Behe's evolutionary views

[RonO]

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/behe-debates-the-limits-of-darwinian-evolution/

This is up on Glenn's favorite creationist IDiotic news site, but it is
likely something that Glenn wants to remain willfully ignorant of.

Around 11 minutes in Behe gets to his views on evolution. He can accept
common descent as long as the designer was tweeking things to get that
done. He claims that Darwinian evolution can account for the evolution
within families, but not between families, but the example he gave was
cats and dog kind that are different families in Carnivora, but they are
actually in different suborders within carnivora. He has no evidence
that evolution would suddenly stop at some point after a few million
years and the designer would have to take over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal_classification

He goes on about evolution of different genera within families that have
occurred within the last 3 million years, but those are examples of an
amazing about of evolution that occurred within a short period of time.
3 million years is about the time that bonobos have been separated from
chimps, and they can still interbreed and produce viable hybrids.
Behe's examples evolved multiple genera in that time period.

The evolution of the great apes including humans was all evolution
within a family. Behe really believes that Darwinian mechanisms can
account for a massive amount of biological evolution, but he claims that
it has limits, but those limits aren't anything that IDiots like Glenn
want to believe.

The other fellow in on the discussion even claims that IDiots are
misusing Behe's books if they use them as anti-evolution junk. Behe
doesn't disagree, but the reason that Behe concentrates on evolution
denial in his books where he admits that biological evolution is a fact
of nature is because he needs to sell books to the anti-evolutionist
creationists IDiots Like Glenn.

Glenn should listen to this discussion and try to figure out what Behe
is selling IDiots.

As a side note Behe seems to be physically degenerating. That is not
meant as a bad criticism, but he is acting like someones ancient
relative and he is likely only around 70 years old. His speech isn't
what it was when he tried to defend IDiocy in Dover around 17 years ago.
Behe's speaking ability is degenerating. My mother is 90 years old,
and she can do better than Behe. It may be that Glenn should figure out
what Behe is selling before he has to rely on other ID perp's dishonest
opinions on the subject.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/behe-debates-the-limits-of-darwinian-evolution/
>
> This is up on Glenn's favorite creationist IDiotic news site, but it is
> likely something that Glenn wants to remain willfully ignorant of.
>

Shhh. I'm hunting wabbit.

[Gary Hurd]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

The Disco'tutes are having a revival of sorts. DrDr Dembski is ranting about Jason Rosenhouse,
2022 “The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism” Cambridge University Press.

That motivated me to buy a copy.

And my life-long favorite moment from the Dover Pandas Trial will still be:
Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?

Dr. Behe, "No, I am not."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

[RonO]

Snipping and running dosn't change reality. Have you ever wanted to
understand anything that you have ever been fed by the ID perps?

REPOST:

This is up on Glenn's favorite creationist IDiotic news site, but it is
likely something that Glenn wants to remain willfully ignorant of.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:36:31 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:

Please provide a review when you're through reading it.

>And my life-long favorite moment from the Dover Pandas Trial will still be:
>Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?
>
>Dr. Behe, "No, I am not."
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

That's the kind of spontaneous publicity that makes people.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

That makes people what, puke?

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/31/2022 8:33 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/behe-debates-the-limits-of-darwinian-evolution/
> >>
> >> This is up on Glenn's favorite creationist IDiotic news site, but it is
> >> likely something that Glenn wants to remain willfully ignorant of.
> >>
> > Shhh. I'm hunting wabbit.
> >
> Snipping and running dosn't change reality. Have you ever wanted to
> understand anything that you have ever been fed by the ID perps?
>

Ron, try to understand. The only readers you will get that would not think you are out of your mind are those that would believe what you tell them about what I think and believe.
They certainly do not hear what you tell them about me, from me.
Who do you think those people might be? Creationists, IDers, or evolutionists?

[RonO]

Why lie about this junk. You can determine what Behe is saying
yourself, but you would rather snip and run. That is you are doing.
Why not understand the evolutionnews article and discussion content?
Why isn't it an option? You are just what you are. You can just go 11
minutes into the video to get Behe's views. There is no reason to run
from reality.

REPOST:

Snipping and running dosn't change reality. Have you ever wanted to
understand anything that you have ever been fed by the ID perps?

REPOST:

This is up on Glenn's favorite creationist IDiotic news site, but it is
likely something that Glenn wants to remain willfully ignorant of.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

How dare you not recognize the sheer logical brilliance of Glenn’s reply
above. At least he didn’t fart again. Someone will come along later today
to scold you more than I for failing to acknowledge the impeccable nature
of Glenn’s rebuttal to your OP.

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:24:51 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/31/2022 8:33 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/behe-debates-the-limits-of-darwinian-evolution/
>> >>
>> >> This is up on Glenn's favorite creationist IDiotic news site, but it is
>> >> likely something that Glenn wants to remain willfully ignorant of.
>> >>
>> > Shhh. I'm hunting wabbit.
>> >
>> Snipping and running dosn't change reality. Have you ever wanted to
>> understand anything that you have ever been fed by the ID perps?
>>
>Ron, try to understand. The only readers you will get that would not think you are out of your mind are those that would believe what you tell them about what I think and believe.
>They certainly do not hear what you tell them about me, from me.

To the contrary, you are the seminal source of what RonO says about
you.

>Who do you think those people might be? Creationists, IDers, or evolutionists?

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:10:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

I suppose some people might react to Steve Martin that way.

[jillery]

Perhaps if Glenn varied his predictable mindless noise? Examples:

"Shhh. I'm hunting wabbit farts."

"Shhh. I'm hunting farting wabbits."

"Shhh. I'm farting wabbits."

Vote for your favorite.

[Glenn]

Mindless noise is what comes from you following me around everywhere.

[Glenn]

Someone hasn't posted in ages.

[Glenn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hurd

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 11:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Yes, it's all about you. You are a legend in your own mind.

[Glenn]

I'm only a figment of your imagination.

[Pro Plyd]

With Behe involved, yes.

[Pro Plyd]

Time for a refresher



https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told/

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify
his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s
definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.

[Glenn]

You've posted this crap before. And I've posted this before:

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/12/did-michael-behe-say-that-astrology-was.html

Perhaps some of the audience and school board were laughing at Rothschild.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 21:01:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Odd that you cite someone you regularly refer to as "Moron".

I acknowledge Moran says he mostly agrees with Behe's comments. The
key word is "mostly". Moran spells out his disagreement:
******************************************************
He [Behe] should have been defining "science" not "scientific theory."
That's the fault of his lawyers who failed to make this point during
his direct testimony.
*******************************************************

I agree with Moran's point, that past scientific theories ought not be
judged against current knowledge. However, ID's advocates have access
to modern knowledge. They can't reasonably hide behind their
ignorance, just as modern believers in astrology can't.

[Glenn]

Support that claim.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 10:14:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Specify your 'that'.
Specify what you would accept as support for 'that'.
State whether you disagree with 'that' or whether your challenge is
just more mindless noise for the sake of it.

[Glenn]

I just farted.

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>I just farted.


The above is an example of what Glenn and PeeWee Peter claim is a
substantive and relevant comment.

[Glenn]

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 11:15:42 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I just farted.
>
>
> The above is an example of what Glenn and PeeWee Peter claim is a
> substantive and relevant comment.
> --

Speaking for me, eh. Take it or leave it, you'll smell just the same.

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 01:02:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 11:15:42 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I just farted.
>>
>>
>> The above is an example of what Glenn and PeeWee Peter claim is a
>> substantive and relevant comment.
>> --
>Speaking for me, eh. Take it or leave it, you'll smell just the same.

So you admit you post willfully stupid noise for the sake of it.
That's the first step to recovery.

[Pro Plyd]

Transcript from the afternoon of day 11

https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_1018_day11_pm.pdf

Page 38
Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,

Page 39
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.

[Glenn]

You're a fundamentalist atheist activist.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 21:06:52 -0600, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

A problem for Behe is, astrology never was based on physical,
observable data. Instead, it was and is based on ad hoc presumptions
of which heavenly bodies affect what human characteristics. IOW
astrology is unscientific speculation not because it's provably
incorrect, but because it was never based on any physical, observable
data necessary to elevate it beyond speculation.

And ID fails as a scientific theory for exactly the same reason.
Cdesign proponentsists can arguably show designs, but their expressed
connection from designs to ID, that only purposeful intelligence can
cause designs, is an ad hoc presumption which incidentally is proved
factually incorrect.

[Mark Isaak]

I think ID is even farther from being science than astrology is. With
astrology, people *thought* there was observable data to support it
(people's personalities seemingly matching predictions, e.g.). With ID,
there is not even that. The only data they point to is (they think)
against evolution. Nothing at all to support ID.

Granted, in practice, most astrologers do not bother to look at any
evidence, even imagined evidence, so the distance between it and ID is
small.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Ernest Major]

A causative relationship between the position of the planets and
terrestrial events or peoples' personalities is deeply implausible, but
I'm mildly surprised that no-one has found a statistically robust
correlation between birth sign and a personality trait - I imagine that
it makes a difference whether you spend your first few months of life in
a cot in a cold dark room, or a pram in a warm sunny garden. Note the
implication that any correlations would only apply to specific
geographic regions (and would be inverted between Britain and New Zealand).

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

We had that discussion a while back - and for the reason you give I'd
say the issue is more complex, though on balance I agree that astrology
probably did not raise to the standard of science even when measured
against the understanding of science at the time. But it is a balanced
case, and some good historians of science have argued the opposite, that
some forms of astrology as practiced in some cultures was more akin to
the alchemy Newton practiced - a precursor to modern chemistry, not
something radically different.

Alexsander Birkmeyer's "Etudes d‘Histoires des Sciences" from 1977 makes
arguments similar to yours - that especially in hunter-gatherer
communities, or early agrarian societies, when you were born determined
quite a bit about you, simply by the effects of malnutrition. lack of
sunshine etc etc in your earliest months. There have been studies that
tested this, but could not find one offhand - problem is that as far as
I recall, there was no clear pattern.

There is also often an intermingling here between predicting nature and
people. If in that society storms, rivers etc are typically personified,
then "astrology" was a reasonable good predictor for when the next
flooding/rain season etc would come. And soem of them were remarkably
empirical in their approach, collecting data over centuries to adjust
and refine their predictions - the Babylonian diaries e.g. are as a
result a massive source of historical data from that time (great
discussion in U. Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian astrology. An
)introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian astrology (1995) Copenhagen

That these plausible patterns were then extended to (other)people was
of course in retrospect unwarranted, but driven in a way by a
(proto)scientific logic that extends by analogy an explanation that
works in one context to other contexts (Newton's principle of the
similarity of causes and their effects)

Another case that Birkmeyer uses is that of Keppler, who kept detailed
notes of his predictions and checked up on their success - and making
changes in his methods when they failed. This was not uncommon among
Renaissance astrologers

The majority of historians of science I think come down on the other
side, A. C. Crombie's book "Augustine to Galileo: The
History of Science A.D. 400–1600 decries astrology as superstitition
that was incompatible even with the science of the 4th century.

On balance, I'd agree with them. Mainly because the problems with
astrology had been known even by their contemporaries, and were never
satisfactorily addressed - yes, there was refinement on the basis of
observation, but no answer to obvious questions like: How can it be that
in a battle thousands die, all born on different days (so already
Cicero) But it isn't a slam dunk either, and a lot depends on a) what
culture and time you think of and b) your preferred definition of
science (which renders part of the discussion an issue of semantics)

[jillery]

To quote Milton, "The mind can make a heaven out of hell and a hell
out of heaven." IOW the mind informs our fates more than do heavenly
bodies.

[Mark Isaak]

Ah, but such a correlation *was* found, once. Michel Gauquelin found a
small but significant correlation between athletic eminence and the
position of Mars. However, the effect could be explained by biased
sampling or perhaps by families fudging recorded times of births
according to astrological principles (was was known to happen back when
most births occurred outside hospitals). With modern data and
particular efforts to avoid bias (e.g., a beforehand criterion for what
qualifies as athletic eminence), the correlation disappears. Google
"Mars Effect" for more information.

[Pro Plyd]

They weren't laughing at Rothschild...