416.
Klotz C, et al.
Genetic evidence for a role of centrin-associated
proteins in the organization and dynamics of the
infraciliary lattice in Paramecium.
Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 1997;38(2):172-86.
PMID: 9331221; UI: 97470761.
Tyler S, et al.
Origin of the epidermis in parasitic platyhelminths.
Int J Parasitol. 1997 Jun;27(6):715-38. Review.
PMID: 9229254; UI: 97373213.
Goniakowska-Witalinska L.
Neuroepithelial bodies and solitary neuroendocrine
cells in the lungs of amphibia.
Microsc Res Tech. 1997 Apr 1;37(1):13-30. Review.
PMID: 9144619; UI: 97289834.
Murphy DB, et al.
The human hepatocyte nuclear factor 3/fork
head gene FKHL13: genomic structure and pattern of expression.
Genomics. 1997 Mar 15;40(3):462-9.
PMID: 9073514; UI: 97230460.
Coyne RS, et al.
Evolutionary conservation of sequences directing
chromosome breakage and rDNA palindrome
formation in tetrahymenine ciliates.
Genetics. 1996 Dec;144(4):1479-87.
PMID: 8978037; UI: 97132585.
Coburn CM, et al.
A putative cyclic nucleotide-gated channel
is required for sensory development and function in C. elegans.
Neuron. 1996 Oct;17(4):695-706.
PMID: 8893026; UI: 97048185.
Cordonnier C, et al.
Acquired ciliary abnormalities of nasal
mucosa in marrow recipients.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996 Apr;17(4):611-6.
PMID: 8722364; UI: 96291488.
Cosson J.
A moving image of flagella: news and views
on the mechanisms involved in axonemal beating.
Cell Biol Int. 1996 Feb;20(2):83-94. Review.
PMID: 8935152; UI: 97089244.
Levilliers N, et al.
Monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies detect a
new type of post-translational modification of
axonemal tubulin.
J Cell Sci. 1995 Sep;108 ( Pt 9):3013-28.
PMID: 8537441; UI: 96087660.
Emlet RB.
Larval spicules, cilia, and symmetry as remnants
of indirect development in the direct developing
sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma.
Dev Biol. 1995 Feb;167(2):405-15.
PMID: 7875367; UI: 95180486.
Gibbons IR.
Dynein family of motor proteins: present
status and future questions.
Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 1995;32(2):136-44. Review.
PMID: 8681396; UI: 96114117.
Rohde K.
The origins of parasitism in the platyhelminthes.
Int J Parasitol. 1994 Dec;24(8):1099-115.
PMID: 7729971; UI: 95247356.
Malysse I, et al.
Completely reversible respiratory insufficiency
with persisting ultrastructural ciliary abnormalities.
Eur Respir J. 1994 Aug;7(8):1532-6.
PMID: 7957841; UI: 95046240.
Carson HL, et al.
Change in male secondary sexual characters
in artificial interspecific hybrid populations.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jul 5;91(14):6315-8.
PMID: 8022778; UI: 94294372.
Damen P, et al.
Cell lineage of the prototroch of Patella
vulgata (Gastropoda, Mollusca).
Dev Biol. 1994 Apr;162(2):364-83.
PMID: 8150201; UI: 94200508.
Crowther RJ, et al.
Serial repetition of cilia pairs along
the tail surface of an ascidian larva.
J Exp Zool. 1994 Jan 1;268(1):9-16.
PMID: 8301249; UI: 94132767.
Gibbons BH, et al.
Phylogeny and expression of axonemal
and cytoplasmic dynein genes in sea urchins.
Mol Biol Cell. 1994 Jan;5(1):57-70.
PMID: 8186465; UI: 94243035.
The first thing to note is that PubMed listed 108
articles. Thus, the "golden age" of molecular evolution
is churning out 1 paper/6 months on this topic.
But what's worse, none of these articles address
Behe's concerns. This is important. I have seen
several Behe critics claim that there are 100s, even
1000s of papers addressing things he says are not
be addressed. But such critics demonstrate only
their ignorance and confusion, as they don't seem
capable of grasping a very simple point. Behe is
concerned about the *origin* of his systems, not
whether anyone has ever said something about
evolution and tubulin in the same paper. Let's look at
some of these 20 articles (only from their title), keeping
in mind they are typical.
In what way does the "Expression of ciliary tektins in
brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes?
Likewise with the" Change in male secondary sexual characters
in artificial interspecific hybrid populations." Maybe
you can explain why Behe should have discussed
"Evolutionary conservation of sequences directing
chromosome breakage and rDNA palindrome
formation in tetrahymenine ciliates." as it relates
to the Darwinian evolution of cilia. Do you really
need me to spell out just how irrelevant all this is?
Do I need to go on?
Furthermore, articles like the " Phylogeny and
expression of axonemal and cytoplasmic dynein
genes in sea urchins." are commonly listed in
response to Behe. While it is surely of interest to
some that dynein expression patterns can be used
to shed light on echinoderm phylogeny, this is not
relevant to the origin of cilia.
Let me just say this to those who don't have much
biological knowledge. The articles listed by Ussery
are of the type that are commonly cited by Behe critics.
In of themselves they are interesting and some may even
be relevant to the evolution that has occurred *since* the
origin of the IC system. But they are IRRELEVANT when
trying to uncover the evidence for the darwinian evolution
of the systems in question. The shear number may make it
appear as if Behe was being disingenious or sloppy, but
it is the critics who are being disingenious or sloppy (after all,
what could be more sloppy than citing rDNA palindromes in
*ciliates* as if they are relevant to the Darwinian evolution of
*cilia*??).
Needless to say, I will wait for Paul to list the JME papers
that outline the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of the
systems I have discussed. If he fails, don't worry. I hope
to discuss several more IC systems and you would think
that sooner or later, that golden age is going to pay off and
explain one. :)
>He says sequence analysis has no relevance.
He is correct. He writes:
"Like the sequence analysts, I believe the evidence strongly
supports common descent. But the root question remains
unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form?
No one has ever explained in detailed, scientific fashion how
mutation and natural selection could build the complex,
intricate structures discussed in this book." [p. 176]
I would part company from Behe in his desire for a could-be
explanation. Yet he is correct in that sequence data gives us
NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
of an IC system. Sequence data tells us only about common
descent and evidence of common descent is not evidence
of natural selection (don't forget that while evolution is a fact,
natural selection is only a mechanism that is still in dispute).
Sequence data, does however, support IC. IC predicts
functional constraint and sequence data has been used to
uncover the existence of functional constraint.
>He claims that people dismiss him solely because he goes
>to church.
Where is this found in the book? Of course, it is of interest
that both Jerry Coyne and Tom Caviliar-Smith make an issue
out of his religious belief in their reviews published in
scientific journals.
>He says that Intelligent Design is disregarded because it
>has theological implications.
ID does indeed have theological implications. It need not, mind
you, but history has tied the two. Thus, any appeal to ID is going
to be reflexively *interpreted* to mean theology. Ergo, since
theology is not part of science, ID will be reflexively rejected
by most. That's okay with me, as it just underscores the need
for something like SIBO.
>Behe says a lot that is wrong.
So does Myers. :)
>When I heard him speak, I thought he sounded incredibly paranoid and
>defensive,
All you have truly told us is how you subjectively viewed things.
>and made a lot of arguments that were scientifically unsound...
>but played well to a crowd of non-scientists.
Yeah, just like the way a laundry list of irrelevant articles probably
plays well to a crowd of non-scientists (and strangely enough, it
seems to play well to the scientists also). Darwinian just-so stories
seem also to play well with both crowds. As does this sloppy way of
sneaking in Darwinism as if it equates with evolution.
Dorit:
>>>And all this time I have been thinking that this is probably
>>>the golden age of evolutionary biology (although 1860 and
>>>the early years of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s were
>>>probably not bad, either).
Me:
>> Then why is it that a practicing biologist and card-carrying
>> molecular evolutionist, working in the golden age of
>> evolutionary biology, fails to explain how even one of
>> Behe's IC systems evolved via natural selection in
>> an article critiquing Behe's argument?...
Rich:
>You misunderstand the meaning of "golden age". If we could explain
>everything about evolution, the field would be deadly dull. A golden
>age is when rapid progress is being made, but there are still lots of
>hard problems to work on. And for obvious reasons, Behe chose the hardest
>problems he could find to make his case.
Paul:
>Right. Why is the sole focus of Design Theory on those problems that
>haven't been solved?
Need help, do ya? Let's see. As I use design, I am interested
in origins. If there is good evidence that something originated
by evolution, why would I focus on it? The answer is in.
I am not an apologist seeking to reinterpret everything as if
it was designed (although, you probably cannot comprehend
this). When looking at an unsolved problem (and what is
unsolved is simply the question of origins),
if there are patterns of data to support a design inference,
I go with it. This of course also makes it possible for my
views on this matter to be falsified (unlike
the evolutionary beliefs) as more data comes in.
>Where is the application of these ideas to existing
>models of molecular organization?
Now how is this supposed to work? Am I supposed to believe
a designer is at work today making the flagellum spin? If
so, you don't understand what design is. But one way it can
work is already opening before us. Alberts has written that
in order for biology to advance, more biologists need to think
like engineers (which if course makes much sense if life is built
around carbon-based nanotechnology). My suggestion to any
students out there who are interested in using design to explore
the biological world is to obtain dual degrees in both engineering
and a molecular branch of biology. The future of biology is going
to become more and more design-friendly (which may explain
some of the hysteria from the anti-design apologists).
>How does Design Theory help us solve
>problems, other than by providing a rationale by fiat?
I've already used IC/design to explain how one feature of
DNA replication *works*. Design/IC also helps to solve
the problem of various patterns of phylogenetic data, which
are best intepreted to reflect original design events (as seen
by thematic-systematic IC and mol-PE) followed by a history
of evolution. I hope to seriously expand on this latter point
in the future.
I think design theory can explain many problems, but you have
to use it in an investigative fashion rather than an apologetic
fashion. And problems get solved at the interface of dispute.
One of the reasons I found design/IC so useful in my discussion
with Larry Moran over a year ago is that he took my concepts
seriously. This allowed us to formulate all kinds of subsidiary
and opposing hypotheses which in turn generated all kinds
of ideas for experiments. While we ended up disagreeing
with just about everything, I feel my views took a big step
forward as a consequence of those exchanges. Without the
interface of dispute, it is difficult to know where to probe.
As a scientist, you should know that.
Pim wrote:
> >
> >Heck, under that definition, Behe's book was nothing more than a personal
essay
> >about what he thought about darwinian evolution. Given the lack of
supporting
> >evidence and the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have been shown which lead
to
> >apparant IC systems, one wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
I replied:
> Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
> of the IC systems I have discussed at length. I'm not impressed
> by vague hand-waving.
Clark replies:
>Nor am I, which is why I don't like Behe's false
>dichotomy (between what he says evolution is and
>intelligent design) and his lack of
>specifics. You know, things like what was designed and when it was
>designed.
Of course, I have been addressing those specifics in
my articles. Although it is crucial to remember that
I have only begun. Behe's objective was to introduce
a concept and means of detecting design. Why you
expect the type of detail that can come only from
decades of application is beyond me.
>And I freely admit that we don't have an
>evolutionary explanation of the cilium. Does that
>mean that intelligent design is correct?
Nope. But that inference can be used to generate
testable hypotheses and more coherency. Unlike me,
you are viewing this issue through an apologetic
filter.
>Perhaps if I had an intelligent design model of
>when it was designed, and in what creature, I'd
>be able to decide. But Behe doesn't give me
>that does he?
Nope. But give it time. Read my articles on IC systems
and if you pay close attention, you'll see answers
to these questions beginning to take shape. Of
course I am not presumptuous enough to claim
I have the answers, only that I think I see
a way of arriving at some tentative conclusions.
But again, give it time.
"[W]ithout numbers, there is no science"
- Mike Behe [DBB, p. 95]
>Where are Behe's numbers? Or is he not doing
>science? If not, does he realize it?
Who knows? But as I have pointed out, I
have removed my inquiry from "science."
Yet I am toying with ideas that can be
quantitatively assessed.
Mark replied to my question as follows:
>Why? There are only many billions of
>unexplained biological systems in
>existence.
There are? I think you exaggerate.
>When someone explains one of Behe's examples,
>he can just make the same claims with one of the
>other systems. There's no way to explain
>every possible example in anyone's lifetime.
So what? Unless one is under the impression that
either everything was designed or everything has evolved
without intelligent intervention, your point is lost
on me. I simply follow the evidence.
>What has been done is to show that IC systems can
>and do evolve naturally.
Oh, really? What IC system do we know to have
"evolved naturally?" (ignore the can-claim as I
am not interested in your ability to imagine things).
In what specific way are they relevant to the systems
I have discussed?
>That is quite enough to show that Behe's
>argument is entirely worthless.
It amuses me when someone who has never
seriously tried to apply a concept makes
ignorant judgments about its worth.
I know from experience that Mark
is wrong. Then again, I suspect he
approaches this subject as an apologist.
>Since his conclusions follow from his
>argument, not from his examples, his
>conclusions are unsupported.
I suspect Mark is another one who thinks
a design theorist must shoulder the burden
of demonstrating the impossible.
>What you are saying, Julie, is because a few
>things are unexplained, and because Behe mentions them,
>we should believe everything Behe says. You
>really have no more argument than that.
Oh, please. You have no idea what my argument is.
I really don't care about your opinions on
my argument, Mark. Sorry. :(
--
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>
>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.
THANK YOU! i heard EXACTLY the same thing.
but you realize this is all 'hearsay' according to julie...
>
>Right. Why is the sole focus of Design Theory on those problems that
>haven't been solved? Where is the application of these ideas to existing
>models of molecular organization? How does Design Theory help us solve
>problems, other than by providing a rationale by fiat?
>
>--
neither behe nor julie has said a single word about that. not a word.
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
>strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
>Keep up the good work.
>
>Bertvan
really? gee i lost track, bert.
did julie call me a member of a 'pack' or did i call her that?
i think you're confused. no surprise. you're a creationist.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>
>>
>>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>>snipped to her response:
>>
>>> Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>>> heard?
>>
>>The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
>
>Then make it. I don't care.
>
>>> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>>> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
>>
>>Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
>>personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
>>arguments.
>
>Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
>argument? Another clueless critic.
>
>>> Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>>> review. If Dorit wants to review Behe's speech or TV appearance,
>>> that would be different. Of course, I don't expect
>>> wf3h to understand this (being the Crusader that he is).
>>> But perhaps he would understand it if I reviewed a Dawkins'
>>> book through the filter of Dawkins' antireligious comments
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>The separation of arguments would not seem to matter. It is the core science, or
>>lack thereof, that is troubling to most reviewers.
>
>Nice spin.
yet you fail to address it. behe's argument as to why the scientific
community thinks his argument is nonsense is that there's a conspiracy
of anti-religious scientists in the world.
>
> Even ardent evolutionists are
>>often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
>>basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven.
>
>Science is not about proving things. So I take with a grain of salt
>your sermon about science. As for disproof, please tell me what
>data could be found that would disprove the darwinian origin of
>the bacterial flagellum.
i dunno. you tell us. design/creationists are saying its impossible.
go ahead. prove it.
>
>>
>>The idea of the underdog is nothing new. In science it happens (Consider
>>Chandrasekar's limit or Continental Drift!), but IF the underdog is inherently
>>correct, then facts (data) will win out. IF there are no facts underlying the
>>assertions (Consider Velikovsky or Crookes) then the "theories" will drift into
>>obscurity unproven. Such is the fate of Intelligent Design (my opinion!).
>
>More naive views about science. Please cite for me the scientists
>who had argued that for philosophical and methodological reasons,
>continental drift could not be part of a scientific explanation.
please cite for use scientists who thing 'design' is able to explain a
feature of the natural world via a defined mechanism.
WHOOPS!!! im sorry!! creationists havent defined a mechanism for
design!!
gee..
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>
>
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>
>> In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>>
>> >
>> >Julie Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> >snipped to her response:
>> >
>> >> Sorry, but I don't accept hearsay. Who cares what you think you
>> >> heard?
>> >
>> >The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
>>
>> Then make it. I don't care.
>
>I did. Your reply indicates that you are looking for support and are indeed sensitive
>to criticism.
Whatever.
>> >> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>> >> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
>> >
>> >Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
>> >personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
>> >arguments.
>>
>> Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
>> argument?
>
>WTH are you talking about? What "conspiracy"? Behe has demonstrated personal
>incredulity, period. That other scientists reject his views is a part of the process.
>Behe does not help his case by attending mostly religious-affiliated meetings and
>preaching to the choir.
Sheesh. You butt into a debate and don't even know the context of
what is being said. Take your crusade elsewhere.
>> Another clueless critic.
>
>Whatever! Your opinion?
Of course...and supported by your clueless state as evidenced by
the question..."What conspiracy?"
>> >> Behe makes no such claims in his BOOK, the subject of Dorit's
>> >> review. If Dorit wants to review Behe's speech or TV appearance,
>> >> that would be different. Of course, I don't expect
>> >> wf3h to understand this (being the Crusader that he is).
>> >> But perhaps he would understand it if I reviewed a Dawkins'
>> >> book through the filter of Dawkins' antireligious comments
>> >> elsewhere.
>> >
>> >The separation of arguments would not seem to matter. It is the core science, or
>> >lack thereof, that is troubling to most reviewers.
>>
>> Nice spin.
>
>Come on. At least try to be non-Nyikosian!
Hey, if it spins like a politician.....
>> Even ardent evolutionists are
>> >often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
>> >basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven.
>>
>> Science is not about proving things.
>
>Say what? If I cannot offer evidence for a specific hypothesis, I might as well be
>writing chapters in the new Bible. Opinion counts for zip. Data does!
So you think science is about proving things? I don't
expect the pack to correct your mistaken views, but I
trust most people see it.
>> So I take with a grain of salt
>> your sermon about science.
>
>Take it any way you desire.
Of course.
>> As for disproof, please tell me what
>> data could be found that would disprove the darwinian origin of
>> the bacterial flagellum.
>
>Not my area. If you would care to discuss crystallography and the early formation of
>self-assembling biomolecules on inorganic substrates, have a go at it.
In what way is this relevant to the origin of the IC systems
under question. BTW, when studying the "self-assembling biomolecules
on inorganic substrates," you do use sea-water, don't ya?
>You are the one who is claiming to be able to test for ID, not me.
You are the one blustering about proving and disproving. Apparently,
you exclude yourself from the demands you place on others.
>> No logical test for
>> >"design" beyond "God-did-it" or the paranormal have been proposed, AFAIK.
>>
>> I've only written over 150 pages exploring such tests.
>>
>
>And, if I remember correctly, could not come up with one that did not require
>incredulity or lack of study of the specified system as a component. Heck, I can
>suggest 2-300 pages of tests for crystallographic storage of the human identify
>(self-awareness) in DNA. That I can suggest such tests does not remove 1)incredulity
>or 2)lack of study (chance of funding = ZERO) from the proposal.
Then you do not remember correctly. But it is humorous to watch
how the gullible turn "incredulity" into a negative. It would
make Orwell proud.
>> >> As for the rest of wf3h's replies, they make for a good case
>> >> study in the way Crusaders confuse themselves in their battles
>> >> against eeevil. It speaks for itself. Keep up the good
>> >> fight against the lil' scientist from the lil' town in Pa. You
>> >> obviously have nothing more useful to do in life. [grin]
>> >
>> >The idea of the underdog is nothing new. In science it happens (Consider
>> >Chandrasekar's limit or Continental Drift!), but IF the underdog is inherently
>> >correct, then facts (data) will win out. IF there are no facts underlying the
>> >assertions (Consider Velikovsky or Crookes) then the "theories" will drift into
>> >obscurity unproven. Such is the fate of Intelligent Design (my opinion!).
>>
>> More naive views about science.
>
>Really!
Indeed.
>> Please cite for me the scientists
>> who had argued that for philosophical and methodological reasons,
>> continental drift could not be part of a scientific explanation.
>
>Are you kidding? Alfred Wegener proposed Pangea in 1915 and was nearly laughed out of
>existence by the "Establishment". It was not until the ODP program detailed the
>mid-Ocean ridge and associated magnetic reversals that continental drift became
>accepted. Nonetheless, Wegener's reasoning was sound. He did not argue from
>incredulity, but presented evidence for his proposal. Opposition to his views stemmed
>from the limited nature of his evidence.
Try again. Read my challenge this time and reply.
>> The notion that this issue and science has anything to do with
>> the "facts and data winning out" is hopelessly simplistic.
>> Reality, humanity and history are a MUCH more subtle and complicated story
>> than this.
>
>Every pseudoscientist I've encountered had a similar view. "... My idea is great. If
>only those #%$*&#* scientists could see the light... like me!...". Ideas are not
>suppressed. They may not be accepted, as Wegener's show, but the IDEAS are still
>there waiting to be resurrected when adequate data is available.
Yeah, and every apologist I've encountered reacts just as you did.
Nothing worth continuing with in this lil' exchange....
--
wf...@enter.netxx
you aint alone. george gilchrist, of the NCSE did a literature search
as well. his results, quoted from the NCSE homepage:
>If intelligent design theory is a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, then scientists must be
>using it to devise tests and to interpret patterns in the data they collect. What sense would there
>be in presenting an idea as a scientific theory if the idea was not actually used by working
>scientists? The importance of a scientific theory is not related to its popularity among the
>general public, but to its utility in directing research and explaining observations within a
>particular field of study (Kuhn 1962). For example, millions of people read their horoscopes
>each day, but astrology plays no role in directing research by astronomers or psychologists.
>Astrology, therefore, is not discussed in science textbooks except in a historical context.
>Because professional scientists must publish their work to retain their jobs and to obtain
>funding, the relative status of intelligent design theory and evolutionary theory can be assessed
>by comparing their frequency of usage in! the professional scientific literature.
>The book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Origins by Percival Davis and
>Dean Kenyon is a high-school level text book designed to supplement traditional biology texts.
>The authors repeatedly refer to intelligent design as an alternative theory to neodarwinian
>evolution (Davis & Kenyon 1993, pp. 25, 26, 41, 78, 85). Because the adoption of this book is
>being considered in some public schools, it is worth asking about the status of this theory: Is
>intelligent design theory actually used by scientists?
>To compare the scientific literature on evolution and intelligent design, I used five different
>computerized databases that catalog scientific periodicals, books, and reports. I searched each
>database for the keywords "intelligent design" and "evolution". BIOSIS (1997, Biological
>Abstracts, Inc.) is the online version of Biological Abstracts and covers approximately 6000
>journals in the life sciences. The Expanded Academic Index (1997 Information Access Co.)
>indexes and abstracts 1500 scholarly and general interest periodicals, covering all major fields
>of study in the humanities, social sciences, and science and technology. The Life Sciences
>Collection (1997, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts) indexes 200 journals in all fields of biology.
>Medline (1997, National Library of Medicine) indexes over 3700 journals in the health and life
>sciences. Finally, the Science Citation Index (1996, Institute for Scientific Information) covers
>over 5000 journals in all fields of science. The Expanded Academic Index covers a broader
>range of subjects and lists more general publications; the other four indices list primarily
>professional science publications and feature more technical journals. The results of the
>searches are shown in Table 1.
(table 1 showed about 40 references to 'design', and about 150,000
references to evolution)
>Although Davis and Kenyon may claim that intelligent design represents a viable alternative to
>neodarwinian evolution, the scientific literature does not support that claim. Compared with
>several thousand papers on evolution, the combined searches produced only 37 citations
>containing the keyword "intelligent design." A closer look at those 37 references suggests that
>none report scientific research using intelligent design as a biological theory. "Intelligent
>design" popped up most frequently in the index with the broadest range of topics, the Expanded
>Academic Index. Of the 30 articles, 12 were articles on computer software or hardware, eight
>were on architectural or engineering design, two were on advertising art, and one was on
>literature. The remaining seven were about biology; five were discussions of the debate over
>using Pandas by various school boards, and two were comments on Michael Behe's (1996)
>book in a Christian magazine. The four papers in the Science Citation Index were all about
>engineering or welding technology. The single paper in the Life Sciences Collection was about
>computer methods used to analyze particulate air pollution. The single paper in Medline was
>about bioengineering drugs with high thermal stability. The single paper in BIOSIS was about a
>computer-controlled system for manufacturing fertilizer. This search of several hundred
>thousand scientific reports published over several years failed to discover a single instance of
>biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's diversity. It is worth noting
>that although Davis and Kenyon are both professional scientists, neither has apparently
>published anything in the professional literature about their theory.
so, no, virginia, design is NOT a viable alternative, and even
according to behe's criteria, should be tossed out.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>On 30 Dec 1998 10:23:37 -0500, ber...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
>>strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
>>Keep up the good work.
>>
>>Bertvan
>
>really? gee i lost track, bert.
>
>did julie call me a member of a 'pack' or did i call her that?
For over a year, you have done far worse to me than call me
a pack member (which would be illogical). You have posted
dozens of snippy articles questioning my intellectual abilities,
motives, and character. I have mostly ignored your stumbling,
confused, yet viscious, attacks for months. But last
night, when you were perplexed by my independent thinking,
your confusion was explained by your pack mentality.
Don't whine about me calling you names. You come across
as a hypocritical cry-baby. Instead of munching on those
crackers, maybe someone should change your diaper. Now I
understand why people killfile you. It might not be a bad
idea.
PZ Myers
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>>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.
>
>Wrong. Behe knows that studies on evolution have been published
>in JME. Behe is looking for studies that outline the evidence for
>the darwinian evolution of his systems. You have not read the book,
>have you Paul?
Actually, I have read the book.
I also attended a talk by Behe.
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.
>
>So here is what I would like. You are a scientist
>who can easily search JME in a few minutes. Please list for me
>all the JME papers that outline the evidence for the darwinian
>evolution of the IC systems I have discussed: bacterial chromosomal
>replication; the bacterial flagellum; the F-ATPases; and the bacterial
>cell wall. And when you provide this list (something that
>should be easy to do), please don't make the blunder of listing
>the type of articles Behe critics commonly cite. They think that
>as long as the word "evolution" is found in the same article with
>the IC system, Behe is proved wrong about his assertion. Let's
>look at a glorious example.
>
>David Ussery is a biochemist and another Behe critic with a web site.
>In his article, he writes:
>
>"This brings me to another simple statement that is easy to check
>that "only two articles even attempt to suggest a model for the
>evolution of the cilium that takes into account real mechanical
>considerations" (page 68). A quick PubMed search
>(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/, (all the PubMed
>searches were done in July, 1998 - here I just typed in "cilia"
>and "evolution"), revealed 107 articles, many of which
>discuss exactly the types of mechanisms Behe claims are
>missing from the literature."
>
>My, how could Behe miss 105 articles??
By imposing his own definition of what constitutes research on
molecular evolution, obviously.
>Okay, so I did
>this quick search. I typed in "cilia" and "evolution."
>Here are the first 20.
[snip list]
No, because I don't quite see your point.
Behe claims that there are no articles on molecular evolution
being published. There are. Maybe not as many as you would like
on the particular topics you mentioned, but that isn't the issue.
Behe was wrong.
Second, you seem to be trying to set up unrealistic expectations.
You want the complete monograph that outlines in detail the origin
of cilia, and it seems that nothing less will satisfy you. You will
be disappointed for a long time. The papers you cited are all bits
and pieces of the story, the rather essential fine-grained data needed
to someday answer the question. Why belittle it? That's the stuff
somebody someday can use to put together that lovely little review
you want.
>
>Furthermore, articles like the " Phylogeny and
>expression of axonemal and cytoplasmic dynein
>genes in sea urchins." are commonly listed in
>response to Behe. While it is surely of interest to
>some that dynein expression patterns can be used
>to shed light on echinoderm phylogeny, this is not
>relevant to the origin of cilia.
>
>Let me just say this to those who don't have much
>biological knowledge. The articles listed by Ussery
>are of the type that are commonly cited by Behe critics.
>In of themselves they are interesting and some may even
>be relevant to the evolution that has occurred *since* the
>origin of the IC system. But they are IRRELEVANT when
>trying to uncover the evidence for the darwinian evolution
>of the systems in question. The shear number may make it
>appear as if Behe was being disingenious or sloppy, but
>it is the critics who are being disingenious or sloppy (after all,
>what could be more sloppy than citing rDNA palindromes in
>*ciliates* as if they are relevant to the Darwinian evolution of
>*cilia*??).
Yes, yes, complain about slop in a search engine. It is irrelevant.
>
>Needless to say, I will wait for Paul to list the JME papers
>that outline the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of the
>systems I have discussed. If he fails, don't worry. I hope
>to discuss several more IC systems and you would think
>that sooner or later, that golden age is going to pay off and
>explain one. :)
And, apparently, if I were to succeed, don't worry -- Julie will
just find another gap to flog to death.
No one is claiming to have a complete answer to every aspect of all
stories. You and Behe, though, are the ones complaining that such
absence of an all-encompassing explanation means that no work at all
of any relevance is being done.
>
>>He says sequence analysis has no relevance.
>
>He is correct. He writes:
>
>"Like the sequence analysts, I believe the evidence strongly
>supports common descent. But the root question remains
>unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form?
>No one has ever explained in detailed, scientific fashion how
>mutation and natural selection could build the complex,
>intricate structures discussed in this book." [p. 176]
>
>I would part company from Behe in his desire for a could-be
>explanation. Yet he is correct in that sequence data gives us
>NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
>of an IC system. Sequence data tells us only about common
>descent and evidence of common descent is not evidence
>of natural selection (don't forget that while evolution is a fact,
>natural selection is only a mechanism that is still in dispute).
>
>Sequence data, does however, support IC. IC predicts
>functional constraint and sequence data has been used to
>uncover the existence of functional constraint.
Which way are you going to have it? Is sequence analysis irrelevant,
or is it work that supports IC?
>
>>He claims that people dismiss him solely because he goes
>>to church.
>
>Where is this found in the book? Of course, it is of interest
>that both Jerry Coyne and Tom Caviliar-Smith make an issue
>out of his religious belief in their reviews published in
>scientific journals.
I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
accepting his ideas.
>
>>He says that Intelligent Design is disregarded because it
>>has theological implications.
>
>ID does indeed have theological implications. It need not, mind
>you, but history has tied the two. Thus, any appeal to ID is going
>to be reflexively *interpreted* to mean theology. Ergo, since
>theology is not part of science, ID will be reflexively rejected
>by most. That's okay with me, as it just underscores the need
>for something like SIBO.
Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks: evidence.
>
>>Behe says a lot that is wrong.
>
>So does Myers. :)
I don't deny that. 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.
>
>>When I heard him speak, I thought he sounded incredibly paranoid and
>>defensive,
>
>All you have truly told us is how you subjectively viewed things.
When the last 20 minutes of his talk are nothing but apologies and excuses
for why his theories are rejected by the majority of scientists, I think
it is legitimate to call him defensive.
>
>>and made a lot of arguments that were scientifically unsound...
>>but played well to a crowd of non-scientists.
>
>Yeah, just like the way a laundry list of irrelevant articles probably
>plays well to a crowd of non-scientists (and strangely enough, it
>seems to play well to the scientists also).
A laundry list that Behe denies exists. I agree that there is no elegant
answer in the list, but to pretend that nobody is thinking about the problem
and that they aren't even trying to work on it is delusional, and is
pandering to the ignorance of his audience.
>Darwinian just-so stories
>seem also to play well with both crowds. As does this sloppy way of
>sneaking in Darwinism as if it equates with evolution.
Now just where did I say either of those things?
I think a good way to figure out where cilia come from is to dissect
the molecules as thoroughly as possible, and compare them to other molecules
in other organisms and look for relationships. For some reason, you (and
Behe) think that kind of incremental approach is irrelevant. You haven't
suggested anything else, though.
--
PZ Myers
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>
>>On 30 Dec 1998 10:23:37 -0500, ber...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
>>>strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
>>>Keep up the good work.
>>>
>>>Bertvan
>>
>>really? gee i lost track, bert.
>>
>>did julie call me a member of a 'pack' or did i call her that?
>
>For over a year, you have done far worse to me than call me
>a pack member (which would be illogical).
really? if so, please post any name which ive called you. you're a
creationist, certainly, but i dont call people names. a talent which
seems to have escaped you.
You have posted
>dozens of snippy articles questioning my intellectual abilities,
>motives, and character.
of course i question your motives. quite frankly i think you are,
occasionally, dishonest, just like any OTHER creationist. that does
NOT mean i have called you names. sorry julie. dig up the evidence
I have mostly ignored your stumbling,
>confused, yet viscious, attacks for months. But last
>night, when you were perplexed by my independent thinking,
>your confusion was explained by your pack mentality.
ROFLMAO!! since when is saying 'genesis is science' INDEPENDENT
thinking?
>
>Don't whine about me calling you names. You come across
>as a hypocritical cry-baby.
<grin> i dont care WHAT you call me. your problem is that seems to be
your ONLY argument. fine. so be it. but dont react like a cat in a
room full of rocking chairs when someone points out the princess has
no clothes
Instead of munching on those
>crackers, maybe someone should change your diaper. Now I
>understand why people killfile you. It might not be a bad
>idea.
>
oh, i agree. i suggest you do the same. because it allows me to reply
to your posts w/o response. in addition, i have seen few posts by me
that do not contain ideas brought up by others as well. you simply
retreat into name calling and saying 'i dont have to answer that'.
fine. because thats how creationists argue. you're just another one.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
and behe's presentation of ANY data on a mechanism for IC systems?
so far he hasnt presented any. none. nada. zip.
>Rich replied:
>
>>You misunderstand the meaning of "golden age".
>
>You are misunderstanding your private definition of "golden
>age" for the Only True definition.
julie thinks EVERYONE misunderstands her.
>
Yet
>on the other hand, my critics want crashed-space crafts
>before they will even entertain the suspicion that something
>may have been designed.
of course, julie thinks that because evolution cant explain how H2
became H Sapiens, its false.
>
>
>I don't argue this. I simply identify systems in which a pattern of
>data is best explained by a design inference. You are free to
>disagree. It's just that I have yet to hear any arguments/evidence
>that leads me to think my tentative conclusions are false
uh, how about its meaningless because its akin to magic? w/o a
mechanism there is little difference between design and houdini.
>
>It may one day be, but the design approach is still in its infancy
the idea is TWO HUNDRED YEARS OLD...its OLDER than darwin!!. this is
the LONGEST gestation in the history of science!! in addition, NO ONE
accepts it except those, like behe, with ties to RIGHT WING AMERICAN
POLITICS.
>
>So here is what I would like. You are a scientist
>who can easily search JME in a few minutes. Please list for me
>all the JME papers that outline the evidence for the darwinian
>evolution of the IC systems I have discussed
and if you find ONE paper, that will be ONE MORE paper than julie
thomas or behe have EVER written about how 'design' works.
>
>David Ussery is a biochemist and another Behe critic with a web site.
>In his article, he writes:
>
>"This brings me to another simple statement that is easy to check
>that "only two articles even attempt to suggest a model for the
>evolution of the cilium that takes into account real mechanical
>considerations" (page 68).
>
>The first thing to note is that PubMed listed 108
>articles. Thus, the "golden age" of molecular evolution
>is churning out 1 paper/6 months on this topic.
which is 1 paper/6 months more than design theorists are churning out:
>The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory
> George W Gilchrist
(table 1 listed about 40 papers using 'design', and about 150,000
references for evolution)...continuing:
>Although Davis and Kenyon may claim that intelligent design represents a viable alternative to
>neodarwinian evolution, the scientific literature does not support that claim. Compared with
>several thousand papers on evolution, the combined searches produced only 37 citations
>containing the keyword "intelligent design." A closer look at those 37 references suggests that
>none report scientific research using intelligent design as a biological theory. "Intelligent
>design" popped up most frequently in the index with the broadest range of topics, the Expanded
>Academic Index. Of the 30 articles, 12 were articles on computer software or hardware, eight
>were on architectural or engineering design, two were on advertising art, and one was on
>literature. The remaining seven were about biology; five were discussions of the debate over
>using Pandas by various school boards, and two were comments on Michael Behe's (1996)
>book in a Christian magazine. The four papers in the Science Citation Index were all about
>engineering or welding technology. The single paper in the Life Sciences Collection was about
>computer methods used to analyze particulate air pollution. The single paper in Medline was
>about bioengineering drugs with high thermal stability. The single paper in BIOSIS was about a
>computer-controlled system for manufacturing fertilizer. This search of several hundred
>thousand scientific reports published over several years failed to discover a single instance of
>biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's diversity. It is worth noting
>that although Davis and Kenyon are both professional scientists, neither has apparently
>published anything in the professional literature about their theory.
(the above is from the national center for science education webpage)
so for all of julie's screaching about the lack of evidence to support
darwinian evolution, its publishing history SMOKES that of
'design'...an idea which is FIVE DECADES OLDER than darwinism.
julie has a double standard
>But what's worse, none of these articles address
>Behe's concerns. This is important.
yeah i agree it is. why doesnt BEHE address it? why is HE silent on
the mechanisms of design?
I have seen
>several Behe critics claim that there are 100s, even
>1000s of papers addressing things he says are not
>be addressed.
even FIVE papers are FIVE MORE than design theorists have published.
>
>In what way does the "Expression of ciliary tektins in
>brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
>the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes?
and behe's mechanism for this is?
oh...im sorry..he hasnt said.
>Likewise with the" Change in male secondary sexual characters
>in artificial interspecific hybrid populations."
and behe's mechanism for this is?
oh...im sorry, he hasnt said.
Maybe
>you can explain why Behe should have discussed
>"Evolutionary conservation of sequences directing
>chromosome breakage and rDNA palindrome
>formation in tetrahymenine ciliates." as it relates
>to the Darwinian evolution of cilia. Do you really
>need me to spell out just how irrelevant all this is?
>Do I need to go on?
yeah. tell us how behe explains the mechanism of design. when i saw
him on nov. 22 he said he couldnt. perhaps you have an update.
>
>Furthermore, articles like the " Phylogeny and
>expression of axonemal and cytoplasmic dynein
>genes in sea urchins." are commonly listed in
>response to Behe. While it is surely of interest to
>some that dynein expression patterns can be used
>to shed light on echinoderm phylogeny, this is not
>relevant to the origin of cilia.
and behe's proof that design is? how does design explain this?
oh..im sorry...behe doesnt say.
>
>Needless to say, I will wait for Paul to list the JME papers
>that outline the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of the
>systems I have discussed. If he fails, don't worry. I hope
>to discuss several more IC systems and you would think
>that sooner or later, that golden age is going to pay off and
>explain one. :)
oh, please julie, tell us what papers support design...go ahead...list
'em all.
>
>I would part company from Behe in his desire for a could-be
>explanation. Yet he is correct in that sequence data gives us
>NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
>of an IC system.
and that is his ONLY argument in favor of design...we dont know HOW
evolution did it so 'design' MUST have
how??? well, we arent gonna tell you.
>
>Where is this found in the book? Of course, it is of interest
>that both Jerry Coyne and Tom Caviliar-Smith make an issue
>out of his religious belief in their reviews published in
>scientific journals.
his appearance on the fundamentalist roman catholic EWTN program 'the
abundant life' with johnette benkovic, and the journalist george sims
johnson where evolution was described as the 'philosophy of naziism'
does seem to point to a problem with behe's view of science.
>
>>He says that Intelligent Design is disregarded because it
>>has theological implications.
>
>ID does indeed have theological implications. It need not, mind
>you, but history has tied the two.
'history' hasnt, the DEFINITION of design has. NO science, not
chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. has 'design' ANYWHERE,
yet the latter day creationists bleat that biology MUST include
design. why? because the bible says so. thats an argument made by
phillip johnson with his attack on scientific 'materialism', etc.
Thus, any appeal to ID is going
>to be reflexively *interpreted* to mean theology.
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
When looking at an unsolved problem (and what is
>unsolved is simply the question of origins),
>if there are patterns of data to support a design inference,
>I go with it.
'patterns of data'. of course julie says design isnt science...
This of course also makes it possible for my
>views on this matter to be falsified (unlike
>the evolutionary beliefs) as more data comes in.
'falsifiable views on evolution'...julie says its not science...
>
>>Where is the application of these ideas to existing
>>models of molecular organization?
>
>Now how is this supposed to work? Am I supposed to believe
>a designer is at work today making the flagellum spin? If
>so, you don't understand what design is
yeah aint it convenient having to ignore demands to state a mechanism
because you cant...lets do that in the rest of science!! just think
about the TIME we'd save!!
.. The future of biology is going
>to become more and more design-friendly (which may explain
>some of the hysteria from the anti-design apologists).
design is 200 yrs old. and behe himself admits no scientists accept
it.
so your proof is?
>
>I've already used IC/design to explain how one feature of
>DNA replication *works*. Design/IC also helps to solve
>the problem of various patterns of phylogenetic data, which
>are best intepreted to reflect original design events (as seen
>by thematic-systematic IC and mol-PE) followed by a history
>of evolution. I hope to seriously expand on this latter point
>in the future.
of course this mechanism isnt at work TODAY say design folks...we cant
TEST it...we cant SEE it...and the ONLY people who accept it are,
miraculously enough, right wing americans, but hey, its the wave of
the future!!
>Of course, I have been addressing those specifics in
>my articles. Although it is crucial to remember that
>I have only begun. Behe's objective was to introduce
>a concept and means of detecting design. Why you
>expect the type of detail that can come only from
>decades of application is beyond me.
uh, how about results coming from TWENTY decades of applications. behe
aint isaac newton. he did not unlock a rosetta stone to decipher
design. its an OLD idea whose adherents have glommed onto their latest
savior in an effort to rationalize an indefensible idea. thats why
robert bork, pat robertson, mother angelica, w.f. buckley, etc support
it, while no scientists, as behe admits, do.
>
>Who knows? But as I have pointed out, I
>have removed my inquiry from "science."
>Yet I am toying with ideas that can be
>quantitatively assessed.
yeah you have. thats creationism at its finest..the double standard
1. evolution cant tell us how cilia evolve. evolution is false.
2. design cant tell us either, but since 1 is true, design is true.
>
>
>I suspect Mark is another one who thinks
>a design theorist must shoulder the burden
>of demonstrating the impossible.
ironic in view of designer's argument that evolution is false because
it cant demonstrate EVERYTHING
>
>>What you are saying, Julie, is because a few
>>things are unexplained, and because Behe mentions them,
>>we should believe everything Behe says. You
>>really have no more argument than that.
>
>Oh, please. You have no idea what my argument is.
>I really don't care about your opinions on
>my argument, Mark. Sorry. :(
>--
yeah julie says this EVERYTIME someone says 'tell us what in your
black box'. behe didnt tell us. and neither does julie.
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
>third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
>religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
>accepting his ideas.
i agree. i heard him say EXACTLY the same thing at his 11/22/98
lecture here in bethlehem, pa. he stated that ALL scientists are
anti-religious. when i challenged him on this, he revised his
statement to say that all LEADING scientists were anti-religious (he
did, however, apologize to his host at the church since he was a
chemist!!)
>
>Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
>IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
>lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
>theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
i was amazed he used this as well. as 'proof' that all scientists are
'anti-religious' he used an old article from 'nature' which said the
BB should be rejected because it has theological implications.
the fact that the BB is NOT rejected, and is, in fact, the reigning
theory in cosmology, seems to have escaped him.
>
>He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
>implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
>to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks: evidence.
he told me 'design' doesnt need a mechanism because the BB isnt one.
when i pointed out the BB is a mechanism for explaining the structure
of the universe, he just didnt say anything at all.
>
>When the last 20 minutes of his talk are nothing but apologies and excuses
>for why his theories are rejected by the majority of scientists, I think
>it is legitimate to call him defensive.
ive cited reviews by several scientists, including atkins, that say
the same thing. one even cited a quote from behe's book which says
scientists 'know' behe is telling the truth, but they just shuffle
their feet, knowing 'design' isnt acceptable.
what scientists? behe doesnt say. when did they do this? behe doesnt
say. what fraction of the scientific community does this? behe doesnt
say.
PZ Myers
>On 30 Dec 1998 18:02:25 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>>
>>I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
>>third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
>>religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
>>accepting his ideas.
>
>i agree. i heard him say EXACTLY the same thing at his 11/22/98
>lecture here in bethlehem, pa. he stated that ALL scientists are
>anti-religious. when i challenged him on this, he revised his
>statement to say that all LEADING scientists were anti-religious (he
>did, however, apologize to his host at the church since he was a
>chemist!!)
>
>>
>>Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
>>IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
>>lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
>>theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
>
>i was amazed he used this as well. as 'proof' that all scientists are
>'anti-religious' he used an old article from 'nature' which said the
>BB should be rejected because it has theological implications.
>
>the fact that the BB is NOT rejected, and is, in fact, the reigning
>theory in cosmology, seems to have escaped him.
>
>>
>>He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
>>implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
>>to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks: evidence.
>
>he told me 'design' doesnt need a mechanism because the BB isnt one.
>when i pointed out the BB is a mechanism for explaining the structure
>of the universe, he just didnt say anything at all.
>
>>
>>When the last 20 minutes of his talk are nothing but apologies and excuses
>>for why his theories are rejected by the majority of scientists, I think
>>it is legitimate to call him defensive.
>
>ive cited reviews by several scientists, including atkins, that say
>the same thing. one even cited a quote from behe's book which says
>scientists 'know' behe is telling the truth, but they just shuffle
>their feet, knowing 'design' isnt acceptable.
>
>what scientists? behe doesnt say. when did they do this? behe doesnt
>say. what fraction of the scientific community does this? behe doesnt
>say.
I suspect we heard the very same lecture. I thought it was a very disappointing
bit of fluff that was clearly aimed at an uncritical and non-technical
audience -- it (and his book!) was lacking all the rigor that Julie wants
to demand of his critics.
--
PZ Myers
George Acton
>
> Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
> of the IC systems I have discussed at length. I'm not impressed
> by vague hand-waving.
>
and that therefore the only logical conclusion is that supernatural
events must have occurred, in violation of our understanding of
physics and chemistry. If not, why does it matter to our model of
nature whether we currently have detailed evidence for the
evolutionary steps?
George Acton
----------------
The same space explorers could possibly enter into some
dimensional hole that takes them to "Heaven." There, they
might meet God and God would show them how he designs life.
With such information, they could return to Earth with a
"God did it" explanation that would be allowed in science.
Therefore, a 'God did it" explanation is allowed in science, right?
--Julie Thomas
George Acton
>
> The point is that Dorit is supposed to review the claims made
> in Behe's book. Everything else is irrelevant.
>
A book review is different from a junior high "book report".
Reviewers often treat the book in a fairly cursory way and
go on to a summary of the relevant field for non-specialists.
Or they use the book as an example of a whole genre or
intellectual position. A glance at the reviews in
general science journals or publications like The New York
Review of Books will confirm this. Dorit clearly didn't
admire Behe's book, but he treated it gently, considering
some of the points he could have made.
George Acton
----------------
Anyway, I wouldn't push the "eye is seriously flawed" argument
too far, as science is built around this flawed eye. The
vast majority of scientific data are detected visually. Thus,
if we can't trust our eyes, we can't trust our science.
--Julie Thomas
wf...@enter.netxx
i think in a sense we did; behe has a slick packaged presentation full
of his 'evidence'. i saw this just recently here in allentown on nov
22, but i recall seeing you note his comment about 'anti-religious'
scientists before....i dont that comment is a figment of our
collective imagination like julie says!
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
> In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>
>
> >The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
>
> Then make it. I don't care.
>
ROTFL
>
> >> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
> >> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
> >
> >Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
> >personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
> >arguments.
>
> Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
> argument? Another clueless critic.
>
ROTFL. Yes that is a very convincing argument...
>
> Even ardent evolutionists are
> >often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
> >basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven.
>
> Science is not about proving things. So I take with a grain of salt
> your sermon about science. As for disproof, please tell me what
> data could be found that would disprove the darwinian origin of
> the bacterial flagellum.
>
Evidence that it is truely an IC system which could not have evolved. Up to now all
Behe has done is shown that we do not fully understand the details. Hardly evidence
against.
>
> No logical test for
> >"design" beyond "God-did-it" or the paranormal have been proposed, AFAIK.
>
> I've only written over 150 pages exploring such tests.
>
And found nothing.
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
>
> > i can understand, with your voodoo approach to
> >science, why you'd think this is so.
>
> Yeah, while I busy myself completing my little Dawkins
> doll, I suggest you rent yourself 'Inherit the Wind.'
> As you munch your crackers in bed, I suspect you'd
> think you're watching a documentary and then top off
> the night with a few prank calls to the 700 Club.
>
ROTFL. Julie's logical arguments at their best. No content but heck it
shows that despite her assertions to the contrary, she does not get bored
with dealing with WFH.
Her "mature" comments are really amazing.
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
> In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
> >Heck, under that definition, Behe's book was nothing more than a personal essay
> >about what he thought about darwinian evolution. Given the lack of supporting
> >evidence and the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have been shown which lead to
> >apparant IC systems, one wonders what is left of Behe's "argument".
>
> Yeah, yeah. Just give me the evidence for the Darwinian evolution
> of the IC systems I have discussed at length. I'm not impressed
> by vague hand-waving.
>
Even if no evidence of Darwinian evolution of IC systems can be given, this does not
prove "design". But as I said, there have been mechanisms identified which could
lead to apparant IC systems, undermining what little was left of Behe's arguments.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Mark J. Koebbe
Did he use those cheap grade school type overheads? Did he flash up that
one of the biochemistry of phototransduction...and then conveniently
forget the many many uses of G-protein coupled reception? A biochemist
who doesn't know much about the many 'designed' functions for
G-proteins.....hmmmm!!!
And no it aint no figment of collective imagination.....despite Julie's
as usual unsupported assertion. Three of us at least have seen recent
talks and came away with the usual answer; no way to distinguish
design....no method of testing a non-existent design. However, it
represents a valid counter because evolution doesn't explain
everything.....
Behe can call back when he figures out what 'design' he's looking for.
MJK
Richard Harter
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>> The point is that Dorit is supposed to review the claims made
>> in Behe's book. Everything else is irrelevant.
>>
>A book review is different from a junior high "book report".
>Reviewers often treat the book in a fairly cursory way and
>go on to a summary of the relevant field for non-specialists.
>Or they use the book as an example of a whole genre or
>intellectual position. A glance at the reviews in
>general science journals or publications like The New York
>Review of Books will confirm this. Dorit clearly didn't
>admire Behe's book, but he treated it gently, considering
>some of the points he could have made.
As a general rule the book reviews in _Nature_ are yucky. (Other words
come to mind but yucky will do nicely.) In a large share of them the
reviewer seizes upon some small point and grinds an axe quite
vigorously.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I don't want justice and I don't want mercy;
I will settle for nothing less than unearned privilege.
Rich Daniel
> ...Rich replied:
>>If Behe really did say that "the field of molecular evolution has
>>grown stale...", then he was obviously wrong, regardless of Dorit's
>>emotional state. Surely even you, Julie, would agree that some
>>excellent work is being done.
> Sure.
Thanks. It's nice to know that we don't disagree about everything.
> But I don't see this excellent working providing any
> evidence for the darwinian evolution of the IC systems I have
> discussed...
I'm not arguing that it has.
> ...You are misunderstanding your private definition of "golden
> age" for the Only True definition.
Please provide your own definition and show some evidence that
it coincides with Dorit's definition. Unfortunately, I don't
have my One True Dictionary handy.
Whatever the Only True Definition of "golden age" is, I've accurately
characterized the current state of the field as one in which rapid
progress is being made but there are still lots of hard problems.
Or do you disagree with that?
>>If we could explain everything about evolution, the field
>>would be deadly dull.
> Straw man argument. No one asks to explain everything about
> evolution.
No, but Behe seems to think we should by now have solved some of the hardest
problems. I don't see a lot of difference.
> In fact, if you read my article on the Krebs Cycle,
> I am so generous that even the most vaguely used data can
> prevent me from inferring design from an IC system...
I appreciate your generosity, but Dorit and I were discussing Behe, not you.
>>A golden age is when rapid progress is being made,
>>but there are still lots of hard problems to work on.
>>And for obvious reasons, Behe chose the hardest
>>problems he could find to make his case.
> You thought those were the hardest problems?
OK, perhaps I exaggerated. There are probably harder problems in
molecular evolution. But did Behe look for the simplest IC system he
could find, as most scientists entertaining a new concept would do?
I very much doubt it. I suspect that he looked for the hardest problem
that he knew a lot about.
What's frustrating to me is that you and Behe apparently think the field
of molecular biology is mature enough that failure to answer a question
implies anything at all. Fer chrissake, we just a few days ago
finished sequencing the first animal genome! A hundred years from
now, if the evolution of cilia is still a mystery, it might mean
something. Not now.
Rich Daniel rwda...@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
Julie Thomas
Paul wrote:
>>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.
I replied:
>Wrong. Behe knows that studies on evolution have been published
>in JME. Behe is looking for studies that outline the evidence for
>the darwinian evolution of his systems. You have not read the book,
>have you Paul?
Paul replied:
>Actually, I have read the book.
>I also attended a talk by Behe.
I honestly don't care about your anecdotes (no offense intended).
Y'see, what is th topic of this thread, Paul? It's "Dorit
Tried to Critique Behe". And what exactly was Dorit
critiquing? Behe's book. If you want to talk about some
remarks Behe made in a speech, fire up your own thread.
I'm trying to stick to the topic - Dorit's review of Behe's
book.
>I did not misrepresent him in the least.
Well then, you create a misrepresentation of
what is in the book, which *is* the topic of
this thread. If you want to talk about
Behe's speech, start your thread instead of
creating needless confusion.
>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.
Fine. But I think this is irrelevant. Behe's statements
(IMO) should be viewed in the context of what he has
written (unless you opt for the "sound bite" approach). My
suggestion is that next time you hear Behe speak, if
he makes such a claim, simply read from his book
where he cites evolutionary studies from JME. I'm
sure he'd clarify for you. But again, what matters
is not what he said. Stick to the topic of this thread.
Instead of drawing from your notes,deal with what
Behe claims in his book (the one you read) on pages
173-178
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.
>>So here is what I would like. You are a scientist
>>who can easily search JME in a few minutes. Please list for me
>>all the JME papers that outline the evidence for the darwinian
>>evolution of the IC systems I have discussed: bacterial chromosomal
>>replication; the bacterial flagellum; the F-ATPases; and the bacterial
>>cell wall. And when you provide this list (something that
>>should be easy to do), please don't make the blunder of listing
>>the type of articles Behe critics commonly cite. They think that
>>as long as the word "evolution" is found in the same article with
>>the IC system, Behe is proved wrong about his assertion. Let's
>>look at a glorious example.
>
>>David Ussery is a biochemist and another Behe critic with a web site.
>>In his article, he writes:
>
>>"This brings me to another simple statement that is easy to check
>>that "only two articles even attempt to suggest a model for the
>>evolution of the cilium that takes into account real mechanical
>>considerations" (page 68). A quick PubMed search
>>(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/, (all the PubMed
>>searches were done in July, 1998 - here I just typed in "cilia"
>>and "evolution"), revealed 107 articles, many of which
>>discuss exactly the types of mechanisms Behe claims are
>>missing from the literature."
>>My, how could Behe miss 105 articles??
>By imposing his own definition of what constitutes research on
>molecular evolution, obviously.
No, because these articles provide no evidence
for the darwinian origin of cilia. Since they provide
NO such evidence, it is only rational to ignore the
irrelevant. I'm afraid that if you do think they
provide evidence for the darwinian evolution of
cilia, this would merely underscore just how desperate
your position is.
>>Okay, so I did
>>this quick search. I typed in "cilia" and "evolution."
>>Here are the first 20.
[snip list]
>>The first thing to note is that PubMed listed 108
>>articles. Thus, the "golden age" of molecular evolution
>>is churning out 1 paper/6 months on this topic.
>
>>But what's worse, none of these articles address
>>Behe's concerns. This is important. I have seen
>>several Behe critics claim that there are 100s, even
>>1000s of papers addressing things he says are not
>>be addressed. But such critics demonstrate only
>>their ignorance and confusion, as they don't seem
>>capable of grasping a very simple point. Behe is
>>concerned about the *origin* of his systems, not
>>whether anyone has ever said something about
>>evolution and tubulin in the same paper. Let's look at
>>some of these 20 articles (only from their title), keeping
>>in mind they are typical.
>
>>In what way does the "Expression of ciliary tektins in
>>brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
>>the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes?
>>Likewise with the" Change in male secondary sexual characters
>>in artificial interspecific hybrid populations." Maybe
>>you can explain why Behe should have discussed
>>"Evolutionary conservation of sequences directing
>>chromosome breakage and rDNA palindrome
>>formation in tetrahymenine ciliates." as it relates
>>to the Darwinian evolution of cilia. Do you really
>>need me to spell out just how irrelevant all this is?
>>Do I need to go on?
>No, because I don't quite see your point.
Then let me help - answer the questions this time:
"In what way does the "Expression of ciliary tektins in
brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes?
Likewise with the" Change in male secondary sexual characters
in artificial interspecific hybrid populations." Maybe
you can explain why Behe should have discussed
"Evolutionary conservation of sequences directing
chromosome breakage and rDNA palindrome
formation in tetrahymenine ciliates." as it relates
to the Darwinian evolution of cilia."
I'd be more than happy if you went through each
of the twenty articles showing their relevance to
the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes.
But of course, I know that you simply cannot do this.
>Behe claims that there are no articles on molecular evolution
>being published. There are.
Like Dorit, Ussery was reviewing Behe's book.
Deal with the points in the book, would ya?
>Maybe not as many as you would like
>on the particular topics you mentioned, but that isn't the issue.
>Behe was wrong.
As far as I can tell, from reading Behe's claims in the book,
he is essentially right. Why you think the "Expression of ciliary
tektins in brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes perplexes
me. Perhaps you can explain yourself. Because these types of
articles simply fail to show "Behe was wrong."
>Second, you seem to be trying to set up unrealistic
>expectations.
No. My article on the Krebs Cycle shows just how
low and relaxed my expections are.
>You want the complete monograph that outlines in detail the origin
>of cilia, and it seems that nothing less will satisfy you.
Nope. I'd just like a piece or two of evidence that shows
cilia evolved via a darwinian mechanism. You apparently don't
like the fact that I want some evidence before I will accept your
beliefs.
>You will be disappointed for a long time.
Yes, I suppose I will be disappointed in expecting
you to come up with some simple evidence for the
darwinian evolution of these systems. Instead, let's
all pretend the "Change in male secondary sexual
characters in artificial interspecific hybrid populations"
contains the evidence and is merely waiting to be
incorporated into a review paper.
>The papers you cited are all bits and pieces of the story,
Empty assertion. I challenge you to demonstrate this.
>the rather essential fine-grained data needed
>to someday answer the question.
My, you seem to be a man of much faith. Somehow,
irrelevancy multiplied becomes relevant.
>Why belittle it?
I don't belittle it. The research in of itself is
probably interesting to some and does help to explain
bits and pieces of our world. But as far as I can tell
(judging only from the titles), the work
looks completely irrelevant to Behe's concerns.
I will wait in vain for you to demonstrate otherwise.
>That's the stuff somebody someday can use to put
>together that lovely little review you want.
Then it's going to be very easy to pick apart.
I mean, if you want to start using neurons to
explain the origin of cilia, you're going to make
it oh so easy for me to critique. You may as
well use mammalian red blood cells to explain
the origin of the eucaryotic nucleus.
As I said, Behe's point is very simple. It
somewhat concerns me that you can't
comprehend it.
>>Furthermore, articles like the " Phylogeny and
>>expression of axonemal and cytoplasmic dynein
>>genes in sea urchins." are commonly listed in
>>response to Behe. While it is surely of interest to
>>some that dynein expression patterns can be used
>>to shed light on echinoderm phylogeny, this is not
>>relevant to the origin of cilia.
>
>>Let me just say this to those who don't have much
>>biological knowledge. The articles listed by Ussery
>>are of the type that are commonly cited by Behe critics.
>>In of themselves they are interesting and some may even
>>be relevant to the evolution that has occurred *since* the
>>origin of the IC system. But they are IRRELEVANT when
>>trying to uncover the evidence for the darwinian evolution
>>of the systems in question. The shear number may make it
>>appear as if Behe was being disingenious or sloppy, but
>>it is the critics who are being disingenious or sloppy (after all,
>>what could be more sloppy than citing rDNA palindromes in
>>*ciliates* as if they are relevant to the Darwinian evolution of
>>*cilia*??).
>Yes, yes, complain about slop in a search engine. It is irrelevant.
Yes, I agree. The articles are irrelevant (AFAICT)
to Behe's concerns.
>>Needless to say, I will wait for Paul to list the JME papers
>>that outline the evidence for the Darwinian evolution of the
>>systems I have discussed. If he fails, don't worry. I hope
>>to discuss several more IC systems and you would think
>>that sooner or later, that golden age is going to pay off and
>>explain one. :)
>And, apparently, if I were to succeed, don't worry
>-- Julie will just find another gap to flog to death.
I suspect that you cannot understand how one would
approach this issue in an way that strives to be objective,
fair, and open-minded. You also probably subscribe to
the view that either everything was designed or everything
evolved without intelligent intervention. That's
probably why you resort to such comforting images.
>No one is claiming to have a complete answer to every aspect of all
>stories.
I am not making this demand. Where have I ever
asked for a "complete answer?" How about just
a teeny weeny bit of evidence? I mean,
you believe it is a fact that the bacterial cell
wall evolved without intelligent intervention, don't ya?
>You and Behe, though, are the ones complaining that such
>absence of an all-encompassing explanation means that no work at all
>of any relevance is being done.
You are quite confused. I don't want an all-encompassing
explanation. My article on the Krebs cycle conclusively
refutes your assertion about me. I'd just like to see a
little evidence to support your beliefs. I follow the evidence.
>>>He says sequence analysis has no relevance.
>
>>He is correct. He writes:
>
>>"Like the sequence analysts, I believe the evidence strongly
>>supports common descent. But the root question remains
>>unanswered: What has caused complex systems to form?
>>No one has ever explained in detailed, scientific fashion how
>>mutation and natural selection could build the complex,
>>intricate structures discussed in this book." [p. 176]
>
>>I would part company from Behe in his desire for a could-be
>>explanation. Yet he is correct in that sequence data gives us
>>NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
>>of an IC system. Sequence data tells us only about common
>>descent and evidence of common descent is not evidence
>>of natural selection (don't forget that while evolution is a fact,
>>natural selection is only a mechanism that is still in dispute).
>
>>Sequence data, does however, support IC. IC predicts
>>functional constraint and sequence data has been used to
>>uncover the existence of functional constraint.
>Which way are you going to have it? Is sequence analysis irrelevant,
>or is it work that supports IC?
Try reading what I wrote. Sequence data gives us
NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
of an IC system. Sequence data tells us only about common
descent and evidence of common descent is not evidence
of natural selection. Sequence data, does however, support IC
>>>He claims that people dismiss him solely because he goes
>>>to church.
>
>>Where is this found in the book? Of course, it is of interest
>>that both Jerry Coyne and Tom Caviliar-Smith make an issue
>>out of his religious belief in their reviews published in
>>scientific journals.
>I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
>third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
>religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
>accepting his ideas.
Clearly, atheistic scientists would indeed have great
difficulty accepting his ideas.
>>>He says that Intelligent Design is disregarded because it
>>>has theological implications.
>
>>ID does indeed have theological implications. It need not, mind
>>you, but history has tied the two. Thus, any appeal to ID is going
>>to be reflexively *interpreted* to mean theology. Ergo, since
>>theology is not part of science, ID will be reflexively rejected
>>by most. That's okay with me, as it just underscores the need
>>for something like SIBO.
>Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
>IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
>lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
>theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
That might make for an interesting topic in of
itself - does design in biology and the Big Bang
have the same degree of theological
implication. BTW, are you saying the Big Bang
*does* have theological implications?
Anyway, let's deal with my point, okay?
Which of the following claims is in error?
1. History has intimately tied the notions of
design and theology.
2. Thus, any appeal to ID is going to be reflexively
*interpreted* to mean theology.
3. Theology is not part of science
4. Thus, ID will be reflexively rejected by science.
1 and 3 are clearly true. #2 is also very clear.
Hell, you guys all think (and cling to) the reason
I tentatively posit that bacterial DNA replication
was designed is because I have a hidden agenda to
"prove God." Thus, it seems reasonable to reach
conclusion #4.
>He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
>implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
>to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks:
>evidence.
And you agree the Big Bang has theological
implications too, right?
>>>Behe says a lot that is wrong.
>
>>So does Myers. :)
>I don't deny that. 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.
Who cares? Let me get this straight. Because
Behe denied that any research in molecular evolution
was being done in some lecture, you figure you can now ignore the
arguments he made in his book? I fail to understand
what is so relevant about what Behe said? Then again,
I do know from experience with y'all on this board that
you guys are far more interested in "hidden agendas"
detected by reading "between the lines" than the actual
arguments/data in those lines.
>>>When I heard him speak, I thought he sounded incredibly paranoid and
>>>defensive,
>
>>All you have truly told us is how you subjectively viewed things.
>When the last 20 minutes of his talk are nothing but apologies and excuses
>for why his theories are rejected by the majority of scientists, I think
>it is legitimate to call him defensive.
Like all your excuses for your inability to cite the evidence
that supports your beliefs about the origin of these IC
systems. ;)
>>>and made a lot of arguments that were scientifically unsound...
>>>but played well to a crowd of non-scientists.
>
>>Yeah, just like the way a laundry list of irrelevant articles probably
>>plays well to a crowd of non-scientists (and strangely enough, it
>>seems to play well to the scientists also).
>A laundry list that Behe denies exists.
I deny it too. Cite me the papers that outline the evidence
for the darwinian origin of these IC systems.
>I agree that there is no elegant
>answer in the list, but to pretend that nobody is thinking about the problem
>and that they aren't even trying to work on it is delusional, and is
>pandering to the ignorance of his audience.
I am not asking for an elegant answer. A clumsy one supported
by some evidence should suffice (as I showed in my article
on the Krebs Cycle).
>>Darwinian just-so stories
>>seem also to play well with both crowds. As does this sloppy way of
>>sneaking in Darwinism as if it equates with evolution.
>Now just where did I say either of those things?
Just listing some other things that play well.
>I think a good way to figure out where cilia come from is to dissect
>the molecules as thoroughly as possible, and compare them to other
>molecules in other organisms and look for relationships. For some reason,
>you (and Behe) think that kind of incremental approach is irrelevant.
Oh really? It's only the very thing I have done in my articles on
IC systems for over a year.
>You haven't suggested anything else, though.
How would you know? It's clear you don't read my
articles. In fact, I seem to recall that you complain
that they are too long and too detailed. Oh well.
If you had read them, you'd see that I have been showing
how your "good way" works to support the design inference.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, rwda...@dnaco.net (Rich Daniel) says:
>Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>> ...Rich replied:
>
>>>If Behe really did say that "the field of molecular evolution has
>>>grown stale...", then he was obviously wrong, regardless of Dorit's
>>>emotional state. Surely even you, Julie, would agree that some
>>>excellent work is being done.
>
>> Sure.
>
>Thanks. It's nice to know that we don't disagree about everything.
Indeed.
>> But I don't see this excellent working providing any
>> evidence for the darwinian evolution of the IC systems I have
>> discussed...
>
>I'm not arguing that it has.
Okay.
>> ...You are misunderstanding your private definition of "golden
>> age" for the Only True definition.
>
>Please provide your own definition and show some evidence that
>it coincides with Dorit's definition. Unfortunately, I don't
>have my One True Dictionary handy.
>
>Whatever the Only True Definition of "golden age" is, I've accurately
>characterized the current state of the field as one in which rapid
>progress is being made but there are still lots of hard problems.
>
>Or do you disagree with that?
Nope. In fact, this progress has been instrumental in helping
me formulate my design inferences.
>>>If we could explain everything about evolution, the field
>>>would be deadly dull.
>
>> Straw man argument. No one asks to explain everything about
>> evolution.
>
>No, but Behe seems to think we should by now have solved some of the hardest
>problems. I don't see a lot of difference.
I think Behe would appreciate any partially formulated solution.
>> In fact, if you read my article on the Krebs Cycle,
>> I am so generous that even the most vaguely used data can
>> prevent me from inferring design from an IC system...
>
>I appreciate your generosity, but Dorit and I were discussing Behe, not you.
I stand corrected (but of course, my point is still relevant to
the larer issue).
>>>A golden age is when rapid progress is being made,
>>>but there are still lots of hard problems to work on.
>>>And for obvious reasons, Behe chose the hardest
>>>problems he could find to make his case.
>
>> You thought those were the hardest problems?
>
>OK, perhaps I exaggerated. There are probably harder problems in
>molecular evolution. But did Behe look for the simplest IC system he
>could find, as most scientists entertaining a new concept would do?
>I very much doubt it. I suspect that he looked for the hardest problem
>that he knew a lot about.
I have no idea why he chose the systems he chose.
>What's frustrating to me is that you and Behe apparently think the field
>of molecular biology is mature enough that failure to answer a question
>implies anything at all. Fer chrissake, we just a few days ago
>finished sequencing the first animal genome! A hundred years from
>now, if the evolution of cilia is still a mystery, it might mean
>something. Not now.
I am quite sympathetic to your point, but I don't have a 100
years to wait before speculating. That's why I speculate now
and form tentative conclusions that generate testable hypotheses.
That's why I openly and willingly risk having my view falsified.
And BTW, the bacterial genomic data is starting to paint a nice
picture. That's just one more reason why I have thus far
restricted myself to bacterial systems. I am encouraged in that
the genomic data, on balance, continues to support my hypotheses.
But so much more work is needed.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
>
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>
>> In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>>
>>
>> >The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
>>
>> Then make it. I don't care.
>>
>
>ROTFL
Why do I get the feeling that Pim is a wf3h-wannbe?
Such lofty aspirations. ;)
>> >> The point is that Dorit was reviewing Behe's BOOK.
>> >> Whether or not Behe thinks as you say he does matters not.
>> >
>> >Really? It would seem to be the crux of his argument. Behe uses thinly disguised
>> >personal incredulity (or religious tunnel vision) as a mainstay of most of his
>> >arguments.
>>
>> Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
>> argument? Another clueless critic.
>>
>
>ROTFL. Yes that is a very convincing argument...
Was there an argument?
>> Even ardent evolutionists are
>> >often carried away with passion instead of logical arguments. Nonetheless, the
>> >basic science remains and can either be proven or disproven.
>>
>> Science is not about proving things. So I take with a grain of salt
>> your sermon about science. As for disproof, please tell me what
>> data could be found that would disprove the darwinian origin of
>> the bacterial flagellum.
>>
>
>Evidence that it is truely an IC system which could not have evolved. Up to now all
>Behe has done is shown that we do not fully understand the details. Hardly evidence
>against.
Just one more pack member who thinks I need to demonstrate the impossible.
Pim's position is truly very weak if it relies on my inability to
demonstrate the impossible.
>> No logical test for
>> >"design" beyond "God-did-it" or the paranormal have been proposed, AFAIK.
>>
>> I've only written over 150 pages exploring such tests.
>>
>
>And found nothing.
Like you would know.
Mark J. Koebbe
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> I replied:
>
> >Wrong. Behe knows that studies on evolution have been published
> >in JME. Behe is looking for studies that outline the evidence for
> >the darwinian evolution of his systems. You have not read the book,
> >have you Paul?
>
> Paul replied:
>
> >Actually, I have read the book.
>
> >I also attended a talk by Behe.
>
> I honestly don't care about your anecdotes (no offense intended).
What else can be intended? I was at the same talk....which raises it
one standard above an anecdote such as the argument from design.
> Y'see, what is th topic of this thread, Paul? It's "Dorit
> Tried to Critique Behe". And what exactly was Dorit
> critiquing? Behe's book. If you want to talk about some
> remarks Behe made in a speech, fire up your own thread.
> I'm trying to stick to the topic - Dorit's review of Behe's
> book.
You must hate it when hoisted on the petard. You mentioned that Behe
mad no such claim in reference. Paul and now I have shown that your
assertion is not supported. Grow up.
>
> >I did not misrepresent him in the least.
>
[snip weak sidestep]
> And BTW, what *is* your point? Are you suggesting
No it is 'we'. Two of us saw the same talk and heard the same words
from the horses mouth.
> 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.
Nice logic to ignore statements from the man's own mouth.
> >>My, how could Behe miss 105 articles??
>
> >By imposing his own definition of what constitutes research on
> >molecular evolution, obviously.
>
> No, because these articles provide no evidence
> for the darwinian origin of cilia. Since they provide
> NO such evidence, it is only rational to ignore the
> irrelevant. I'm afraid that if you do think they
> provide evidence for the darwinian evolution of
> cilia, this would merely underscore just how desperate
> your position is.
Behe did NOT restrict his comments to just articles on cilia....he said
the entire issue.
> >No, because I don't quite see your point.
>
> Then let me help - answer the questions this time:
You mean like 'how do you detect design'.
> >Behe claims that there are no articles on molecular evolution
> >being published. There are.
>
> Like Dorit, Ussery was reviewing Behe's book.
> Deal with the points in the book, would ya?
Deal with what the man said would ya? If he's claiming in the book the
opposite of what he speaks....kind of says something about his beliefs
doesn't it.
>
> >Maybe not as many as you would like
> >on the particular topics you mentioned, but that isn't the issue.
> >Behe was wrong.
>
> As far as I can tell, from reading Behe's claims in the book,
> he is essentially right. Why you think the "Expression of ciliary
> tektins in brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
> the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes perplexes
> me. Perhaps you can explain yourself. Because these types of
> articles simply fail to show "Behe was wrong."
Hint for Julie: It appears that the design of cilia proteins isn't just
for motility. Something about a mousetrap not being a mousetrap comes
to mind.
> >You want the complete monograph that outlines in detail the origin
> >of cilia, and it seems that nothing less will satisfy you.
>
> Nope. I'd just like a piece or two of evidence that shows
> cilia evolved via a darwinian mechanism.
For multiple purposes other then locomotion.....something about
selecting what appears to be designed as what appears to be IC. Still
don't get it do you, Julie.
You apparently don't
> like the fact that I want some evidence before I will accept your
> beliefs.
Evidence of utility in other 'designs' trumps the heck out of no
evidence for a mechanism of design or a designer.
>
> >You will be disappointed for a long time.
>
> Yes, I suppose I will be disappointed in expecting
> you to come up with some simple evidence for the
> darwinian evolution of these systems. Instead, let's
> all pretend the "Change in male secondary sexual
> characters in artificial interspecific hybrid populations"
> contains the evidence and is merely waiting to be
> incorporated into a review paper.
Well one paper showing rapid change in homeotic genes...is one step
further then the design argument.
>
> >The papers you cited are all bits and pieces of the story,
>
> Empty assertion. I challenge you to demonstrate this.
>
> >the rather essential fine-grained data needed
> >to someday answer the question.
>
> My, you seem to be a man of much faith. Somehow,
> irrelevancy multiplied becomes relevant.
No that's multiplying steps to show complexity and than saying that
means design. That would be scientifically irrelevant.
>
> >Why belittle it?
>
> I don't belittle it.
Your less then respectful side stepping of Behe's words contained rather
derogatory comments. I think that is belittling.
The research in of itself is
> probably interesting to some and does help to explain
> bits and pieces of our world. But as far as I can tell
> (judging only from the titles), the work
> looks completely irrelevant to Behe's concerns.
Gee, I think Behe only looked at the titles as well.
> I will wait in vain for you to demonstrate otherwise.
And we await a design hypothesis.......just a hint of a paradigm.
>
> >That's the stuff somebody someday can use to put
> >together that lovely little review you want.
>
> Then it's going to be very easy to pick apart.
> I mean, if you want to start using neurons to
> explain the origin of cilia, you're going to make
> it oh so easy for me to critique. You may as
> well use mammalian red blood cells to explain
> the origin of the eucaryotic nucleus.
>
> As I said, Behe's point is very simple. It
> somewhat concerns me that you can't
> comprehend it.
Disingenuous as well. We comprehend it better than Behe.
> >Yes, yes, complain about slop in a search engine. It is irrelevant.
>
> Yes, I agree. The articles are irrelevant (AFAICT)
> to Behe's concerns.
In fact based on his words...all articles in JME are irrelevant.
> >And, apparently, if I were to succeed, don't worry
> >-- Julie will just find another gap to flog to death.
>
> I suspect that you cannot understand how one would
> approach this issue in an way that strives to be objective,
Objective like providing a 'design' hypothesis and a test of said
hypothesis as a very first step in supporting your theory.
> fair, and open-minded. You also probably subscribe to
> the view that either everything was designed or everything
> evolved without intelligent intervention. That's
> probably why you resort to such comforting images.
Like a big fat bearded 'man'-like 'god' who designs everything by an
unknown untestable mechanism. To a scientist that is not
comfortable...because it isn't science.
>
> >No one is claiming to have a complete answer to every aspect of all
> >stories.
>
> I am not making this demand. Where have I ever
> asked for a "complete answer?" How about just
> a teeny weeny bit of evidence? I mean,
> you believe it is a fact that the bacterial cell
> wall evolved without intelligent intervention, don't ya?
Why don't you consider an example which has been studied...like
duplication of homeobox genes. Why do you only consider examples which
have the least evidence?
>
> >You and Behe, though, are the ones complaining that such
> >absence of an all-encompassing explanation means that no work at all
> >of any relevance is being done.
>
> You are quite confused. I don't want an all-encompassing
> explanation. My article on the Krebs cycle conclusively
> refutes your assertion about me. I'd just like to see a
> little evidence to support your beliefs. I follow the evidence.
Yeah right....and you sell used cars too.
> >Which way are you going to have it? Is sequence analysis irrelevant,
> >or is it work that supports IC?
>
> Try reading what I wrote. Sequence data gives us
> NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
> of an IC system. Sequence data tells us only about common
> descent and evidence of common descent is not evidence
> of natural selection. Sequence data, does however, support IC
Like those IC pseudogenes.....yeah right. Wonderful 'designer' with
them non-functional remnants....sounds more like random chance.
>
> >>>He claims that people dismiss him solely because he goes
> >>>to church.
> >
> >>Where is this found in the book? Of course, it is of interest
> >>that both Jerry Coyne and Tom Caviliar-Smith make an issue
> >>out of his religious belief in their reviews published in
> >>scientific journals.
>
> >I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
> >third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
> >religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
> >accepting his ideas.
>
> Clearly, atheistic scientists would indeed have great
> difficulty accepting his ideas.
No...scientists, period, would have difficulty. He doesn't make much
ground with the theistic evolutionists either (see Gray's criticque of
Behe...and Gray is at a Calvinist College).
>
> >Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
> >IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
> >lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
> >theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
>
> That might make for an interesting topic in of
> itself - does design in biology and the Big Bang
> have the same degree of theological
> implication. BTW, are you saying the Big Bang
> *does* have theological implications?
>
> Anyway, let's deal with my point, okay?
> Which of the following claims is in error?
>
> 1. History has intimately tied the notions of
> design and theology.
OK. So?
> 2. Thus, any appeal to ID is going to be reflexively
> *interpreted* to mean theology.
Especially if it is worded only in the terms of theology and not in the
terms of science.
> 3. Theology is not part of science
Correct.
> 4. Thus, ID will be reflexively rejected by science.
Because it is worded as a theology...not science.
>
> 1 and 3 are clearly true. #2 is also very clear.
Because its not phrased in terms or methods of science.
> Hell, you guys all think (and cling to) the reason
> I tentatively posit that bacterial DNA replication
> was designed is because I have a hidden agenda to
> "prove God." Thus, it seems reasonable to reach
> conclusion #4.
Because it is indistinguishable from theology. And certainly not framed
in a scientific context.
> >He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
> >implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
> >to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks:
> >evidence.
>
> And you agree the Big Bang has theological
> implications too, right?
Right....and there is nothing that can be implied from the theological
interpretations of the big bang. Same as IC with respect to general
applications of science.
>
> >>>Behe says a lot that is wrong.
> >
> >>So does Myers. :)
No evidence for the above assertion. In fact, counter evidence from
others who saw the same talk by Behe. Deal with it, Julie.
>
> >I don't deny that. 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.
>
> Who cares?
The person that claimed that Behe doesn't say this? But he does....in
his talks. Both of us witnessed it.
Let me get this straight. Because
> Behe denied that any research in molecular evolution
> was being done in some lecture, you figure you can now ignore the
> arguments he made in his book?
Well which one is true, Julie? What he says or what he writes?
I fail to understand
> what is so relevant about what Behe said?
Because it reveals a religious agenda which he didn't state in his book
that he obviously believes when presenting his talks.....
Then again,
> I do know from experience with y'all on this board that
> you guys are far more interested in "hidden agendas"
From one who accuses of pack mentality....to those of us who witnessed
the talk. Cognitive dissonance is such a difficult disorder, Julie.
> detected by reading "between the lines" than the actual
> arguments/data in those lines.
Between the lines....'no study of Darwinian mechanisms in JME'. Not
much inbetween to have to interpret.
>
> >>>When I heard him speak, I thought he sounded incredibly paranoid and
> >>>defensive,
> >
> >>All you have truly told us is how you subjectively viewed things.
>
> >When the last 20 minutes of his talk are nothing but apologies and excuses
> >for why his theories are rejected by the majority of scientists, I think
> >it is legitimate to call him defensive.
>
> Like all your excuses for your inability to cite the evidence
> that supports your beliefs about the origin of these IC
> systems. ;)
No like his pathetic 'I'm no philosopher' excuse to avoid someone who
was inadvertently pointing out the circular fallacy of the design
argument.
>
> >>>and made a lot of arguments that were scientifically unsound...
> >>>but played well to a crowd of non-scientists.
> >
> >>Yeah, just like the way a laundry list of irrelevant articles probably
> >>plays well to a crowd of non-scientists (and strangely enough, it
> >>seems to play well to the scientists also).
>
> >A laundry list that Behe denies exists.
>
> I deny it too. Cite me the papers that outline the evidence
> for the darwinian origin of these IC systems.
They've been cited many many times...and Julie who doesn't ask for
everything...just asks for one more.
>
> >I agree that there is no elegant
> >answer in the list, but to pretend that nobody is thinking about the problem
> >and that they aren't even trying to work on it is delusional, and is
> >pandering to the ignorance of his audience.
>
> I am not asking for an elegant answer.
But you are asking for the one that says design is 'true'. Until then
there is no sufficient answer.
A clumsy one supported
> by some evidence should suffice (as I showed in my article
> on the Krebs Cycle).
Like multiple roles for tubulins in other 'mouse traps'. Yup, just keep
moving the bar Julie....and meanwhile never defining design.
>
> >>Darwinian just-so stories
> >>seem also to play well with both crowds. As does this sloppy way of
> >>sneaking in Darwinism as if it equates with evolution.
>
> >Now just where did I say either of those things?
>
> Just listing some other things that play well.
Belittling noted.
>
> >I think a good way to figure out where cilia come from is to dissect
> >the molecules as thoroughly as possible, and compare them to other
> >molecules in other organisms and look for relationships. For some reason,
> >you (and Behe) think that kind of incremental approach is irrelevant.
>
> Oh really? It's only the very thing I have done in my articles on
> IC systems for over a year.
Without any evidence of design......or IC.
>
> >You haven't suggested anything else, though.
>
> How would you know? It's clear you don't read my
> articles.
I've read nearly every one....no evidence of design has ever been
presented. Not once.
In fact, I seem to recall that you complain
> that they are too long and too detailed. Oh well.
They are long on facts and short on any design inference.
> If you had read them, you'd see that I have been showing
> how your "good way" works to support the design inference.
Nope...you haven't even figured out how design works.
> --
> "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]
Which is exactly the intolerance that Behe reflected in his talk.
NJK
>
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>On 30 Dec 1998 17:54:17 -0500, iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>
>>In a previous article, wf...@enter.netxx () says:
>>
>>>On 30 Dec 1998 10:23:37 -0500, ber...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
>>>>strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
>>>>Keep up the good work.
>>>>
>>>>Bertvan
>>>
>>>really? gee i lost track, bert.
>>>
>>>did julie call me a member of a 'pack' or did i call her that?
>>
>>For over a year, you have done far worse to me than call me
>>a pack member (which would be illogical).
>
>really? if so, please post any name which ive called you. you're a
>creationist, certainly, but i dont call people names. a talent which
>seems to have escaped you.
wf3h's reading comprehension is also in question. I
didn't say he called me names. He has done far worse - for
over a year he has continually mispresented my views. This
is like poisoning the well with a continual stream of
mean-spirited innuendo. And for the most part, I have
ignored this. That wf3h apparently thinks calling
people names is the real no-no only underscores his
adolescent-like view of the world.
> You have posted
>>dozens of snippy articles questioning my intellectual abilities,
>>motives, and character.
>
>of course i question your motives.
Yes, of course you do. How else could you make
sense of reality?
Richard Keatinge
<iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes
>
>
>
>
>Since it is the holiday season, I have some
>time to reply to some comments. Although,
>I can't promise any followups (since it is
>the holiday season).
(megasnip)
>>Since intelligent design theorists seem to
>>think that there are cellular functions inexplicable in any way other
>>than ID,
>
>I don't argue this. I simply identify systems in which a pattern of
>data is best explained by a design inference. You are free to
>disagree. It's just that I have yet to hear any arguments/evidence
>that leads me to think my tentative conclusions are false (and
>my discussion on the Krebs Cycle shows I am open-minded
>on this whole issue and can be made to abandon a design
>inference). Tell me Elmer, what type of data would you consider
>evidence for the design of some ancient biological feature?
Now there is a good question. Personally, given the extraordinary
course of evolution, I have been inclined to doubt that any such
evidence could be produced. But it occurs to me that a designer might
have thought of re-using some of his brighter ideas. In other words, if
a designer exists, *really* weird systems might well crop up in a
variety of spots all over a conventional tree-of-life cladogram, instead
of each "IC" system being reasonably traceable back to one point. And
the weirder the idea, the more often it should be reintroduced. So,
when you've identified quite a lot of systems which you think are IC
according to some rigorous and agreed definition, try plotting them on a
standard cladogram.
If you find that you have identified some feature of life that doesn't
fit reasonably well into the usual nested hierarchy, you will have a
point. A genuine scientific point, despite your denials of scientific
method. I make no charge for this consultation, but please note that
free advice is usually worth what you pay for it.
To change the subject, if all of us could avoid arguments about who said
what, and concentrate on more substantive issues, it really would help.
I personally find that a well-tuned killfile helps my peace of mind no
end. I suggest not reading ad hominem attacks or arguments by
assertion, or at least not bothering to respond to either. It is sad to
see people who should know better, busy quote-mining like creationists.
In this spirit I
(megasnip)
again.
--
Richard Keatinge homepage http://www.keatinge.demon.co.uk
Science is speculating, testing the speculations by observing
reality, and making better hypotheses as a result.
Kevin Anthoney
Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote...
>
[snip]
>
>
> >Since intelligent design theorists seem to
> >think that there are cellular functions inexplicable in any way other
> >than ID,
>
> I don't argue this. I simply identify systems in which a pattern of
> data is best explained by a design inference. You are free to
> disagree. It's just that I have yet to hear any arguments/evidence
> that leads me to think my tentative conclusions are false (and
> my discussion on the Krebs Cycle shows I am open-minded
> on this whole issue and can be made to abandon a design
> inference). Tell me Elmer, what type of data would you consider
> evidence for the design of some ancient biological feature?
>
For what it's worth, I'd like a crack at this.
First, a few thoughts about how intelligent designers operate in
general. As a specific example, I'm going to pick Peter's panspermic
aliens, trying to create a bacterial flagellum. I'm going to assume
that the designers can't simply spirit the design out of thin air -
they're going to have to sit down and work it out. I'm also going
to assume that the design team originally know nothing about
biochemistry (this is a fair assumption - if necessary, we can assume
the designers have only just been born.)
How do the designers gain enough knowledge to be able to infer a design
for a flagellum? There are several options:
1) They can copy the design of an existing flagellum. Obviously, if this
flagellum evolved, or came about by other 'natural' means, then that's
"cheating," as far as this argument goes. If it was designed, we can
knock the question back to whoever did the designing.
2) They can read a book on biochemistry. In which case we can simply ask
how the authors of the book gained their knowledge.
3) They can dig out some test tubes, etc, sling some chemicals together,
and see what happens.
Ultimately, all knowledge of biochemistry is obtained from the last
option.
Obviously, our intelligent designers won't simply be throwing together
chemicals at random, hoping that the correct reaction to produce a
flagellum will be found. They'll be looking for patterns in the chemistry.
Or, to put it another way, if there are *no* discernable patterns in the
chemistry, then even intelligent designers will be reduced to blind chance.
Evolution uses one particular pattern - chemicals with similar construction
tend to have similar properties. Intelligent designers can obviously use
this pattern, too. If that's the only pattern that exists, than we're
going to have a hard time distinguishing what evolved, and what was
designed. So, are there any other patterns that could be used?
Such a pattern would manifest itself as a method of inferring the
properties of a given chemical (system) from the properties of a set
of markedly different chemicals. This pattern ought to still exist today
(chemistry hasn't changed) and it ought to be noticably common (unless
we're not intelligent enough to see it.)
So, evidence of design would be the existence of a pattern like the
above. Proof of design would be that the normal evolution pattern doesn't
work in a particular case, together with a useful, non-evolutionary
pattern.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kant...@dial.pipex.com
Rich Daniel
> In a previous article, rwda...@dnaco.net (Rich Daniel) says:
[...]
>>What's frustrating to me is that you and Behe apparently think the field
>>of molecular biology is mature enough that failure to answer a question
>>implies anything at all. Fer chrissake, we just a few days ago
>>finished sequencing the first animal genome! A hundred years from
>>now, if the evolution of cilia is still a mystery, it might mean
>>something. Not now.
> I am quite sympathetic to your point, but I don't have a 100
> years to wait before speculating. That's why I speculate now
> and form tentative conclusions that generate testable hypotheses...
OK, I'm willing to go along with that. But Behe's approach is different.
Unlike you, he *does* claim that our present ignorance is evidence that
design must have occurred.
--
PZ Myers
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>I replied:
>
>>Wrong. Behe knows that studies on evolution have been published
>>in JME. Behe is looking for studies that outline the evidence for
>>the darwinian evolution of his systems. You have not read the book,
>>have you Paul?
>
>Paul replied:
>
>>Actually, I have read the book.
>
>>I also attended a talk by Behe.
>
>I honestly don't care about your anecdotes (no offense intended).
>Y'see, what is th topic of this thread, Paul? It's "Dorit
>Tried to Critique Behe". And what exactly was Dorit
>critiquing? Behe's book. If you want to talk about some
>remarks Behe made in a speech, fire up your own thread.
>I'm trying to stick to the topic - Dorit's review of Behe's
>book.
You've been on usenet long enough to know that thread titles
are nothing more than a rough guide (if that!) to the content.
Don't try to dictate the dialog by that kind of artificial
restriction.
What I have done is address a specific comment by you within your
post -- claiming that that is off-topic is, to put it mildly,
chicken shit.
>
>>I did not misrepresent him in the least.
>
>Well then, you create a misrepresentation of
>what is in the book, which *is* the topic of
>this thread. If you want to talk about
>Behe's speech, start your thread instead of
>creating needless confusion.
I have not created confusion. I was pretty explicit in stating
where I'd gotten my information. Again, you are making excuses
to avoid the issue.
>
>>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.
>
>Fine. But I think this is irrelevant. Behe's statements
>(IMO) should be viewed in the context of what he has
>written (unless you opt for the "sound bite" approach). My
>suggestion is that next time you hear Behe speak, if
>he makes such a claim, simply read from his book
>where he cites evolutionary studies from JME. I'm
>sure he'd clarify for you. But again, what matters
>is not what he said. Stick to the topic of this thread.
>Instead of drawing from your notes,deal with what
>Behe claims in his book (the one you read) on pages
>173-178
The topic is whether Behe considers the papers published by
JME to be a legitimate approach to resolving questions of
evolution, or more generally, whether there IS a research
program in conventional molecular biology that might someday
answer your questions about the origin of IC systems.
>
>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.
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.
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. 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.
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. How do you reconcile
this with your claims? How do you reconcile this with what he says
in the book? This is more than making an 'erroneous claim'; this isn't
a little slip of the tongue. He's making some rather blatant
statements on the lecture circuit that you are now saying we should
ignore.
Ah, you are doing what he has done, attempting to redefine the
terms. You are demanding a specific article that baldly outlines
a Darwinian model (whatever that might be) for evolution of
this structure. Even if it were all worked out, there wouldn't
be many such articles around. I think that a paper on sequence
analysis ought to count, as it provides the kind of data such a
hypothetical paper will need to use; Behe doesn't. To paraphrase
him again, 'these articles have nothing to do with evolution. Almost
all of them are about sequence analysis'.
I haven't read any of those articles, so of course I can't.
I do suspect that an article that publishes data on the sequence
of ciliary proteins, though, IS providing information that
can be used in an analysis of evolution.
>
>>Behe claims that there are no articles on molecular evolution
>>being published. There are.
>
>Like Dorit, Ussery was reviewing Behe's book.
>Deal with the points in the book, would ya?
Why? Because you don't like the inconsistencies between what Behe
has published and what he says?
>
>>Maybe not as many as you would like
>>on the particular topics you mentioned, but that isn't the issue.
>>Behe was wrong.
>
>As far as I can tell, from reading Behe's claims in the book,
>he is essentially right. Why you think the "Expression of ciliary
>tektins in brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
>the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes perplexes
>me. Perhaps you can explain yourself. Because these types of
>articles simply fail to show "Behe was wrong."
>
>>Second, you seem to be trying to set up unrealistic
>>expectations.
>
>No. My article on the Krebs Cycle shows just how
>low and relaxed my expections are.
>
>>You want the complete monograph that outlines in detail the origin
>>of cilia, and it seems that nothing less will satisfy you.
>
>Nope. I'd just like a piece or two of evidence that shows
>cilia evolved via a darwinian mechanism. You apparently don't
>like the fact that I want some evidence before I will accept your
>beliefs.
Wait a minute. I'm not presupposing some 'darwinian' mechanism for the
evolution of cilia. Why are you demanding that I provide support for that?
I'm also not claiming that there are any articles in the literature that
demonstrate that cilia evolved in some specific, predetermined way that
fits some dogma YOU are imposing on me. All I am saying is that there is
a research program that is addressing the details of cilia, and that there
is a reasonable expectation that this will help reveal the answer. My bias
is that it will be an answer that doesn't require intelligent design. Yours
is that it will. That doesn't matter. OTHER people are gathering the data,
and that's what will decide the matter.
>
>>You will be disappointed for a long time.
>
>Yes, I suppose I will be disappointed in expecting
>you to come up with some simple evidence for the
>darwinian evolution of these systems. Instead, let's
>all pretend the "Change in male secondary sexual
>characters in artificial interspecific hybrid populations"
>contains the evidence and is merely waiting to be
>incorporated into a review paper.
>
>>The papers you cited are all bits and pieces of the story,
>
>Empty assertion. I challenge you to demonstrate this.
I HAVEN'T READ THOSE PAPERS. You can't just do a PubMed search
on a topic unrelated to my particular interests and expect me to
have read them -- there's a rather huge literature out there, even
though you and Behe seem to think that none of it is relevant.
>
>>the rather essential fine-grained data needed
>>to someday answer the question.
>
>My, you seem to be a man of much faith. Somehow,
>irrelevancy multiplied becomes relevant.
Let me quote what YOU said below: "Sequence data, does however, support IC."
I am not saying that the data will someday answer the question the way I
want it answered, and I wish you would quit presuming that. Does data
only become relevant when it allows you to interpret it as support for
IC?
>
>>Why belittle it?
>
>I don't belittle it. The research in of itself is
>probably interesting to some and does help to explain
>bits and pieces of our world. But as far as I can tell
>(judging only from the titles), the work
>looks completely irrelevant to Behe's concerns.
>I will wait in vain for you to demonstrate otherwise.
Let's see. I'm a bad boy for assuming that a paper I haven't read
that seems to have some sequence information about a ciliary protein
might be relevant to understanding where cilia came from.
Julie Thomas, though, is a diligent and objective researcher when
she dismisses that same paper as irrelevant, even though she hasn't
read it.
Hmmm.
>
>>That's the stuff somebody someday can use to put
>>together that lovely little review you want.
>
>Then it's going to be very easy to pick apart.
>I mean, if you want to start using neurons to
>explain the origin of cilia, you're going to make
>it oh so easy for me to critique. You may as
>well use mammalian red blood cells to explain
>the origin of the eucaryotic nucleus.
OK, look at the abstract.
--------
J Neurosci 1998 Nov 1;18(21):8912-8
Expression of ciliary tektins in brain and sensory development.
Norrander J, Larsson M, Stahl S, Hoog C, Linck R
Many types of neural tissues and sensory cells possess either motile or
primary cilia. We report the first mammalian (murine testis) cDNA
for tektin, a protein unique to cilia, flagella, and centrioles, which we
have used to identify related proteins and genes in sensory tissues.
Comparison with the sequence database reveals that tektins are a gene
family, spanning evolution from Caenorhabditis elegans (in which
they correlate with touch receptor cilia) and Drosophila melanogaster, to
Mus musculus and Homo sapiens (in which they are found in brain,
retina, melanocytes, and at least 13 other tissues). The peptide sequence
RPNVELCRD, or a variant of it, is a prominent feature of tektins
and is likely to form a functionally important protein domain. Using the
cDNA as a probe, we determined the onset, relative levels, and
locations of tektin expression in mouse for several adult tissues and
embryonic stages by Northern blot analysis and in situ hybridization.
Tektin expression is significant in adult brain and in the choroid plexus,
the forming retina (primitive ependymal zone corresponding to early
differentiating photoreceptor cells), and olfactory receptor neurons of
stage embryonic day 14 embryos. There is a striking correlation of
tektin expression with the known presence of either motile or primary
cilia. The evolutionary conservation of tektins and their association
with tubulin in cilia and centriole formation make them important and
useful molecular targets for the study of neural development.
--------
Whoa. They've pulled out the mammalian homolog for a conserved component
of cilia. They've put it into a sequence database, and found similarities
with related proteins in other metazoans. They've found what they think is
a common functional domain.
I agree that it is most definitely not about the origin of cilia...but you
seem a bit overconfident to suggest that comparative data like this is NEVER
going to contribute to our understanding of cilia.
I'm sorry, but you don't either. Throughout this post, you have made
the assumption that what I'm claiming is that the literature is full of
papers that support some dogma you've assigned to me. That's not what
I've been saying.
>You also probably subscribe to
>the view that either everything was designed or everything
>evolved without intelligent intervention. That's
>probably why you resort to such comforting images.
Again, you misrepresent me. It's a little simpler than that.
I do understand what you are proposing -- that there was some intervention
way back when, followed by staid ol' uncontroversial 'darwinian' evolution
(but why you insist on 'darwinian' is a little mysterious).
What I am saying is that you haven't given me any reason to believe in
your mysterious intervention. No evidence except gaps in our understanding,
and an inability to fit some systems into a 'darwinian' scheme.
>
>>No one is claiming to have a complete answer to every aspect of all
>>stories.
>
>I am not making this demand. Where have I ever
>asked for a "complete answer?" How about just
>a teeny weeny bit of evidence? I mean,
>you believe it is a fact that the bacterial cell
>wall evolved without intelligent intervention, don't ya?
>
>>You and Behe, though, are the ones complaining that such
>>absence of an all-encompassing explanation means that no work at all
>>of any relevance is being done.
>
>You are quite confused. I don't want an all-encompassing
>explanation. My article on the Krebs cycle conclusively
>refutes your assertion about me. I'd just like to see a
>little evidence to support your beliefs. I follow the evidence.
You and Behe seem to dismiss the evidence. Somebody sequenced
mammalian tektin? Who cares. We know ahead of time that it will
have no relevance, so that ain't data.
In other words, these little dribs and drabs of sequence data DO
tell us something about the history of the system. At least, Julie
Thomas thinks they do when they are interpreted to support her
pet theory. Why does the data become nonexistent when it is rallied
to support non-IC theories?
>
>>>>He claims that people dismiss him solely because he goes
>>>>to church.
>>
>>>Where is this found in the book? Of course, it is of interest
>>>that both Jerry Coyne and Tom Caviliar-Smith make an issue
>>>out of his religious belief in their reviews published in
>>>scientific journals.
>
>>I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
>>third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
>>religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
>>accepting his ideas.
>
>Clearly, atheistic scientists would indeed have great
>difficulty accepting his ideas.
Why? I'm an atheist, and I would have no difficulty accepting it, if
there were evidence for it.
Or are you saying that a history of acceptance of intangible and unproveable
ideas is a prerequisite for accepting Intelligent Design?
>
>>>>He says that Intelligent Design is disregarded because it
>>>>has theological implications.
>>
>>>ID does indeed have theological implications. It need not, mind
>>>you, but history has tied the two. Thus, any appeal to ID is going
>>>to be reflexively *interpreted* to mean theology. Ergo, since
>>>theology is not part of science, ID will be reflexively rejected
>>>by most. That's okay with me, as it just underscores the need
>>>for something like SIBO.
>
>>Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
>>IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
>>lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
>>theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
>
>That might make for an interesting topic in of
>itself - does design in biology and the Big Bang
>have the same degree of theological
>implication. BTW, are you saying the Big Bang
>*does* have theological implications?
In a way, you could say everything has theological implications.
It doesn't matter. Behe says the Big Bang does. He says Intelligent
Design does, too. The Big Bang is accepted (oops, there goes his and
your claim that 'atheistic scientists would have great difficulty
accepting a claim with theological implications').
>
>Anyway, let's deal with my point, okay?
>Which of the following claims is in error?
>
>1. History has intimately tied the notions of
>design and theology.
This *may* be true -- we ought to drag our local philosopher
of science to tell us if it is so.
It doesn't matter, though. You've been doing your best to divorce
design and theology, right?
>2. Thus, any appeal to ID is going to be reflexively
>*interpreted* to mean theology.
Probably true. Again, though, you've been saying over and over
again that ID isn't about gods doing the job. I think.
>3. Theology is not part of science
Right!
>4. Thus, ID will be reflexively rejected by science.
Wrong. Unless you are saying ID is theology. I thought you were
saying it isn't.
>
>1 and 3 are clearly true. #2 is also very clear.
>Hell, you guys all think (and cling to) the reason
>I tentatively posit that bacterial DNA replication
>was designed is because I have a hidden agenda to
>"prove God." Thus, it seems reasonable to reach
>conclusion #4.
Only if you agree that ID is theology. Make up your mind!
>
>>He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
>>implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
>>to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks:
>>evidence.
>
>And you agree the Big Bang has theological
>implications too, right?
No. I don't believe in theology. I'm an atheist, remember?
I am merely reciting *Behe's* point. He's the one claiming that ID and
the Big Bang are similar in having theological implications. He's the
one who spent a third of his talk doing nothing but hammering on that point.
>
>>>>Behe says a lot that is wrong.
>>
>>>So does Myers. :)
>
>>I don't deny that. 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.
>
>Who cares? Let me get this straight. Because
>Behe denied that any research in molecular evolution
>was being done in some lecture, you figure you can now ignore the
>arguments he made in his book? I fail to understand
>what is so relevant about what Behe said? Then again,
>I do know from experience with y'all on this board that
>you guys are far more interested in "hidden agendas"
>detected by reading "between the lines" than the actual
>arguments/data in those lines.
Who cares? YOU ought to care. Behe is being inconsistent. The author
of the book you are saying ought to be discussed as the sole matter of
interest is saying something different in public than he apparently
claimed in the book. I am not saying the arguments in the book ought
to be ignored (well, at least not here) -- I'm saying the fact that
the author of those arguments is not standing by those arguments in
public makes those arguments suspect.
What he said is eminently relevant. I don't write one thing in a paper
and then go out and say something different in a paper. And I'm not
reading between the lines here -- what is subtle and hidden about a guy
standing in front of a crowd and saying flat-out that no articles of any
relevance to molecular evolution are being published in the journals today?
>
>>>>When I heard him speak, I thought he sounded incredibly paranoid and
>>>>defensive,
>>
>>>All you have truly told us is how you subjectively viewed things.
>
>>When the last 20 minutes of his talk are nothing but apologies and excuses
>>for why his theories are rejected by the majority of scientists, I think
>>it is legitimate to call him defensive.
>
>Like all your excuses for your inability to cite the evidence
>that supports your beliefs about the origin of these IC
>systems. ;)
>
>>>>and made a lot of arguments that were scientifically unsound...
>>>>but played well to a crowd of non-scientists.
>>
>>>Yeah, just like the way a laundry list of irrelevant articles probably
>>>plays well to a crowd of non-scientists (and strangely enough, it
>>>seems to play well to the scientists also).
>
>>A laundry list that Behe denies exists.
>
>I deny it too. Cite me the papers that outline the evidence
>for the darwinian origin of these IC systems.
All of the ones you listed. You say "Sequence data, does however, support IC".
Papers that contain sequence data can be used to support your argument
about the origin of these systems, by your own words.
Quit being so biased. I have not been saying that the literature right now
contains explicit "evidence for the darwinian origin of these IC systems".
I'm being rather more general (open-minded, even!) and saying that the
literature is a source of evidence for the origin (by whatever means) of
these IC systems.
>
>>I agree that there is no elegant
>>answer in the list, but to pretend that nobody is thinking about the problem
>>and that they aren't even trying to work on it is delusional, and is
>>pandering to the ignorance of his audience.
>
>I am not asking for an elegant answer. A clumsy one supported
>by some evidence should suffice (as I showed in my article
>on the Krebs Cycle).
>
>>>Darwinian just-so stories
>>>seem also to play well with both crowds. As does this sloppy way of
>>>sneaking in Darwinism as if it equates with evolution.
>
>>Now just where did I say either of those things?
>
>Just listing some other things that play well.
Ah. OK. It's fine for you to tar my argument with irrelevancies.
Can I list a few things said by the ICR and the CRS when arguing with you?
They may not be relevant, but they play well with the clique.
>
>>I think a good way to figure out where cilia come from is to dissect
>>the molecules as thoroughly as possible, and compare them to other
>>molecules in other organisms and look for relationships. For some reason,
>>you (and Behe) think that kind of incremental approach is irrelevant.
>
>Oh really? It's only the very thing I have done in my articles on
>IC systems for over a year.
Yes. And now you and Behe say that sequence data is not relevant to the
question of the origin of these systems. You don't see the inconsistency
here? You say sequence data and the search for molecular relationships is
the very thing to do to support your ideas about ID. Behe says sequence
data has no relevance at all to these questions. Sequencing proteins from
cilia, identifying functional domains, and comparing them to other proteins?
Bogus. That ain't evolution. That shouldn't be published in the Journal of
Molecular Evolution -- the publishers LIE with that title!
>
>>You haven't suggested anything else, though.
>
>How would you know? It's clear you don't read my
>articles. In fact, I seem to recall that you complain
>that they are too long and too detailed. Oh well.
>If you had read them, you'd see that I have been showing
>how your "good way" works to support the design inference.
Oh, I usually start to read them. Then partway through, I notice
that you rely a lot on comparing sequences, and I realize that there is
no way this stuff can tell us anything at all about where these proteins
come from, and then I give up. I read a lot more of your articles than you
did of those 105 articles that you were able to claim definitively had nothing
to do with evolution on the basis of their titles alone.
--
PZ Myers
Henry Barwood
Julie Thomas wrote:
> Nothing worth continuing with in this lil' exchange....
At least you are correct about this!
Barwood
PZ Myers
wrote:
>George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote:
>
>>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> The point is that Dorit is supposed to review the claims made
>>> in Behe's book. Everything else is irrelevant.
>>>
>>A book review is different from a junior high "book report".
>>Reviewers often treat the book in a fairly cursory way and
>>go on to a summary of the relevant field for non-specialists.
>>Or they use the book as an example of a whole genre or
>>intellectual position. A glance at the reviews in
>>general science journals or publications like The New York
>>Review of Books will confirm this. Dorit clearly didn't
>>admire Behe's book, but he treated it gently, considering
>>some of the points he could have made.
>
>As a general rule the book reviews in _Nature_ are yucky. (Other words
>come to mind but yucky will do nicely.) In a large share of them the
>reviewer seizes upon some small point and grinds an axe quite
>vigorously.
Sharply opinionated isn't necessarily the same as "yucky". I rather
like a good cranky review -- you know exactly what side the reviewer
is on, even if you disagree with him. Conversely, I kinda dislike reviews
that pretend to be impartial, since I just know the reviewer is hiding
something.
Although this does explain a few things about your posts. I've noticed
that you prefer a deftly wielded hatpin to one of those well-sharpened
axes...it must be a dread of being labeled "yucky".
--
PZ Myers
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>
>Paul wrote:
>
>>Actually, I have read the book.
>
>>I also attended a talk by Behe.
>
>I honestly don't care about your anecdotes (no offense intended).
of course julie doesnt accept ANY evidence that she doesnt like. that
behe gives public lectures, and that a number of people have attended
them is just written off by julie. unfortunately, behe's only method
of presenting his argument is to popular audiences. since its not
scientific, he's not been able to state it in a way as to be published
in the literature.
>
>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.
i suggest that, since he's wrong, and since HE'S said that a theory
which gives NO results should be jettisoned, he take his own advice
WRT 'design'
>
>
>"In what way does the "Expression of ciliary tektins in
>brain and sensory development" provide evidence for
>the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes?
and since behe has never stated a mechanism for design, how does this
bolster HIS argument?
>
>As far as I can tell, from reading Behe's claims in the book,
>he is essentially right.
'essentially right'? is that like being 'almost pregnant'? the fact is
there HAVE been papers published, however NO published papers exist
WRT to design. so, again, by his OWN criteria, design has been a
failure.
>Nope. I'd just like a piece or two of evidence that shows
>cilia evolved via a darwinian mechanism. You apparently don't
>like the fact that I want some evidence before I will accept your
>beliefs.
and the evidence for design is?
oh...im sorry...you said its not science (behe, of course, disagrees)
so your double standard is in effect...evolutionary biologists have to
prove H2 to H sapiens, but designers merely have to say that
evolutionary biologists havent proved their case.
>
>>You will be disappointed for a long time.
>
>Yes, I suppose I will be disappointed in expecting
>you to come up with some simple evidence for the
>darwinian evolution of these systems.
and we will, of course, be likewise disappointed in waiting for an
expression of the mechanism for this magical source of some of the
diversity of life called 'design'.
>
>My, you seem to be a man of much faith. Somehow,
>irrelevancy multiplied becomes relevant.
at least he HAS faith. your argument seems to be that you have to
provide NOTHING at all. no mechanisms, no definitions, no
tests...nothing..no papers, no literature...absolutely not a blessed
thing. OTOH mebbe the ONY thing you have is 'blessed'.
because its not science.
>
>
>I suspect that you cannot understand how one would
>approach this issue in an way that strives to be objective,
>fair, and open-minded.
julie thinks that astrology=astronomy, alchemy=chemistry. after all,
its 'open minded'.
You also probably subscribe to
>the view that either everything was designed or everything
>evolved without intelligent intervention. That's
>probably why you resort to such comforting images.
hardly. behe's evidence leads him to conclude that, since evolution
has, in his view, no explanations, design is the ONLY other choice.
seems he's pretty good at making THAT argument.
>Try reading what I wrote. Sequence data gives us
>NO reason to think a darwinian process was behind the origin
>of an IC system. Sequence data tells us only about common
>descent and evidence of common descent is not evidence
>of natural selection. Sequence data, does however, support IC
how can it support something in which both the 'designer' and his
mechanism are undefined and untestable? in addition, you're saying
'data' supports this. but you've said previously its not science. the
last time i checked, data used in biology is considered 'science'.
>>I did not say this was in his book. He did spend the entire last
>>third of his lecture making excuses of this nature -- that his
>>religious beliefs were the major obstacle to many atheistic scientists
>>accepting his ideas.
>
>Clearly, atheistic scientists would indeed have great
>difficulty accepting his ideas. s
ROFLMAO!! not a few THEISTIC scientists do so as well!!
>
>>Now you sound like Behe. He also tried to have it both ways: he claimed
>>IC was rejected because of theological implications, and then spent a
>>lot of time talking about theories like the Big Bang that also have
>>theological implications, but that managed to get accepted.
>
>That might make for an interesting topic in of
>itself - does design in biology and the Big Bang
>have the same degree of theological
>implication. BTW, are you saying the Big Bang
>*does* have theological implications?\
you miss the point. behe drags out a 10 yr old nature article in his
talks that says the BB should be rejected because it has 'theological
implications'. he uses this as proof 'scientists are antireligious'.
the fact that the BB is universally accepted seems to be overlooked by
behe. in effect he destroys his own argument.
>
>Anyway, let's deal with my point, okay?
>Which of the following claims is in error?
>
>1. History has intimately tied the notions of
>design and theology.
wrong. since design itself calls itself theology its not HISTORY, its
THEOLOGY which does so
>2. Thus, any appeal to ID is going to be reflexively
>*interpreted* to mean theology.
wrong. design has never been defined by behe or anyone else in a
manner testable by science. in fact, design theorists go out of their
way to say they DONT have a mechanism
>3. Theology is not part of science
>4. Thus, ID will be reflexively rejected by science.
>
Then again,
>I do know from experience with y'all on this board that
>you guys are far more interested in "hidden agendas"
>detected by reading "between the lines" than the actual
>arguments/data in those lines.
hidden agendas? no, i dont think so. behe has been forthright about
his connections with the american far right wing, appearing, for
example, on EWTN's 'the abundant life' program, and being a senior
fellow at the 'discover institute', (homepage on the web) whose
director, bruce chapman, denies even the existence of transitional
forms in evolution.
so behe himself has placed HIMSELF in the position to push right wing
ideology and theology as science.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>
>You must hate it when hoisted on the petard. You mentioned that Behe
>mad no such claim in reference. Paul and now I have shown that your
>assertion is not supported. Grow up.
>
>>
>> And BTW, what *is* your point? Are you suggesting
>
>No it is 'we'. Two of us saw the same talk and heard the same words
>from the horses mouth.
>
as did i here in bethlehem, pa on nov 22, 1998 at the cathedral church
of the nativity.
>Well one paper showing rapid change in homeotic genes...is one step
>further then the design argument.
yep. behe says NO papers have been published by evolutionary
biologists in this regard. the fact that he's wrong, and the fact that
HE HIMSELF has NEVER published such a paper leads one to accept his
OWN recommendation that design should be tossed out.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
>>
>>
>>Julie Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>>>
>>>
>>> >The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
>>>
>>> Then make it. I don't care.
>>>
>>
>>ROTFL
>
>Why do I get the feeling that Pim is a wf3h-wannbe?
>Such lofty aspirations. ;)
as always, a lucid, rational argument from julie
>>>
>>
>>ROTFL. Yes that is a very convincing argument...
>
>Was there an argument?
yeah. just like the one you presented above
>>>
>>
>>Evidence that it is truely an IC system which could not have evolved. Up to now all
>>Behe has done is shown that we do not fully understand the details. Hardly evidence
>>against.
>
>Just one more pack member who thinks I need to demonstrate the impossible.
of course, thats the argument you use against evolution...'no papers
published dealing the the evolution of cilia', etc...
more pot and kettle.
except your whole argument hinges on it.
>Pim's position is truly very weak if it relies on my inability to
>demonstrate the impossible.
somehow, you believe that such a position is very STRONG if a lehigh
biochemist says it
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most defenders of Darwinism resort to personal attact, name calling and and
>>>>>strawman arguments. The behave like people with their backs to the wall.
>>>>>Keep up the good work.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertvan
>>>>
>>>>really? gee i lost track, bert.
>>>>
>>>>did julie call me a member of a 'pack' or did i call her that?
>>>
>>>For over a year, you have done far worse to me than call me
>>>a pack member (which would be illogical).
>>
>>really? if so, please post any name which ive called you. you're a
>>creationist, certainly, but i dont call people names. a talent which
>>seems to have escaped you.
>
>wf3h's reading comprehension is also in question. I
>didn't say he called me names. He has done far worse - for
>over a year he has continually mispresented my views.
ROFLMAO!! what views? all ive done is asked questions which you
SIDESTEP
what is the mechanism of design? "i aint gonna tell ya"
what is a 'designer'? 'i aint gonna tell ya'
where can we see design at work today? 'i aint gonna tell ya'
yadda yadda.
This
>is like poisoning the well with a continual stream of
>mean-spirited innuendo. And for the most part, I have
>ignored this. That wf3h apparently thinks calling
>people names is the real no-no only underscores his
>adolescent-like view of the world.
and that julie thinks calling people names is an argument shows the
shallowness of her ideas.
>
>> You have posted
>>>dozens of snippy articles questioning my intellectual abilities,
>>>motives, and character.
>>
>>of course i question your motives.
>
>Yes, of course you do. How else could you make
>sense of reality?
ROFLMAO!!! lemme know when you post reality, julie!!
Mark J. Koebbe
>
> In article <76f700$r5e$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
>I'd be more than happy if you went through each
>of the twenty articles showing their relevance to
>the darwinian origin of cilia in ancient eucaryotes.
>But of course, I know that you simply cannot do this.
>I haven't read any of those articles, so of course I can't.
Of course, the criticism comes from the person who 'never' asks for a
complete explanation (just every one of the twenty articles or by
default design is proven). Talk about a blatant example of moving the
goal posts. As to her own goal posts....I can't even see if they're
posts. They kind of pop into existence in one stage of the conversation
and then disappear in the next. Sort of like...she's quantitating the
arguments for design/IC, yet it isn't science. Hysterical.
>I do suspect that an article that publishes data on the sequence
>of ciliary proteins, though, IS providing information that
>can be used in an analysis of evolution.
Not according to Behe, it seems. He seems to deliberately fail to
mention this....and emphatically states that it is '0' with some cheesy
overhead.
Gee, I wonder why all those scientists don't respect his arguments.
MJK
Mark J. Koebbe
>
> In article <76f700$r5e$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
>
>>He rather shot himself in the foot that way. Apparently, theological
>>implications aren't enough to get a theory rejected, after all. It seems
>>to me that theories like the Big Bang have something that IC lacks:
>>evidence.
>
>>And you agree the Big Bang has theological
>>implications too, right?
>No. I don't believe in theology. I'm an atheist, remember?
>I am merely reciting *Behe's* point. He's the one claiming that ID and
>the Big Bang are similar in having theological implications. He's the
>one who spent a third of his talk doing nothing but hammering on that >point.
And no 'thirds' discussing science. Gee, you'd think that he'd at least
mention the boku evidence of common descent...like pseudogenes. But
then as you say and I also observed....his argument from design is
primarily a theological issue.
Which makes his side-step about not being a philosopher all the more
incredulous. Talk about deliberate cognitive dissonance.
MJK
> --
> PZ Myers
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
>
> >I also attended a talk by Behe.
>
> I honestly don't care about your anecdotes (no offense intended).
Especially when they contradict your "beliefs" Eh ?
>
> Y'see, what is th topic of this thread, Paul? It's "Dorit
> Tried to Critique Behe". And what exactly was Dorit
> critiquing? Behe's book. If you want to talk about some
> remarks Behe made in a speech, fire up your own thread.
> I'm trying to stick to the topic - Dorit's review of Behe's
> book.
>
How convenient to ignore that which you do not like eh Julie ?
>
> >I did not misrepresent him in the least.
>
> Well then, you create a misrepresentation of
> what is in the book, which *is* the topic of
> this thread. If you want to talk about
> Behe's speech, start your thread instead of
> creating needless confusion.
>
The thread is not named "Behe's book" dear Julie. I know this requires some
additional efforts of reading comprehension but don't blame others.
>
> Fine. But I think this is irrelevant. Behe's statements
> (IMO) should be viewed in the context of what he has
> written (unless you opt for the "sound bite" approach). My
How "convenient"
>
> suggestion is that next time you hear Behe speak, if
> he makes such a claim, simply read from his book
> where he cites evolutionary studies from JME. I'm
> sure he'd clarify for you. But again, what matters
> is not what he said. Stick to the topic of this thread.
> Instead of drawing from your notes,deal with what
> Behe claims in his book (the one you read) on pages
> 173-178
>
Yawn. Julie is trying to ignore what contradicts her beliefs once again.
>
> 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.
>
Nice strawman dear Julie.
> >>My, how could Behe miss 105 articles??
>
> >By imposing his own definition of what constitutes research on
> >molecular evolution, obviously.
>
> No, because these articles provide no evidence
> for the darwinian origin of cilia. Since they provide
> NO such evidence, it is only rational to ignore the
> irrelevant. I'm afraid that if you do think they
> provide evidence for the darwinian evolution of
> cilia, this would merely underscore just how desperate
> your position is.
>
Poor Julie.
> >You want the complete monograph that outlines in detail the origin
> >of cilia, and it seems that nothing less will satisfy you.
>
> Nope. I'd just like a piece or two of evidence that shows
> cilia evolved via a darwinian mechanism. You apparently don't
> like the fact that I want some evidence before I will accept your
> beliefs.
>
Not at all. Just don't make the logical fallacy like Behe that absence of
evidence is evidence of design.
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
> In a previous article, ent...@eskimo.com (Pim van Meurs) says:
>
> >
> >
> >Julie Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> In a previous article, hbar...@indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
> >>
> >>
> >> >The same argument could be made of your OPINION of Behe and/or his book.
> >>
> >> Then make it. I don't care.
> >>
> >
> >ROTFL
>
> Why do I get the feeling that Pim is a wf3h-wannbe?
> Such lofty aspirations. ;)
>
No need for flattery dear Julie.
> >> Behe's purported charge of a *conspiracy* is the crux of his
> >> argument? Another clueless critic.
> >>
> >
> >ROTFL. Yes that is a very convincing argument...
>
> Was there an argument?
>
Exactly... You do understand it after all.
>
> >Evidence that it is truely an IC system which could not have evolved. Up to now all
> >Behe has done is shown that we do not fully understand the details. Hardly evidence
> >against.
>
> Just one more pack member who thinks I need to demonstrate the impossible.
Nope I do not expect you to demonstrate design.
> Pim's position is truly very weak if it relies on my inability to
> demonstrate the impossible.
Nice strawman. Still ignoring that this is how Behe determines "design" ? Perhaps design
is hardly that scientific a theory after all then ?
> >> I've only written over 150 pages exploring such tests.
> >>
> >
> >And found nothing.
>
> Like you would know.
Try me...
Pim van Meurs
Julie Thomas wrote:
> wf3h's reading comprehension is also in question. I
> didn't say he called me names. He has done far worse - for
> over a year he has continually mispresented my views. This
> is like poisoning the well with a continual stream of
> mean-spirited innuendo. And for the most part, I have
> ignored this. That wf3h apparently thinks calling
> people names is the real no-no only underscores his
> adolescent-like view of the world.
>
Yawn. I am impressed by you ignoring wf3h and resorting to a far more mature form
of argument.
ROTFL
>
> > You have posted
> >>dozens of snippy articles questioning my intellectual abilities,
> >>motives, and character.
> >
> >of course i question your motives.
>
> Yes, of course you do. How else could you make
> sense of reality?
ROTFL. I guess that explains you Julie. Projecting again ?
Mark J. Koebbe
>
> In a previous article, rwda...@dnaco.net (Rich Daniel) says:
>
> >Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> >> ...Rich replied:
> >What's frustrating to me is that you and Behe apparently think the field
> >of molecular biology is mature enough that failure to answer a question
> >implies anything at all. Fer chrissake, we just a few days ago
> >finished sequencing the first animal genome! A hundred years from
> >now, if the evolution of cilia is still a mystery, it might mean
> >something. Not now.
>
> I am quite sympathetic to your point, but I don't have a 100
> years to wait before speculating.
We could say the same thing with regard to the design inference...which
has been around for at least 200 years. To date there is not even a
single hypothesis about design. Gee, I'm tired of waiting, as well.
That's why I speculate now
> and form tentative conclusions that generate testable hypotheses.
So now the design inference magically becomes a testable hypothesis
lacking a hypothesis.
> That's why I openly and willingly risk having my view falsified.
Which view? The one where design isn't science or when it magically
becomes science again.
> And BTW, the bacterial genomic data is starting to paint a nice
> picture. That's just one more reason why I have thus far
> restricted myself to bacterial systems. I am encouraged in that
> the genomic data, on balance, continues to support my hypotheses.
What hypothesis?
> But so much more work is needed.
How do you know where to start working without a hypothesis? Where are
them damn goal posts anyway ;)
MJK
Richard Harter
This is one of those matters of opinion and taster. We each of us have
our own opinion on the matter - you, yours, and me, the correct one.
>Although this does explain a few things about your posts. I've noticed
>that you prefer a deftly wielded hatpin to one of those well-sharpened
>axes...it must be a dread of being labeled "yucky".
Hmmm, I wonder if I do suffer from labelloyuckyphobia. I don't think
so. I've never been labeled yucky - it might be a novel and interesting
experience. [No doubt I have been, but the lady in question was far too
polite to say so to my face. I refuse to think about what she might
have said to her friends.]
Like you, I enjoy the cranky opinion piece upon occasion. Still, a
review should have something more in common with book being reviewed
beyond the title of the book. In lieu of saying something intelligent I
will reprint my canned advice on learning how to write good reviews:
===
Do you want to write the perfect review? Do you want to know how to
do it? I will tell you.
Pick a work to review, any work, a novel, an anthology, a fanzine,
whatever. Tear it to pieces. Think about all of the things that
reviewers worry about - characterization, plot, style, philosophic
themes, objectives, appearance, whatever. Try to get in as many
slants as possible. Find a unity of perception. Write it all down;
get everything on paper; write at least thirty pages.
Now take that thirty page analysis and boil it all down to two or
three pages. In doing so retain all of the essential content of your
thirty page critique. What is more, your two page condensation should
suggest further thoughts that were not in the thirty page critique.
Is this the perfect review? No. You can not write the perfect review
this way because your two page piece will be a warmed over rewrite and
it will show. This is an exercise in learning how to write
rich, dense, suggestive and illuminating prose.
Pick another work. Do it again. Keep doing it until you can do it
easily and naturally. Once you can do it well try to write those two
pages without first writing the initial thirty page critique. Think
of all the things that would have been in those thirty pages but don't
write them; just write the two pages. When you can do this and do it
so that those pregnant two pages come naturally and so that they
reflect the inspiration the work at hand inspires in you - then you
are ready to start writing reviews for real.
Sounds good. I guess I'll let someone else do it.
may...@andrews.edu
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
snip
> Ah, the delicious irony.. In my opinion, Behe is
> far more open-minded than Robert Dorit.
That would only be true if there weren't good reasons to reject Behe's ideas.
> Behe seems
> to accept both evolution and design as explanations for
> the various aspects of the biological world. Dorit, on the other
> hand, seems to be so convinced of his way of thinking that
> nothing Behe has said seems to have caused him to entertain even
> the slightest suspicion that design might be behind some aspect
> of biology.
IOW, he found Behe's arguments to be rubbish, as has the rest of the
scientific community.
> I suspect that in the end nothing would cause
> Dorit to abandon his commitment to Darwinian evolution
> as an explanation for everything.
What would cause him to develop such an affinity for Darwinian evolution?
Some scientists are like that, true; but most are not. Look at what happened
with the revolution in plate tectonics, with most people discarding the idea
of fixed continents in about ten or fifteen years.
snip
> Fallacy seven: Assume that the evolution of bird flight
> means the bacterial flagellum evolved via Darwinism.
I don't think anyone assumes that; it's just that there's no reason to think
the genes coding for the bacterial flagellum didn't evolve in basically the
same way as genes coding for bird flight. Obviously, more fanciful hypotheses
are possible when you're dealing with systems whose origins are not known
with complete precision, but the whole point is that such explanations are
unlikely, not that they are impossible.
--vince
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
may...@andrews.edu
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
snip
> It's understandable how pack members would find independent
> thinking troublesome.
Independent thinking isn't worth much if it isn't done correctly.
> Go play in the pack, wf3h. It's safe
> there - that's where others can tell you what to think.
Well, it's not really safe for wf3h; nobody likes him, for some reason.
Ed. Stoebenau
>I suspect we heard the very same lecture. I thought it was a very disappointing
>bit of fluff that was clearly aimed at an uncritical and non-technical
>audience -- it (and his book!) was lacking all the rigor that Julie wants
>to demand of his critics.
As did I back in late October down in Virginia Tech. Exact same one.
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <XaG5qIAd...@keatinge.demon.co.uk>,
Richard Keatinge <Ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <76e9e9$19v$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Julie Thomas
><iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes
>>Since it is the holiday season, I have some
>>time to reply to some comments. Although,
>>I can't promise any followups (since it is
>>the holiday season).
>
>(megasnip)
Megasnip, indeed.
Since this is the end of the year, I offer the following prediction:
Julie will continue to be short of time. Like Plaisted was.
Julie will continue to write mega-articles in spite of this lack.
Julie will continue to rely on lack-of-evidence as her evidence,
and will continue to not have a mechanism, or even a date when
the mechanism operated, or a consistent hallmark from the mechanism's
presumably plural actions.
A new protobird will be found. Cal King will have a cow.
A new protowhale will be found. The ICR will point out that creatures
with legs aren't whales.
The evolution of the immune system will be further nailed down. Behe
will claim that the articles don't count.
Buckna, Brown, Slusher et al will be published in Nature, giving a
complete, concise, falsifiable theory of Creation, supported by
evidence.
--Oh. Whoops. My mistake. We're only coming up on 1999, not the Millenium.
--
Don
www.best.com/~dlindsay
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) says:
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.
Documented? You have quite a lofty view of your subjective
impressions. I suppose you think they have been corroborated
with standard pack mentality too.
Okay, let's take a looksie. Me thinks your bogeyman
ship just hit an iceberg.
>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.
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)
>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.
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.
[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.
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." ;)
>How do you reconcile this with your claims?
It looks like it is going to be very easy. Just explain
what Behe said when he went on at length explaining
what ought to be in JME.
>How do you reconcile this with what he says
>in the book?
I suspect it's the same thing.
>This is more than making an 'erroneous claim'; this isn't
>a little slip of the tongue. He's making some rather blatant
>statements on the lecture circuit that you are now saying we should
>ignore.
I never said you and your pack buddies should ignore it.
See how faulty your knee-jerk perceptions are?! And you want
me to start trusting them (and your memory) with Behe's words?
You can't even properly interpret my written words!
I'll deal with the other stuff from Paul's
reply next year. It will be a pleasure.
Julie Thomas
In a previous article, lin...@best.com (Donald C. Lindsay) says:
>
>In article <XaG5qIAd...@keatinge.demon.co.uk>,
>Richard Keatinge <Ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <76e9e9$19v$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Julie Thomas
>><iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes
>
>>>Since it is the holiday season, I have some
>>>time to reply to some comments. Although,
>>>I can't promise any followups (since it is
>>>the holiday season).
>>
>>(megasnip)
>
>Megasnip, indeed.
>
>Since this is the end of the year, I offer the following prediction:
>
> Julie will continue to be short of time. Like Plaisted was.
>
> Julie will continue to write mega-articles in spite of this lack.
>
> Julie will continue to rely on lack-of-evidence as her evidence,
> and will continue to not have a mechanism, or even a date when
> the mechanism operated, or a consistent hallmark from the mechanism's
> presumably plural actions.
Aw, look how cute! He's saying, "Hey guys, look at me. I'm part
of the pack too!" Someone give him some attention and a hug.
howard hershey
>
> In article <76e9e9$19v$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Julie Thomas
> <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Since it is the holiday season, I have some
> >time to reply to some comments. Although,
> >I can't promise any followups (since it is
> >the holiday season).
>
> (megasnip)
>
> >>think that there are cellular functions inexplicable in any way other
> >>than ID,
> >
> >I don't argue this. I simply identify systems in which a pattern of
> >data is best explained by a design inference. You are free to
> >disagree. It's just that I have yet to hear any arguments/evidence
> >that leads me to think my tentative conclusions are false (and
> >my discussion on the Krebs Cycle shows I am open-minded
> >on this whole issue and can be made to abandon a design
> >inference). Tell me Elmer, what type of data would you consider
> >evidence for the design of some ancient biological feature?
>
There would be any number of ways that biological nature *could* have
shown that it, or even certain subsets of biological organisms or
phenomena, were created by instantaneous design by a Designer rather
than by mechanisms that are consistent with common descent. The absence
of such evidence in the biological world would not necessarily mean that
there is no ultimate Designer, of course. It only means that any such
Designer plays by naturalistic and material rules and must be accepted
as a matter of faith rather than scientific reasoning, since positing
such a Designer violates old brother Occam. But *some* people (not
naming any particular group, of course) are of little faith and insist
that the Designer play by the rules *they* want him to play by rather
than the rules that nature shows.
wf...@enter.netxx
Thomas) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) says:
>
>
>
>Concerning the pack's feeding frenzy on Behe's speech,
>I wrote in reply to Paul:\
Ah, more of the rational discourse that exemplifies reasoned arguments
from creationists...
>Paul replied:
.. 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.
>
>Documented? You have quite a lofty view of your subjective
>impressions. I suppose you think they have been corroborated
>with standard pack mentality too.
so julie is saying that regardless of what behe ACTUALLY says, she's
the final arbiter of what he's saying.
>
>
>>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.
i'll tell ya what: why not start a journal called the j. of molecular
design. that should solve your problems. of course, since no papers
have ever been published WRT design, the endpapers would be in contact
with each other...
>
>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.
of course, neither behe nor you sets such a standard for DESIGN. that
NO papers have been published on design seems, somehow, to be
overlooked...
julie says:
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.
followed by:
>I never said you and your pack buddies should ignore it.
uh, ad hominem? another double standard. designers can call evolution
false because, as julie's calculations have it, only 1 paper/6 months
is published about molecular evolution. of course the fact that this
is 1 paper/6 months more than designers publish is ignored
then she whines about 'ad hominem' arguments against behe, all the
while calling those who question her theology 'members of the pack'.
behe does the same, of course, when he rationalizes his failure to
gain acceptance for his idea as falling victim to 'anti-religious'
scientists.