Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to evolution?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Frank J

unread,
May 24, 2008, 7:48:06 PM5/24/08
to
Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.

I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
better explanation, they have known it for decades.

But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
(i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.

Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
best guess for an alternate explanation.

This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
set the record straight about that?

So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like
that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.

noshellswill

unread,
May 24, 2008, 9:01:20 PM5/24/08
to


Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?

The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.

That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
"Arcturian Lifepod" motif.

*NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.

In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.

nss
*****

Ron O

unread,
May 24, 2008, 9:07:02 PM5/24/08
to

Ron O

unread,
May 24, 2008, 9:40:25 PM5/24/08
to
On May 24, 6:48 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
> I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.

There are probably such people, but they likely do not know the
evidence well enough to object with any degree of certainty or they
have such a exaggerated sense of what science can demonstrate that
they probably object to just about everything else too.

Taken to an extreme science can't even demonstrate that yesterday
happened. That is just a fact.

That is why scientific facts are just things that you would be laughed
at if you don't agree with them. Gould labeled them as things that it
would be perverse to deny.

There is a sliding scale, and right now science is about as sure that
life evolved on this planet over billions of years through a process
of descent with modification as we were sure of the shape of the earth
before we had powered flight capability. There are probably still
people that think that the earth is flat, but science knows better.
We've known better for a very long time. Over 2000 years ago a guy
named Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within
10% of the modern value. Even before we circumnavigated the globe and
mapped the earth we knew the basic shape. We have just spent a lot of
time refining the details. And it is still changing. We can
accurately map a position so that we know that portions of the earth
are moving at a few centimeters each year.

Well we know that biological evolution happened, and we can observe it
happening today. We are just filling in the details. Just ask
someone like Behe. There is a reason why some of the leaders in the
recent creationist intelligent design fiasco did not deny common
descent. They know that a person that would deny common descent of,
say, all vertebrates would be worse off in the basket case or
ignorance scale than the flat earthers of Darwin's day.

Ron Okimoto

Frank J

unread,
May 24, 2008, 9:37:26 PM5/24/08
to
> *****-

So what did you think of "Expelled"?

Ron O

unread,
May 24, 2008, 9:41:56 PM5/24/08
to
> *****-

Not only that but bumble bees can't possibly fly.

Ron Okimoto

Frank J

unread,
May 24, 2008, 10:27:00 PM5/24/08
to
On May 24, 9:40 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 6:48 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
> > I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> > explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> > don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> > better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> > But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> > (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> > to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> > stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> > reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> > life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> > well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
> > anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> > leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
>
> There are probably such people, but they likely do not know the
> evidence well enough to object with any degree of certainty or they
> have such a exaggerated sense of what science can demonstrate that
> they probably object to just about everything else too.

I should say that many of the rank and file are probably still
deceived into thinking that there really is a purely scientific
objection, even an alternate theory, But they are unlikely to write or
post their opinion of "Expelled." The many rank and file opinions that
I have seen so far, such as in the comments that follow an online
review, either rave about "Expelled" *and* express doubts (&
demonstrate misconceptions), or trash it *and* defend science.

>
> Taken to an extreme science can't even demonstrate that yesterday
> happened.  That is just a fact.
>
> That is why scientific facts are just things that you would be laughed
> at if you don't agree with them.  Gould labeled them as things that it
> would be perverse to deny.
>
> There is a sliding scale, and right now science is about as sure that
> life evolved on this planet over billions of years through a process
> of descent with modification as we were sure of the shape of the earth
> before we had powered flight capability.  There are probably still
> people that think that the earth is flat, but science knows better.
> We've known better for a very long time.  Over 2000 years ago a guy
> named Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within
> 10% of the modern value.  Even before we circumnavigated the globe and
> mapped the earth we knew the basic shape.  We have just spent a lot of
> time refining the details.  And it is still changing.  We can
> accurately map a position so that we know that portions of the earth
> are moving at a few centimeters each year.
>
> Well we know that biological evolution happened, and we can observe it
> happening today.  We are just filling in the details.  Just ask
> someone like Behe.  There is a reason why some of the leaders in the
> recent creationist intelligent design fiasco did not deny common
> descent.  They know that a person that would deny common descent of,
> say, all vertebrates would be worse off in the basket case or
> ignorance scale than the flat earthers of Darwin's day.

True, but they don't volunteer that information much any more. I read
somewhere (second hand) that Stein agreed with Behe on the chronology
and common descent, but I have yet to find the reference. I'm not at
all surprised, though, because I expect it to get drowned out in the
more PC talk.

>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
> > people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
> > would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
> > not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> > IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> > are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> > but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
> > out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
> > best guess for an alternate explanation.
>
> > This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> > with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
> > least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
> > recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
> > to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
> > wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
> > even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> > purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> > to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
> > world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
> > set the record straight about that?
>
> > So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like

> > that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


John McKendry

unread,
May 24, 2008, 10:39:10 PM5/24/08
to

Dissimulation is not generally thought to be a property of the
earliest life forms. You might want to look the word up in a
dictionary before you use it again. As a rule, it's bad idea to use
big words whose meaning you don't understand on usenet, because it
makes you look like the sort of pretentious blowhard who thinks
he can intimidate his audience with the mere outward appearance of
learning.

<snip rest>

John

Steven L.

unread,
May 24, 2008, 11:09:52 PM5/24/08
to

Could I try?

I'm certainly appalled by "Expelled." It raised my blood pressure, a lot.

But I do have what I consider to be a scientific question, not really an
objection:

I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence. Our
brains can do algebraic topology, calculus, philosophy, metaphysics, and
highly abstract games like go. (OK, at least *some* of our brains can
do those things.) But was the evolutionary pressure for that? What
skills did our primitive ancestors really need to survive except the
ability to hunt, fish, and a few other basic skills? Yet even after our
ancestors developed the brains to feed ourselves and our tribes, and
defend ourselves from that nasty saber-tooth, we just kept right on
evolving with highly advanced intellection that isn't really needed to
put food on the table.

So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
necessary for basic survival.

Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
smarter in 100 million years.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
May 24, 2008, 11:49:13 PM5/24/08
to

"noshellswill" <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com...

>
> Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
>
> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>
> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>
> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
>
> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
>
> nss
> *****
>

You seem to be offering some sort of challenge here but I have no idea what
you are talking about. If I look up the unfamiliar jargon terms the assembly
of them that you use is still hard to follow. And the part about organisms
hiding their true feelings (how would one know?) sounds kind of cool but even
more confusing. Please explain what you are on about.

David


noshellswill

unread,
May 25, 2008, 12:02:48 AM5/25/08
to

Gents:

I see no calculations. That is your problem. I assign grades for work only.

"Expelled"? What is this -expelled- you speak of ?

" '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.

nss
****

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
May 25, 2008, 12:28:02 AM5/25/08
to
On May 24, 9:01 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:


Huh?

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't speak "Gibberish" very well.

Could you translate this into something resembling the Queen's English
for me?


================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com

J. J. Lodder

unread,
May 25, 2008, 3:52:48 AM5/25/08
to
Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Before you jump to a "no way," read on.
>
> I don't mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of "don't ask,
> don't tell" makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine "I don't know" with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. "naturalism" debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that "RM + NS" is the cause of changes
> well above the species level. To be clear, I don't think that there's
> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn't try that hard to hide their real objection.

Objections to theories are irrelevant in science,
that's for the nutters.

A better question is:
are there people who see problems
which are not easily resolved within the theory.
The answer is of course: there always are, lots of them,
for otherwise there could be no research going on.

The next question is: are there people working in the field
who think that the problems they see and work on
cannot be resolved in the theory,
and hence need a better theory to be resolved in.

There may be, but I don't know of any to be taken seriously,

Jan

Ernest Major

unread,
May 25, 2008, 4:26:15 AM5/25/08
to
In message <pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com>, noshellswill
<noshel...@gmail.com> writes

>
>Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
>
>The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
>and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
>stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>
>That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
>neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated
>> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>
>*NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific
>*itches.
>
>In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle or
>admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.

Passing over the question of what word dissimulate is a substitute for
(disseminate?), what was asked for was a scientific objection to
evolution. Your first paragraph is an objection (I'll pass on analysing
whether it qualifies as scientific) to either abiogenesis or
development, not to evolution.

Your second paragraph seems to indicate that your target was
abiogenesis, so at least you're not claiming that life is impossible.
However you've slipped in an assertion that proteomic life cannot adapt,
in an attempt to stretch your position to cover evolution. That
assertion is falsified by observation and experiiment; the adaptation of
organisms has been seen in both the laboratory and the field.

You might also like to avoid the hypocrisy of demanding a quantitative
rebuttal (sic) while refraining from making quantitative claims
yourself.
--
alias Ernest Major

Frank J

unread,
May 25, 2008, 8:07:04 AM5/25/08
to

You know. And the lurkers know you know. But thanks for playing
anyway.

>
> " '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.
>
> nss

> ****- Hide quoted text -

Frank J

unread,
May 25, 2008, 8:16:24 AM5/25/08
to

We all have such questions, especially the evoltuionary biologists who
are actually working them. But I'm thinking more along the lines of an
across the board doubt of evolution, Darwinian, Neutral Theory, PE,
Lamarckian, etc. Picture a Michael Behe without reference to design.
IIRC, David Berlinski took that approach in the beginning. But he was
in "Expelled" and agreed with its claims, both the conspiracy of the
"Darwinian orthodoxy" nonsence and the link to Nazism nonsense. So his
objection is not purely scientific.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email:  sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -

Frank J

unread,
May 25, 2008, 8:20:54 AM5/25/08
to
On May 25, 3:52 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Jan-

See also my reply to Steven L. I guess I am looking for "nutters", but
those who agree with us that "Expelled" is obnoxious propaganda, and
undermines their efforts to convince people that evolution's problems
are just lack of evidence. So far, every "nutter" I have read has
defended "Expelled" one way or another.

Devil's Advocaat

unread,
May 25, 2008, 8:25:21 AM5/25/08
to

And humming birds only hum because they can't remember the words. :P
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -

J. J. Lodder

unread,
May 25, 2008, 9:05:59 AM5/25/08
to
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

They do make an impression on (at least *some* of)
the females of the species.
Not quite like playing a rock guitar of course,
but still...

> What
> skills did our primitive ancestors really need to survive except the
> ability to hunt, fish, and a few other basic skills? Yet even after our
> ancestors developed the brains to feed ourselves and our tribes, and
> defend ourselves from that nasty saber-tooth, we just kept right on
> evolving with highly advanced intellection that isn't really needed to
> put food on the table.

Who cares about a mere nasty sabretooth?
Your mother in law can deal with that.
It's the nasty neighbour that one should really worry about.
It really takes the brains of Li'l Abner to outwit them Scraggs.

> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> necessary for basic survival.
>
> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> smarter in 100 million years.

Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
You must have a beginning in the right direction
before an evolutionary arms race can take off,

Jan

noshellswill

unread,
May 25, 2008, 10:42:06 AM5/25/08
to
On Sun, 25 May 2008 05:07:04 -0700, Frank J wrote:

<clip>

>> "Expelled"? What is this -expelled- you speak of ?
>
> You know. And the lurkers know you know. But thanks for playing
> anyway.
>
>>
>> " '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.
>>
>> nss
>> ****- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Frank:

I've opinioned before on the connection between "social"
Dawinism and Nazi behavior. I referenced a 'first person account' by W. J.
Bryant based on his experience as a US diplomat in Germany after WW1.

I don't remember any return comment, nor was my point so well-made that it
demanded an answer --YMMV. A local expert in early 20-th century German
history could enlighten us all. To my way of thinking, the issue is
historical not conceptual or logical.

As for the movie EXPELLED ... yes I've read about it on this n.g. , but
have read no further reviews nor have I seen it nor do I have any
particular interest in the movie. AFAIK the movie has NO relevance to
any scientific enterprise or concepts.

"Artistic merit" or lit-crit issues belong on another n.g.

nss
****


Harry K

unread,
May 25, 2008, 11:04:14 AM5/25/08
to
> *****- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Bt that sounds like a scientific argument against abiogenesis. What
does it have to do with Evolution?

Harry K

Tim Tyler

unread,
May 25, 2008, 4:33:20 PM5/25/08
to
On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>

> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> necessary for basic survival.
>
> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve.  Ants haven't gotten much

> smarter in 100 million years. [...]

What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.

Tim Tyler

unread,
May 25, 2008, 4:37:19 PM5/25/08
to
On May 25, 2:05 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
> but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
> You must have a beginning in the right direction
> before an evolutionary arms race can take off,

Hey, it's the girafffe neck problem again!

These days, it is thought that girafffe necks are
mostly for clubbing other girafffes with.

r norman

unread,
May 25, 2008, 4:59:04 PM5/25/08
to
On Sun, 25 May 2008 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT), Tim Tyler
<seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>
>> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>> necessary for basic survival.
>>
>> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve.  Ants haven't gotten much
>> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
>What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.

So loons and barracuda must be incredibly smart?


Message has been deleted

Earle Jones

unread,
May 25, 2008, 6:17:28 PM5/25/08
to
In article <pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com>,
noshellswill <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:37:26 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 9:01 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700, Frank J wrote:

> >> > Before you jump to a łno way,˛ read on.
> >>
> >> > I donąt mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> >> > explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of łdonąt ask,
> >> > donąt tell˛ makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no


> >> > better explanation, they have known it for decades.
> >>
> >> > But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection

> >> > (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine łI donąt know˛ with respect


> >> > to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no

> >> > stake in the design vs. łnaturalism˛ debate, and probably have no


> >> > reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of

> >> > life. Their doubt might be only that łRM + NS˛ is the cause of changes
> >> > well above the species level. To be clear, I donąt think that there's


> >> > anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was

> >> > leaked they didnąt try that hard to hide their real objection.


> >>
> >> > Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such

> >> > people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. Thatąs because such people
> >> > would want to be clear what they doubt and what they donąt doubt, and


> >> > not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> >> > IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> >> > are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> >> > but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it

> >> > out of them to see what they doubt, what they donąt, and whatąs their


> >> > best guess for an alternate explanation.
> >>
> >> > This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> >> > with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at

> >> > least as appalled at łExpelled˛ as we are. Think about it. Nothing in


> >> > recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection

> >> > to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. łI want it to be
> >> > wrong, therefore it is wrong!˛ łExpelled˛ ironically makes that case


> >> > even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> >> > purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> >> > to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the

> >> > world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldnąt want to


> >> > set the record straight about that?
> >>

> >> > So far I havenąt heard any objection to łExpelled˛ by anyone like
> >> > that, but if anyone has, Iąd be curious to hear it.


> >>
> >> Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
> >>
> >> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
> >> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
> >> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
> >>
> >> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
> >> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
> >> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
> >>
> >> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
> >>
> >> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
> >> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
> >>
> >> nss

*
"Rebuttal"

earle
*

noshellswill

unread,
May 25, 2008, 7:40:46 PM5/25/08
to
On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:04:14 -0700, Harry K wrote:

> On May 24, 6:01 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>> > Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
>>

>> Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
>>
>> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
>> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
>> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>>
>> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
>> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
>> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>>
>> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
>>
>> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
>> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
>>
>> nss
>> *****- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Bt that sounds like a scientific argument against abiogenesis. What
> does it have to do with Evolution?
>
> Harry K

HK:

The quibble is ... if a polypeptide can't find ANY stable+amusing
configuration ( in eons! ), then it certainly(?) can't find a better one
quickly enough to make any difference in a competitive, biologic system.
Said otherwise, what can't happen to a single PP_chain also can't happen
to an organism.

Please note that the initial-poster did ASK for "static". I supplied some.

Now, we KNOW that lots of non-trivial P.P. find stable/'useful'
configurations in seconds. So something REALLY interesting
happens and AFAIK the science is very incomplete. Likely the proteome
phase-space is enormously (kinetically) constrained by 'slippery slopes'
which also place analogous constraints on organism adaptivity.

nss
****

noshellswill

unread,
May 25, 2008, 7:44:06 PM5/25/08
to
On Sun, 25 May 2008 13:37:19 -0700, Tim Tyler wrote:

> On May 25, 2:05 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>> Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
>> but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
>> You must have a beginning in the right direction
>> before an evolutionary arms race can take off,
>
> Hey, it's the girafffe neck problem again!
>
> These days, it is thought that girafffe necks are
> mostly for clubbing other girafffes with.

TT:

I've seen lions bite giraffes' neck. Obviously that neck is meant to
provide lion 'purchase' ... kinda like love_handles.

So much for the "lock & key" argument.

nss
*****

Jim Lovejoy

unread,
May 25, 2008, 8:29:53 PM5/25/08
to
r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in
news:vkkj34t65o4fslc54...@4ax.com:

Loons aren't as a quick perusal of Talk.Origins will demonstrate.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 25, 2008, 9:14:36 PM5/25/08
to
On Sun, 25 May 2008 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
<seem...@googlemail.com>:

>On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>
>> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>> necessary for basic survival.
>>
>> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve.  Ants haven't gotten much
>> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
>What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.

So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

noshellswill

unread,
May 25, 2008, 10:14:38 PM5/25/08
to

LF:

Study this article, then get back to me.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys450/MARKO/N013.html

nss
*****

Chris Thompson

unread,
May 25, 2008, 10:27:14 PM5/25/08
to
noshellswill <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com:

Did you cut out a bunch of words from a biochemistry book and toss the
scraps of paper into the air, and just transcribe the ones that fell
onto the keyboard into your post?

Chris

John Harshman

unread,
May 25, 2008, 10:40:27 PM5/25/08
to

There are a few of us who might be interested in understanding what you
mean by all that apparent (to us, so far) gibberish. Are you at all
interested in explaining? You seem to be freely wandering back and forth
between primary and secondary/tertiary structure, which doesn't help.
And perhaps between single polypeptides and proteomes. For a guy who
demands mathematical rigor from everyone else, you seem amazingly
imprecise in expressing your ideas.

Kermit

unread,
May 25, 2008, 11:12:34 PM5/25/08
to

Not all humans eat fish.

What you mean is that cetaceans and humans have big brains, from which
you draw dubious conclusions. What can we conclude from observing
elephants, chimps, and the other great apes? They also have big
brains. Why did you not mention them - because it doesn't support your
claim?

> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
> reply.

Kermit

J. J. Lodder

unread,
May 26, 2008, 3:44:50 AM5/26/08
to
Féachadóir <FÈach@d.Ûir> wrote:

> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com>:


> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
> >>
> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> >> necessary for basic survival.
> >>
> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
> >
> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>

> Plankton is a fish?

Of course.
It has been proven in court under US law
that whales are fish,
so why not plankton as well?

Jan


J. J. Lodder

unread,
May 26, 2008, 3:44:48 AM5/26/08
to
Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 2:05 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
> > but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
> > You must have a beginning in the right direction
> > before an evolutionary arms race can take off,
>
> Hey, it's the girafffe neck problem again!
>
> These days, it is thought that girafffe necks are
> mostly for clubbing other girafffes with.

Human brains evolved just for finding better ways
of clubbing other humans brains in,

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
May 26, 2008, 3:44:53 AM5/26/08
to
Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
> >
> > So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> > brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> > necessary for basic survival.
> >
> > Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> > begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> > and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> > smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.

Sure, that's why those ancient Greeks were so damn clever.

Aand another mystery solved:
that's why those dumb Americans live mostly in the interior,
and why what civilization there is is found near the coasts.

One learns every day here,

Jan

Tim Tyler

unread,
May 26, 2008, 4:58:50 AM5/26/08
to
On May 26, 4:12 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 1:33 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> > > brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> > > necessary for basic survival.
>
> > > Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> > > begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> > > and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve.  Ants haven't gotten much
> > > smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> > What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> > besides an active social life?  They all eat fish - which are a
> > plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>

> Not all humans eat fish.
>
> What you mean is that cetaceans and humans have big brains, from which
> you draw dubious conclusions. What can we conclude from observing
> elephants, chimps, and the other great apes? They also have big
> brains. Why did you not mention them - because it doesn't support your
> claim?

Humans & cetaceans represent the extreme points on:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif

The elephant is also rather brainy - and seems a bit of an
exception to the general "eats fish" rule.
--

Tim Tyler

unread,
May 26, 2008, 5:03:52 AM5/26/08
to
On May 26, 2:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler

> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -


> >besides an active social life?  They all eat fish - which are a
> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?

Checking with:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif

...lower vertebrates are on a different scale - there is no
reason to expect such comparisons to be meaningful.

Ron O

unread,
May 26, 2008, 10:26:51 AM5/26/08
to
On May 25, 9:40 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> imprecise in expressing your ideas.-

It sounds like he it trying to make some kind of argument about the
lack of knowledge about protein folding at the molecular level. It
may be that he thinks that there is some problem that may affect our
interpretation of the evolutionary data.

It seems to be the bumble bee argument where you had some expert
supposedly claiming that bumble bees could not possibly fly, but we
all know that they can.

It is a no brainer that proteins fold. Unless he has some
supernatural explanation that he isn't sharing with us, they fold very
well all on their own. Heck, we have had in vitro translation systems
since the 1970's and have made proteins outside the cell for decades.
How does he think that they fold?

Heck, ask him exactly what his argument is. What does it matter? Why
worry about how proteins fold? Does he think that his designer is in
there folding them up? What model is he trying to support?

Ron Okimoto

Geoff

unread,
May 26, 2008, 11:40:49 AM5/26/08
to

Like the love handles on your brain?


Bob Casanova

unread,
May 26, 2008, 7:08:20 PM5/26/08
to
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:50 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

There's a taxing issue involving plankton?

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 26, 2008, 7:09:23 PM5/26/08
to
On Mon, 26 May 2008 02:03:52 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
<seem...@googlemail.com>:

>On May 26, 2:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
>
>> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>> >besides an active social life?  They all eat fish - which are a
>> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>>
>> So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
>
>Checking with:
>
>http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif
>
>...lower vertebrates are on a different scale - there is no
>reason to expect such comparisons to be meaningful.

Thanks for admitting that your comparison is meaningless.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 26, 2008, 7:09:58 PM5/26/08
to
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:53 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

One certainly learns about bigots.

hersheyh

unread,
May 26, 2008, 7:40:31 PM5/26/08
to
On May 24, 7:48 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
> I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent

If you grant common descent, the only scientific argument is about
which evolutionary mechanism is at work.

One can argue, of course, that common descent does not work at the
very base of life to generate the last common ancestor of all the
current life forms (which *did* arise by common descent). Before that
time one could argue for a sort of living collective, sharing genes
and functions at random, containing more or less of those genes. So
*that* would be my best bet for a 'scientific' argument against common
descent.

Secondarily, I would argue that the apparent dominance of common
descent is misleading when applied to the procaryotic world.

> or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> well above the species level.

That is a bit to vague to come up with an actual objection, since all
the labels applied above the species level are often arbitrary in
nature. [Some would argue that 'species' itself is, to a great
extent, arbitrary.] But I would argue for a much larger role for RM +
neutral drift and fixation at all levels.

Perhaps I would try to argue that the conditions required to produce
natural selection *for* change rather than *against* change are too
rare. But I would have a hard time doing that.

I waited to give some creationist an opportunity to jump in, but none
did.

Another objection that could be made is that the 'altruism' involved
in the conversion of unicellulars into multicellulars (giving up their
ability to be the reproductive cell) is too large for such an event to
happen without an outside boost. That, and the existence of apoptosis
and 'suicide genes' in bacteria. [Yeah. I know the counterarguments,
at least in principle, but it would be a much more interesting
argument compared to the "It looks designed to me, so my particular
God must have done it the way the Bible sayz." crowd.] It is, of
course, an argument that Darwin was aware of.

I could also claim that there are examples, in nature, of "Lamarkian"
genetics that cannot work by RM + NS. But that would only apply to a
tiny possible fraction.

And I could always pull a Sean Pitman and pull numbers out of my arse
and make bogus assumptions to support my numerology. But you wanted
honest scientific objections...

r norman

unread,
May 26, 2008, 7:15:05 PM5/26/08
to
On Mon, 26 May 2008 16:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:50 +0200, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder):
>

>>Féachadóir <FÈach@d.Ûir> wrote:
>>
>>> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com>:
>>> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>>> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>>> >> necessary for basic survival.
>>> >>
>>> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>>> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>>> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
>>> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>>> >
>>> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>>> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>>> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>>>
>>> Plankton is a fish?
>>
>>Of course.
>>It has been proven in court under US law
>>that whales are fish,
>>so why not plankton as well?
>
>There's a taxing issue involving plankton?

Have you ever tried to identify the stuff in a plankton haul? It is
quite taxing, indeed!


Ben Standeven

unread,
May 27, 2008, 1:17:13 AM5/27/08
to
On May 26, 4:40 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Another objection that could be made is that the 'altruism' involved
> in the conversion of unicellulars into multicellulars (giving up their
> ability to be the reproductive cell) is too large for such an event to
> happen without an outside boost.

An "outside boost" wouldn't work; according to this argument you'd
have to continually cull the lineages that revert to the unicellular
state.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
May 27, 2008, 4:00:34 AM5/27/08
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

You were not amused?

Jan

Devil's Advocaat

unread,
May 27, 2008, 11:20:33 AM5/27/08
to

Personally I would like to learn about smallots. :P


> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."

>                           - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

Devil's Advocaat

unread,
May 27, 2008, 11:19:20 AM5/27/08
to
On 27 May, 00:08, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:50 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>
>
>
>
> >Féachadóir <FÈach@d.Ûir> wrote:
>
> >> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com>:

> >> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>
> >> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> >> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> >> >> necessary for basic survival.
>
> >> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> >> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> >> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve.  Ants haven't gotten much
> >> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> >> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> >> >besides an active social life?  They all eat fish - which are a
> >> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> >> Plankton is a fish?
>
> >Of course.
> >It has been proven in court under US law
> >that whales are fish,
> >so why not plankton as well?
>
> There's a taxing issue involving plankton?

I would like to know who is taxing the plankton? After all, apart from
the one bit of plankton in Bikini Bottom I don't see any others trying
to earn a living even if it is one based on stealing someone else's
successful business strategy. :P


> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."

chris thompson

unread,
May 27, 2008, 11:33:52 AM5/27/08
to
On May 26, 5:03 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
> > >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> > >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> > >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> > So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
>
> Checking with:
>
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif
>
> ...lower vertebrates are on a different scale - there is no
> reason to expect such comparisons to be meaningful.


"Lower vertebrates"? People who live in the mountains are smarter than
people at sea level? Or dwarfs are smarter than giants?

Chris

chris thompson

unread,
May 27, 2008, 11:30:26 AM5/27/08
to

Nos is constantly asserting that without an exact knowledge of every
single reaction, at every level down to muons, I imagine, there's no
way we can say evolution has occurred. We aren't even allowed to make
predictions based on known selection pressures. I provided that
simple system for him and he allowed as it probably did make accurate
predictions about allele and genotype frequencies, but unfortunately
for me, it still wasn't science. Unfortunately, his PC ran out
electrons (or something- maybe his dog ate his hard drive) before he
could tell me exactly _why_ it wasn't science.

Chris

r norman

unread,
May 27, 2008, 12:11:52 PM5/27/08
to

Sunfood Nutrition sells 1 oz. of "Oceans Alive Marine Phytoplankton"
for $59.95. Certainly that company must pay tax!

Incidentally, the reason they sell it is that: "This unique
super-nutrient from the ocean provides the body with an increase in
residual energy that builds up significantly when it is ingested on a
daily basis. With its abundance of naturally produced vitamins,
minerals and original life force (absorbed directly from the Sun),
everyone that partakes will enjoy a ‘whole body’ inner strength that
they have never experienced before. "

The Enigmatic One

unread,
May 27, 2008, 4:13:28 PM5/27/08
to
In article <pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com>, noshel...@gmail.com
says...

>
>Gents:
>
>I see no calculations. That is your problem. I assign grades for work only.
>
>"Expelled"? What is this -expelled- you speak of ?
>
>" '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.

Wow.

You're really stupid.


-Tim

Glend

unread,
May 27, 2008, 4:34:11 PM5/27/08
to
On May 24, 4:48 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
> I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of

> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's

> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
>
> Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
> people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
> would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
> not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
> out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
> best guess for an alternate explanation.
>
> This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
> least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
> recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
> to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
> wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
> even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
> world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
> set the record straight about that?
>
> So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like
> that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.

I'd agree with Ron O, I think there are people who believe that they
have purely scientific objections, though generally they're pretty
pathetically ignorant about the matter.

Berlinski, who is at the DI, claims to be such a person. Well, he
doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.

True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
in philosophers' metaphysics. So it's hard to judge whether his
objections should be considered scientific even in form.

And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
own mind.

I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
their objections to be perfectly objective and honest. I think there
are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
and honest. Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
ought to understand the evidence.

I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
evolution. Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Ray Martinez

unread,
May 27, 2008, 4:45:03 PM5/27/08
to

Evolution is false because the observation of design and organized
complexity seen in nature and living things logically corresponds
directly to Divine causation, not material or natural causation.

The second fact that falsifies evolution is the fact that there is no
such thing as material or natural causation - they don't exist. A few
truisms packaged together (and held together by arguments from
authority) are not a mechanism.

The Nature we see corresponds to Divine power and mind.

Evolution is Atheism packaged as science.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
May 27, 2008, 5:06:58 PM5/27/08
to

Whenever an evolutionist attempts to dismiss scientific evidence that
harms their theory as coming from ignorant persons, logically this is
the best evidence that they cannot refute, having no answer. This is
how we explain the misrepresentation of labelling scientific
objections as coming from "ignorant persons."


> Berlinski, who is at the DI, claims to be such a person.  Well, he
> doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.
>
> True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
> in philosophers' metaphysics.  So it's hard to judge whether his
> objections should be considered scientific even in form.
>

What persons say who cannot refute. Very predictable.

> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
> it's not hard physics.  That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
> own mind.
>

Evolutionists misrepresenting an IDist - what else is new?

> I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
> line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
> their objections to be perfectly objective and honest.  I think there
> are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
> faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
> misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
> nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
> and honest.  Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
> definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
> difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
> ought to understand the evidence.
>

The agree-with-me-or-you-do-not-understand-science-or-are-dishonest
card.

We know that this is what persons say who cannot address, much less
refute.


> I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
> to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
> evolution.

"If you object then you do not understand."

This is a tactic or circular defense.

It is countered by saying: if you agree that evolution is
scientifically true then you do not understand science.

> Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
> and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
> objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
> that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.
>

> Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

This says unless you agree with me you are prejudiced and do not
understand science.

Okay, in reverse: if you agree with Glend you are prejudiced and do
not understand science.

So much for evolutionists are their silly rhetorical devices
attempting to undermine scientific objections of evolution.

Ray

Ye Old One

unread,
May 27, 2008, 5:14:26 PM5/27/08
to
On Tue, 27 May 2008 13:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>Evolution is false because the observation of design and organized
>complexity seen in nature and living things logically corresponds
>directly to Divine causation, not material or natural causation.

Evolution is a fact.

No design is seen in nature.

There is no evidence for anything "divine".


>
>The second fact that falsifies evolution is the fact that there is no
>such thing as material or natural causation - they don't exist.

Are we talking about causation?

> A few
>truisms packaged together (and held together by arguments from
>authority) are not a mechanism.
>
>The Nature we see corresponds to Divine power and mind.

No it doesn't.


>
>Evolution is Atheism packaged as science.

Evolution is a fact.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 27, 2008, 6:04:00 PM5/27/08
to
On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:15:05 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net>:

<snort!> Point taken... ;-)

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 27, 2008, 6:05:59 PM5/27/08