Michael Behe's Argument against Indirect Pathways to Irreducible
Switch89
arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
problems with the evolution of the cilia.
Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
Ron O
With this topic and a tag like Switch you could be trolling. The ID
perps are currently running a dishonest bait and switch scam on their
own creationist support base. Every school board and legislator that
has claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent design has had
the bait and switch scam played on them. They even tried to run in
the switch in Dover, but those guys are the only ones that would not
take the switch or drop the issue and the rest is history. Florida,
earlier this year, was the latest major public bait and switch. You
had multiple legislators and local school boards claiming that they
wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but all they got
was the bogus switch scam.
Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
Dover fiasco. The fact is that IC was never defined well enough to
justify testing the notion. Any rebuttals of the IC junk has to face
the shifting goal posts of an unstable definition. Even Behe admitted
under oath that he hadn't gotten around to any verification testing.
He even claimed that it wasn't up to him to do any testing. With
crackpot claims like that, there is no reason to refute the junk in
his book until he comes up with something that he thinks is worth
testing and arguing about.
The ID perps, themselves, have decided to run a stupid and dishonest
bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters rather than
support their lame junk like IC. All you have to do is look into the
switch scam and notice that it doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed and you know for a fact that they don't have anything worth
supporting at this time. Why would they hide some wonderful ID
science and run a bogus bait and switch? Only the most clueless will
deny that they claimed that they could teach the science of
intelligent design, but now the ID perps are running in a switch scam
on any rube stupid enough to have believed them. They even started to
run the bait and switch years before they lost in court in Dover. You
don't do that if you believe that you really have an argument.
Anyone that doesn't believe this, just get your local school board to
teach the science of intelligent design and watch the switch come in.
You can even make it a point to claim that IC is one of the IDiot
claims that you are going to teach. Look at who is running the switch
scam and you will find that it is the same dishonest bunch that fooled
you with the ID scam. No further arguments should be necessary.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
Others will be better at providing links, but IIRC, Behe has dropped
cilia and a few other "icons" as examples of IC. I don't think he ever
conceded that they are not IC, but rather found arguments that are
more successful at impressing the intended audience. If/when they
become too difficult, he can always find other icons.
In the meantime, Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (1999) has
some rebuttals to Behe's cilia arguments.
One thing I do know in general is that rebuttals to any IC=ID argument
get rather technical, and that means that Behe's intended audience is
unlikely to follow them. But they will likely remember Behe's sound
bites of incredulity. Implicit in all the IC=ID arguments is that
mainstream science must outline nearly every step of the process that
occurred over the billions of years, or the default "explanation" is
"then a miracle happened." But the "challenger" doesn't need to
provide any detail, let alone a "pathetic level" about his own
alternative pathway. Not even the basic "whens," or even whether the
process occurred in-vivo or required new origin-of life events.
Unfortunately most nonscientists have no problem with this double
standard. In fairness I should add that Behe has clearly favored the
"in-vivo" and agreed with mainstream science on the chronology, but
other IDers refuse to be pinned down.
As for direct vs. indirect, again, I hope others provide the links,
but I think that most of that was addressed *after* "Darwin's Black
Box." Not that Behe hadn't thought of it, but rather thought that it
would confuse his audience (not unlike leaving theistic evolutionists
out of "Expelled"). The general argument against "indirect" is that
the probability for "simultaneous" changes is too low for it to occur
"naturally." Of course the intended audience will usually not know
that the calculations are at best unreliable. But even if they were
reliable, the onus would be on the "challenger" to outline the
"direct" pathway - and test it. And there are no signs that that will
happen any time soon.
Frank J
> On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> > arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> > problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> > Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> > know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> > against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
> With this topic and a tag like Switch you could be trolling.
We're all troll weary lately, especially due to "Muriel," but I'd give
Switch89 the benefit of the doubt to start.
Actually I can use some clarification as to what is "switched." AIUI
the IC and CSI arguments flood the non-peer-reviewed literature as
"evidence" of ID (but not necessarily "creationism"), but what is
planned for 9th grade science class is not that at all, but rather
long-refuted "weaknesses" such as Haeckel's embryos, Peppered moths,
Piltdown Man, etc. Is that right? But what about the flagellum? I
would guess that they wouldn't want to pass that up, at least as a
"weakness" of "Darwinism," if not "evidence" of ID.
Ron O
Without the bogus probability argument and something like IC or the
explanatory filter to back it up the ID perps can't really use the
flagellum in any teachable lesson. Yeah, I know that doesn't stop
them from using all kinds of other bogus junk. Who could believe that
the Ohio rubes would put the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree
trunks in their switch scam lesson plan?
What would the take home message be? The wonders of nature? How much
we have learned in the last 50 years? Science just doesn't know
everything, but that doesn't mean that science has learned nothing.
Are they going to tell the students that the flagellum has been around
for over 2 billion years? Would they use the protein sequences to
show the students evidence that a lot of the proteins in the flagellum
are related to each other and the evidence that gene duplication has
played a major part in the evolution and construction of the
flagellum? They could do a lot with the flagellum, but nothing that
would really help the IDiots unless they just put it up and said look
how complex it is and moved on. If anyone tried to teach what we
actually know about the flagellum the anti-science creationists would
not like it a bit.
There is also the fact that the IDiots are trying to hide under a rock
and at the same time trying to slither out and slime anyone that
passes within reach. The flagellum is obviously tied to the ID scam.
The dishonest creationist scam artists want as few links back to the
bogus ID scam as they can manage. It sounds stupid since they are the
guys that ran the bogus ID scam. They have to work hard to make the
switch scam look like it is different from the ID scam. Only a moron
would be deceived, but they have to try or nothing really matters what
they do. If the ID perps were really interested in advancing the
religious political movement that they claimed to support in the Wedge
Document, they would bow out and appologize for running the bogus ID
scam and let a pristine group of scam artists take over. This group
seem more interested in hiking onto a gravy train than doing anything
constructive, and it looks like the Wedge document was likely just a
fund raising document to bilk money out of any creationist rube
willing to give it to them. It was the Discovery Institute that made
just that claim to try to lie about their motives being scientific in
stead of religious. The claim that the Wedge document was just a fund
raising document may be about the only honest claim that has come out
of the Discovery Institute. Just think how little regard the ID perps
had for their supporters to think that their supporters would accept
the lie about the Wedge document in order to keep lying about their
political and religious motives for running the ID scam? The saddest
thing is enough of their supporters accept such bogus antics to keep
the organization running.
There are still scientific creationist organizations so ID will likely
be around for quite a while, but that obviously doesn't mean that ID
is legitimate, or that the movement's political muscle haven't given
up on it to move on to something else just like they dropped
scientific creationism for the ID scam.
All they can do is pretend. If they put blood clotting or flagellum
into the switch scam lesson plan it gets harder to pretend. There is
likely to be a breaking point even for the creationist rubes that want
to be lied to, and the ID perps probably don't want to push their luck
that far.
Ron Okimoto
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>
>> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
snipped Ron O's paranoia.
>
>Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
>rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
>Dover fiasco.
It is highly amusing that Ron O cites the decision of a non scientific
court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were
relevent to any scientific issue. Unfortunately the Dover court
neither proved nor established much of anything.
The Dover Court's only mission was to determine if the teaching of ID
in a particular public school district violated the Supreme Cout's
"lemon test." The "lemon test" has nothing to do with truth or
falsity of a particular concept---scientific or otherwise.
The Dover court was not an independent authority of truth--because no
such entity exists. It depended upon the testimony of experts on both
sides and then wet it's finger and stuck it in the air to decide. Even
if we assume that the Dover court rightly applied the "lemon" test to
the Dover case this is hardly relevent to the truth or falsity of
Behe's IC theory or Dembski's ID theory.
snip, more to follow if time permits.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>
>> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>The fact is that IC was never defined well enough to
>justify testing the notion.
IC is no more or less defined than any other concept---all words (and
concepts) have fuzziness. The label "species" is a case in point.
"Species" held differing value, meaning, and importance to Darwin,
Mayr, Dawkins, and Gould (for examples) not only because of what they
attached to that label but how it fit into their framework of
evolutionary theories.
>Any rebuttals of the IC junk has to face
>the shifting goal posts of an unstable definition.
This is nonsense since in 1996 Behe reported two real world biological
systems that fit the definition and grounded the concept in reality.
And the truth is that atheists have yet to apply any extant real world
system which fits the definition of IC-----in all its
fuzziness-----AND also can be explained by real world purely
naturalistic processes.
And I think that sounds like a challenge to Ron O. None of the heavy
hitters have produced, but maybe Ron O can. Heaven knows Harshman is
too terrified to produce anything.
snip, more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo hoo.
Don't like the Dover decision?
Tough shit.
(shrug)
By the way, Tony, dom you want your balls back yet . . . . . ?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>
>> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
snip
>Even Behe admitted
>under oath that he hadn't gotten around to any verification testing.
>He even claimed that it wasn't up to him to do any testing.
With regard to General Relativity Einstein never conducted a single
real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington. Neither have
any of the String Theorists conducted any empirical tests. And it is
readily admitted that there is no hope of any possible empirical test
in the near future yet it is accepted for review, investigation, and
no one goes to court to keep it out of the schools.
Darwin was principly a naturalist; that is, he made observations of
nature. He made not a single experiment to prove that random
mutations conjoined to natural selection ever resulted in the
emergence and development of novelty. And in 1859 he knew well that
the fossil record contradicted his purely naturalistic and by
necessity gradualistic process. He hoped others AFTER hime would
conduct tests as more was known.
I suspect I might find with a little digging that it is often the case
that revolutionary new theories about the world rarely have empirical
support and often require other fields to progress before such tests
can be completed.
In other words Ron O is grossly ignorant of the history of science and
applies rules to ID and creationism which his atheist pet theories
don't have to meet.
>With
>crackpot claims like that, there is no reason to refute the junk in
>his book until he comes up with something that he thinks is worth
>testing and arguing about.
Interestingly atheistic scientists took Behe's [1996] "Darwin's Black
Box" more seriously than they had taken any other creationist work
since the re emergence of creationism in the early 1960s.
And Behe's latest "The Edge of Evolution" has completely stymied the
atheist world because, like "Darwin's Black Box" doesn't present
philosophical hot air but presents real world biological systems.
I rather suspect that Ron O has neither read the Dover Transcript in
its whole any more than he's actually read Behe's books. In other
words he argues from near complete ignorance.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Ron O
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> >> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> >> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> >> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> >> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> >> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
> snipped Ron O's paranoia.
I'd say the same about Pagano, but the evidence that he is competent
enough to be paranoid is in question.
>
>
>
> >Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
> >rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
> >Dover fiasco.
>
> It is highly amusing that Ron O cites the decision of a non scientific
> court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were
> relevent to any scientific issue. Unfortunately the Dover court
> neither proved nor established much of anything.
Unfotunately for Pagano the court did not have to demonstrate the
bogousity of ID the ID perps did that themselves.
It isn't the science side that is forcing these issues into the court
system. No one could possibly deny that bogus scams like ID go to
court because the creationist rubes that buy into the scams force the
issue. If ID were left to seek its level in the scientific arena,
where any such debate should occur, it never rises to any level where
serious scientists can address it. The only reason why the ignorant,
incompetent and/or dishonest anti-science creationists have to resort
to their current bogus activities is that they have no scientific
argument. Heck there has been a 100% failure rate for the god did it
notions in all the history of science. It doesn't take a genius to
understand that if the ID perps had a single example of their
intelligent design inference being verified for something that we can
study in nature that we would already be teaching it. Pagano can't go
to any of the ID scam outfits like the Discovery Institute and find a
list of scientific achievements for ID because there isn't a single ID
success in the entire history of science. One of the things that both
Minnich and Behe agreed on was that there had never been a scientific
paper published supporting intelligent design. Not by themselves nor
anyone that they knew of. You can't teach any ID science if you
haven't bothered to do any ID science.
>
> The Dover Court's only mission was to determine if the teaching of ID
> in a particular public school district violated the Supreme Cout's
> "lemon test." The "lemon test" has nothing to do with truth or
> falsity of a particular concept---scientific or otherwise.
Pagano refuses to acknowledge that it was the school boards defense
that requested that the scientific merits of ID be considered. If ID
were scientific and there was something worth teaching, then even if
the board had religious motivations for forcing it into the cirriculum
the court could not keep it from being taught in the science class.
>
> The Dover court was not an independent authority of truth--because no
> such entity exists. It depended upon the testimony of experts on both
> sides and then wet it's finger and stuck it in the air to decide. Even
> if we assume that the Dover court rightly applied the "lemon" test to
> the Dover case this is hardly relevent to the truth or falsity of
> Behe's IC theory or Dembski's ID theory.
One of the reasons Pagano is such a loser is because he still defends
the dishonest perps that lied to him about the nonexistant science of
intelligent design. Pagano knows for a fact that the ID perps began
running the bait and switch scam on rubes like himself years before ID
ever went to court in Dover. Honest people with something worth
teaching do not do things like that. ID was a loser even in the eyes
of the bogus creationists that were running the scam. If it were not
then in 2002-2003 Ohio would have gotten the ID science to teach and
instead of getting a worthless switch scam that didn't even mention
that ID ever existed they would have gotten something about IC or
anything about ID science to teach.
Dembski, Meyer et al., at the Discovery Institute used to claim that
ID was their business, but Meyer ran the bait and switch on Ohio
personally. Pagano can't deny that because it was Meyer that claimed
that he proposed the teach the controversy switch scam to the Ohio
board. The board had claimed that they wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design, but what did Meyer give them? Two years before
Dover the bait and switch was already in play. ID lost among the ID
perps long before it lost in the courts. When a second rate switch
scam gets put up instead of the mighty science of ID by the guys that
perpetrated the ID creationist scam, you don't have to guess at what
scientific value ID has.
Ron Okimoto
wf3h
>
> With regard to General Relativity Einstein never conducted a single
> real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington.
this is often the case in science. few scientists are both excellent
theoreticians and experimentalists. in fact, it was a common comment,
almost a cliche, about fermi that he was both an excellent
theoretician and experimentalist
not, of course, that pagano would have known this.
Neither have
> any of the String Theorists conducted any empirical tests. And it is
> readily admitted that there is no hope of any possible empirical test
> in the near future yet it is accepted for review, investigation, and
> no one goes to court to keep it out of the schools.
pagano's unaware that some tests of string theory...like short range
variations in gravitational strength, are being done as we speak
not, of course, that pagano, a creationist, would know this.
>
> I suspect I might find with a little digging that it is often the case
> that revolutionary new theories about the world rarely have empirical
> support and often require other fields to progress before such tests
> can be completed.
>
> In other words Ron O is grossly ignorant of the history of science and
> applies rules to ID and creationism which his atheist pet theories
> don't have to meet.
tony thinks that only fundamentalists can do science. he thinks he
knows the history of science
unfortunately for pagano, the history of science is replete with
atheists, including einstein, weinberg, feynman, etc. if pagano wants
to exclude atheists from science then he has to destroy science
in addition, pagano has a bizarre view of his own church. he's called
his church's entire bishop's conference a group of heretics. so pagano
has an 'eccentric' view of both science AND religoin
>
> >With
> >crackpot claims like that, there is no reason to refute the junk in
> >his book until he comes up with something that he thinks is worth
> >testing and arguing about.
>
> Interestingly atheistic scientists took Behe's [1996] "Darwin's Black
> Box" more seriously than they had taken any other creationist work
> since the re emergence of creationism in the early 1960s.
which is like being the tallest building in witchita kansas. we didn't
take it seriously at all. in addition, behe doesn't take it seriously.
he hasn't done anything since his book. those of us at lehigh
university were amused by his silence after he took the money and ran
after duping ignorant intellectual peasants like pagano.
>
> And Behe's latest "The Edge of Evolution" has completely stymied the
> atheist world because, like "Darwin's Black Box" doesn't present
> philosophical hot air but presents real world biological systems.
unfortunately, as behe testified at the 'dover' trial, he's not up on
biology. he doesn't read it. he doesn't know how evolution works.
>
> I rather suspect that Ron O has neither read the Dover Transcript in
> its whole any more than he's actually read Behe's books. In other
> words he argues from near complete ignorance.
i suspect that tony's hever had a chance to talk with behe. they might
enjoy each other's company, both being incompetent in their respective
fields
wf3h
>
> This is nonsense since in 1996 Behe reported two real world biological
> systems that fit the definition and grounded the concept in reality.
> And the truth is that atheists have yet to apply any extant real world
> system which fits the definition of IC-----in all its
> fuzziness-----AND also can be explained by real world purely
> naturalistic processes.
>
unfortunately for pagano, at the dover trial, behe admitted he'd not
read any of the works on the evolution of IC systems. he was, and is,
unfamiliar with how IC systems, first identified by the evolutionary
biologist dobzhansky, evolved.
TomS
<d22433c3-e7d8-428b...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
"first identified by the evolutionary biologist dobzhansky"?
Please elaborate.
The Wikipedia article "Irreducible complexity" under the heading
"Forerunners" has a long list of names, but neither there, nor
anywhere else in the article, is Dobzhansky mentioned. If you
have a citation for this, it should be added to the article.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
wf3h
> "On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:50:42 -0800 (PST), in article
>
> - Show quoted text -
i recall reading it, i believe, in one of gould's books, but i can't
find a reference to IC in connection with dobzhansky...looks like my
mistake
Steven L.
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>>> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>>> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>>
>>> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>>> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>>> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
> snipped Ron O's paranoia.
>
>
>> Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
>> rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
>> Dover fiasco.
>
> It is highly amusing that Ron O cites the decision of a non scientific
> court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were
> relevent to any scientific issue.
I agree with you that no government official (and that includes judges)
should be considered the last word on scientific questions.
But local school boards are also government officials. And the
proponents of ID have been very aggressive in trying to get *them* to
rule that ID should be taught in public schools.
Local school boards shouldn't be rendering such scientific judgments
either. They should simply go with the best of what mainstream science
has to offer at any given time.
It's the attempts by ID proponents to get local school boards to rule
that ID should be taught in public schools, that led to a court
challenge and ultimately the Dover decision.
The mainstream scientific community has already considered--and
rejected--the arguments of the ID proponents. The problem is that the
ID proponents won't take "no" for an answer. Having been rejected by
mainstream science, they ran to local school boards to do an end run
around the normal scientific process.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
RAM
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> >> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> >> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> >> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> >> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> >> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
> snip
>
> >Even Behe admitted
> >under oath that he hadn't gotten around to any verification testing.
> >He even claimed that it wasn't up to him to do any testing.
>
> With regard to General Relativity Einstein never conducted a single
> real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington. Neither have
> any of the String Theorists conducted any empirical tests. And it is
> readily admitted that there is no hope of any possible empirical test
> in the near future
This is not true. Document this claim.
> yet it is accepted for review, investigation, and
> no one goes to court to keep it out of the schools.
>
> Darwin was principly a naturalist; that is, he made observations of
> nature. He made not a single experiment to prove that random
> mutations conjoined to natural selection ever resulted in the
> emergence and development of novelty. And in 1859 he knew well that
> the fossil record contradicted his purely naturalistic and by
> necessity gradualistic process. He hoped others AFTER hime would
> conduct tests as more was known.
>
> I suspect I might find with a little digging that it is often the case
> that revolutionary new theories about the world rarely have empirical
> support
There was empirical support for Darwin's ideas. It only got stronger
and is now so strong as to be irrefutable. Only narrow minded, self
deceptive, religious fanatics like you attempt to contest it.
> and often require other fields to progress before such tests
> can be completed.
>
> In other words Ron O is grossly ignorant of the history of science
It is you who employs a selective view of the history of science. May
I recommend "The Norton History of The Human Sciences" by Roger Smith
for your elucidation.
> and
> applies rules to ID and creationism which his atheist pet theories
> don't have to meet.
>
> >With
> >crackpot claims like that, there is no reason to refute the junk in
> >his book until he comes up with something that he thinks is worth
> >testing and arguing about.
>
> Interestingly atheistic scientists took Behe's [1996] "Darwin's Black
> Box" more seriously than they had taken any other creationist work
> since the re emergence of creationism in the early 1960s.
That is because religious anti-science fanatics like you tried to
employ it as a wedge in the science classroom.
Have you forgotten Dover already!
>
> And Behe's latest "The Edge of Evolution" has completely stymied the
> atheist world because, like "Darwin's Black Box" doesn't present
> philosophical hot air but presents real world biological systems.
It is overwhelmingly being ignored by scientist and celebrated by
religious fanatics like you. This one is dead in the water because of
Behe's Dover farce.
Have you forgotten Dover already!
>
> I rather suspect that Ron O has neither read the Dover Transcript in
> its whole any more than he's actually read Behe's books. In other
> words he argues from near complete ignorance.
I've read both. You show profound ignorance of how silly, deceptive
and unscientific Behe acted in his Dover testimony which was supposed
to be the best and brightest the Creation/ID religious/political crowd
could produce.
You have forgotten Dover already!
You show even greater ignorance of science, especially how to develop
empirical protocols for concepts like IC. Prove me wrong wrong and do
it! I'll bet you can't
If you do; I'll insist Lenny must give you back your balls. How's
that for magnanimous munificence!
>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Regards,
RAM
VoiceOfReason
T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 5:49�am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> >> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> >> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
> >>
> >> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> >> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> >> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
> >
>
> snipped Ron O's paranoia.
>
>
> >
> >Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
> >rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
> >Dover fiasco.
>
> It is highly amusing that Ron O cites the decision of a non scientific
> court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were
> relevent to any scientific issue. Unfortunately the Dover court
> neither proved nor established much of anything.
The Dover Court proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that ID is just a re-
packaging of Creationism. It's just a new way of selling books to the
gullible.
Amusing indeed...
Steven L.
> With regard to General Relativity Einstein never conducted a single
> real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington. Neither have
> any of the String Theorists conducted any empirical tests. And it is
> readily admitted that there is no hope of any possible empirical test
> in the near future yet it is accepted for review, investigation, and
> no one goes to court to keep it out of the schools.
Universities, not elementary or high schools, are the proper places to
investigate and debate new and even fringe theories. There they can be
researched, debated, papers peer reviewed and published, doctoral
dissertations written and defended, etc.
As far as public school through high school is concerned, I do *NOT*
think schools can just ignore ID, especially in heartland parts of
America where students may well be hearing about it from their churches
or their own families. I *DO* think teachers cannot and should not run
away from that. Refusing to discuss it altogether is the surest way to
get kids to be interested in it--we've seen that with alcohol,
marijuana, sex, etc.
But I also think teachers should *NOT* tell their students that ID is a
valid "alternative" to evolution at this time, but a fringe theory that
mainstream science has not (yet) accepted--for very good reasons. And
teachers should give those reasons. What needs to be explained is that
ID is not "just as good an alternative" as evolution, but a fringe
theory that has so far not proven itself.
ID proponents constantly claim that the "flaws" of evolution should be
taught. It's at least as important that the flaws of ID should be
taught. Because those are the reasons why mainstream science has
rejected it--not because mainstream science is afraid of it.
> I suspect I might find with a little digging that it is often the case
> that revolutionary new theories about the world rarely have empirical
> support and often require other fields to progress before such tests
> can be completed.
Continental drift is a good example for you.
When Alfred Wegener first proposed it in 1915, geology knew of no
mechanism by which continents could drift around the earth's surface.
All he knew was that on a map, the continents of North and South America
seemed to "fit" together with the continents of Europe and Africa, like
putting together a jigsaw puzzle. So he proposed that they had been
joined together at some point in the past.
Continental drift had to await the advent of plate tectonics for it to
finally become a highly credible theory.
*But* I'm willing to bet you that when Alfred Wegener first proposed it
in 1915, elementary and high schools didn't suddenly change their
curriculums to include it.
That's because new and mind-bending theories are constantly being
proposed all the time--as you say, many without adequate proof yet. How
should a school pick and choose which to expose their students to,
especially in what are supposed to be introductory science courses?
One way they should *NOT* go about choosing, is by having political
activists packing meetings of local school boards demanding that *THEIR*
favorite theory should be included. I don't care if that's ID, or UFOs,
or homeopathy. That's not the way to go about it.
The best way to go about it, is for the school board to solicit inputs
from the relevant departments of universities. Here is a suggested
research-based high school curriculum, developed by the Department of
Physics at the University of Dallas:
As you can see, it at least touches on General Relativity--but not on
String Theory. I guess that's where the line was drawn.
wf3h
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
what pagano neglects to mention is that the 'lemon' test addresses
whether a particular idea is religion. since ID was judged to be
religion and not science, it failed the lemon test which is why it
can't be taught in public schools.
if ID was a scientific idea it would not have had to confront the
lemon test at all. the relevance of the 'dover' decision is in the
conclusion of the court that ID is religion. pagano has yet to
confront the latest collapse in his dominionist view of science
TomS
<UL2dnSpVeN2eYsrU...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
>
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> With regard to General Relativity Einstein never conducted a single
>> real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington. Neither have
>> any of the String Theorists conducted any empirical tests. And it is
>> readily admitted that there is no hope of any possible empirical test
>> in the near future yet it is accepted for review, investigation, and
>> no one goes to court to keep it out of the schools.
>
>Universities, not elementary or high schools, are the proper places to
>investigate and debate new and even fringe theories. There they can be
>researched, debated, papers peer reviewed and published, doctoral
>dissertations written and defended, etc.
Quite so.
>
>As far as public school through high school is concerned, I do *NOT*
>think schools can just ignore ID, especially in heartland parts of
>America where students may well be hearing about it from their churches
>or their own families. I *DO* think teachers cannot and should not run
>away from that. Refusing to discuss it altogether is the surest way to
>get kids to be interested in it--we've seen that with alcohol,
>marijuana, sex, etc.
There is a danger in even discussing ID, which is that teachers
may not be prepared by their education to teach about it, and to do
a proper job of it they must be careful not to appear to be promoting
their own religious views. To avoid, for example, saying that the
Bible is compatible with evolution, or that the Bible is wrong about
the age of the earth.
>
>But I also think teachers should *NOT* tell their students that ID is a
>valid "alternative" to evolution at this time, but a fringe theory that
>mainstream science has not (yet) accepted--for very good reasons. And
>teachers should give those reasons. What needs to be explained is that
>ID is not "just as good an alternative" as evolution, but a fringe
>theory that has so far not proven itself.
But ID is not a theory. Not even a "fringe theory". Not an alternative
to evolution. ID does not claim to offer an account of what happened,
or when or where it happened. And the advocates of ID have shown no
interest in developing a theory.
>
>ID proponents constantly claim that the "flaws" of evolution should be
>taught. It's at least as important that the flaws of ID should be
>taught. Because those are the reasons why mainstream science has
>rejected it--not because mainstream science is afraid of it.
[...snip...]
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
All your points are self-evident. Too bad you had to say them. Ron
Okimoto's omission sins are premeditated and egregious. Evolutionists
cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Since Judge Jones is a Darwinist, that is, a believer in evolution
before the so called trial, his decision was predetermined.
Ray
Switch89
1. Not a troll. I don't post here often, but I have been on the list
for a while and I have no interest in trolling.
2. I am aware of the Dover decision, as well as refutations to IC.
3. I just wanted to understand:
a. What the heck Behe's actually saying in the passage mentioned
b. What the responses to it are.
Now, I've read the "Edge of Evolution", so does his argument that
parts couldn't fit together (at first) rest on the assumption that two
or more new protein-protein binding sites would need to evolve? If so,
I'm well aware of Nick Matzke's refutation of that book and so I won't
need any further explanation (if that is the case).
wf3h
which makes no sense at all. of COURSE he's a 'darwinist' (sic). if an
astrologer had asked for special treatment similar to what
creationists are asking for, would you have expected him to receive a
different ruling based on the idea the judge accepted science?
implicit in your argument is the idea that creationism has validity.
it doesn't. you yourself have admitted it's based on magic.
Ray Martinez
Darwinian Judge ruled as expected----makes perfect sense. A ruling in
favor of ID was not possible.
> if an
> astrologer had asked for special treatment similar to what
> creationists are asking for, would you have expected him to receive a
> different ruling based on the idea the judge accepted science?
>
> implicit in your argument is the idea that creationism has validity.
> it doesn't. you yourself have admitted it's based on magic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Deliberate misrepresentation.
I have argued the objective *claim* of Creationism: based on Divine
power operating in reality. Your willful misrepresentation proves my
previous claim seen in my previous message (below): Darwinists cannot
be trusted to tell the truth.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512877af89f51c5e
"All your points are self-evident. Too bad you had to say them. Ron
Okimoto's omission sins are premeditated and egregious. Evolutionists
cannot be trusted to tell the truth."
Ray
Steven L.
Well, that may well come up even if ID isn't mentioned at all. For
example, a teacher trying to teach geological time to a student from the
American heartland:
TEACHER: "The dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. After that,
the mammals began to dominate the earth."
STUDENT: "But Mr. Teacher, my parents and our minister told me that God
created the heaven and the earth 6,000 years ago, and that's what it
says in the Bible."
How should a teacher respond to that? Refuse to answer?
How would *YOU* answer the student, in a way that doesn't get you fired
by his irate parents?
I know how I would answer:
"I don't believe in a God who deliberately deceives us. And if all the
scientific evidence is that the dinosaurs disappeared millions of years
ago, then that's what must have happened. To believe otherwise is to
believe that God planted all that stuff just to fool us."
>> But I also think teachers should *NOT* tell their students that ID is a
>> valid "alternative" to evolution at this time, but a fringe theory that
>> mainstream science has not (yet) accepted--for very good reasons. And
>> teachers should give those reasons. What needs to be explained is that
>> ID is not "just as good an alternative" as evolution, but a fringe
>> theory that has so far not proven itself.
>
> But ID is not a theory. Not even a "fringe theory". Not an alternative
> to evolution. ID does not claim to offer an account of what happened,
> or when or where it happened.
You snipped my example of continental drift--and I'm going to put it
right back into this discussion because I think it proves a point.
Your same objection could have been made of continental drift when
Wegener first proposed it in 1915: He didn't offer an account of just
what happened (the mechanism), exactly when it happened, or how it
happened. He had noticed that the fossil record seemed to show
commonality between the ancient fossils of the Americas and those of
Europe and Africa. And he had noticed that the shapes of the continents
seemed to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. But that's not much
evidence by which to draw such a sweeping conclusion as continental
drift. And mainstream geologists attacked his theory strongly, for lack
of adequate evidence and lack of a proposed mechanism by which
continents can drift.
I think it's a good example of how a fringe theory that is little more
than a half-baked idea in 1915 could ultimately be accepted.
The boundary between a fringe theory and a half-baked idea isn't a
clearly drawn line.
What *you're* trying to do is exclude ID as not even worthy of
debate--anywhere. That's unworthy of a proponent of science. Of course
ID is worthy of debate in appropriate forums. So is *any* other fringe
theory. Even UFOs. (Believe me, I've spent enough of my time in bull
sessions in college and cocktail hours after scientific symposia, in
which we debated propositions that were dumber than ID even.)
But public schools are not that forum.
I don't believe there is any issue that is too dangerous to debate. But
not every issue should be debated in front of a group of impressionable
youngsters who must learn the fundamentals of their subject first.
Steven L.
The best refutation, is one counterexample. All you need is one.
Here's a metabolic pathway that evolved as a joint adaptation of *two*
other metabolic pathways:
Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic:
the patchwork approach.
Copley SD.
Dept of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Studies, University of Colorado at Boulder,
Boulder, CO 80309, USA. cop...@cires.colorado.edu
ABSTRACT: The pathway for degradation of the xenobiotic pesticide
pentachlorophenol in Sphingomonas chlorophenolica probably evolved in
the past few decades by the recruitment of enzymes from two other
catabolic pathways. The first and third enzymes in the pathway,
pentachlorophenol hydroxylase and 2,6-dichlorohydroquinone dioxygenase,
may have originated from enzymes in a pathway for degradation of a
naturally occurring chlorinated phenol. The second enzyme, a reductive
dehalogenase, may have evolved from a maleylacetoacetate isomerase
normally involved in degradation of tyrosine. This apparently recently
assembled pathway does not function very well: pentachlorophenol
hydroxylase is quite slow, and tetrachlorohydroquinone dehalogenase is
subject to severe substrate inhibition.
Now how would Dr. Behe explain that?
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Ray, everyone with a grasp on reality is a "Darwinian" in your deluded,
dishonest world. Your religious dogma is silly and known to be false.
Why do you keep worshipping ignorance and lies?
...
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e929176-50c6-41b7...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...snip
>All your points are self-evident.
Unfortunately for Ray, "self evident" doesn't mean "supporting my own
paranoid fantasies".
>Too bad you had to say them. Ron
>Okimoto's omission sins are premeditated and egregious.
What "omission sins" Ray?
>Evolutionists
> cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Then why is it that creationists are the one who tend to lie?
>Since Judge Jones is a Darwinist, that is, a believer in evolution
>before the so called trial, his decision was predetermined.
What evidence do you have that Judge Jones was an "evolutionist"? The
decision was made based on black letter law, which happens to not support
your beliefs.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> > Since Judge Jones is a Darwinist, that is, a believer in evolution
>> > before the so called trial, his decision was predetermined.
>
>> which makes no sense at all. of COURSE he's a 'darwinist' (sic).
>Darwinian Judge ruled as expected----makes perfect sense. A ruling in
>favor of ID was not possible.
A ruling in favor of ID would have been possible if ID had any scientific
validity. It didn't, and it doesn't.
>> if an
>> astrologer had asked for special treatment similar to what
>> creationists are asking for, would you have expected him to receive a
>> different ruling based on the idea the judge accepted science?
>
>> implicit in your argument is the idea that creationism has validity.
>> it doesn't. you yourself have admitted it's based on magic.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
How is it a "misrepresentation" Ray?
>I have argued the objective *claim* of Creationism: based on Divine
> power operating in reality.
That is, of course, magic.
>Your willful misrepresentation proves my
>previous claim seen in my previous message (below): Darwinists cannot
> be trusted to tell the truth.
Yet the "evolutionist" here did tell the truth. You lied.
snip repetation of lie
DJT
wf3h
> On Dec 28, 3:12 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > which makes no sense at all. of COURSE he's a 'darwinist' (sic).
>
> Darwinian Judge ruled as expected----makes perfect sense. A ruling in
> favor of ID was not possible.
just as a ruling in favor of astrology or chicken entrail reading was
not possible.
>
> > if an
> > astrologer had asked for special treatment similar to what
> > creationists are asking for, would you have expected him to receive a
> > different ruling based on the idea the judge accepted science?
>
> > implicit in your argument is the idea that creationism has validity.
> > it doesn't. you yourself have admitted it's based on magic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> I have argued the objective *claim* of Creationism: based on Divine
> power operating in reality. Your willful misrepresentation proves my
> previous claim seen in my previous message (below): Darwinists cannot
> be trusted to tell the truth.
how can a subjective concept (divine power) be objective? no one knows
what 'divine power' is.
i can get out my volt meter, measure the voltage across a resistor and
calculate power. there is no comparable operation in science that
will let me calculate 'divine power'. the idea is not science.
so tell me: how can a personal, subjective concept be scientifically
objective?
this is more creationist handwaving.
TomS
<mbidnZ2P_LTHlsXU...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
Fortunately, for all concerned (myself, the kids, and everybody else)
I am not going to face that situation. But I think that the only
thing that I could do would be to say something like, "I'm not going
to dispute what you, your parents, and your spiritual advisors tell
you. What I expect of the students in this class is that your learn
what the scientific consensus says. I cannot insist that you agree
with it, but I can expect that you understand it."
But there is an important point of difference between ID and
other fringe ideas. ID has been quite clearly deliberately crafted
so that it has as little substantive content as possible. The
advocates of ID have repeatedly told us that they don't want to
talk about *when* ID took place (they don't want to be tied to
either young-earth creationism or old-earth creationism); they
repeatedly say that they don't say *who* did it. Moreover, they do
not say *what* happens when a "design" takes place, what sort of
thing is the result of a design, what sorts of things are not
designed. (Individuals - adult or eggs; a mutation to DNA; a family
group; a whole bunch of various animals, plants and physical
environment interacting in an eco-system; just the first germ of
life?) No mention of *how* design happens, what sort of connection
there is between the designer(s) and the designed. Nothing about
*where*. And, of course, nothing about *why*. If there is no
prospect of even talking about the 6 W's, what is there to talk
about? And people have been asking "what is the theory of
creationism" even before Darwin, and the creationists seem to be
saying ever *less* about it.
Kent Paul Dolan
doesn't shine:
> Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> ... you can look into the Dover fiasco.
> It is highly amusing that Ron O cites the decision
> of a non scientific court as a determining
> authority over whether or not IC and ID were
> relevent(sic) to any scientific issue.
> Unfortunately the Dover court neither proved nor
> established much of anything.
It most certainly proved that no proponent of
creationism (now disguised as "intelligent design",
but the court quickly uncovered that chicanery) was
willing to testify under penalty of perjury that
there was the least bit of substance to creationism.
> The Dover Court's only mission was to determine if
> the teaching of ID in a particular public school
> district violated the Supreme Cout's(sic) "lemon
> test." The "lemon test" has nothing to do with
> truth or falsity of a particular concept ---
> scientific or otherwise.
Your ignorance is showing. Guess which word you used
is a person's name. You also have a great lack of
grasp of what courts do. The Dover court explicitly
found that ID/creationism was _not_ science, _was_
religion trying to fly under the colors of science.
> The Dover court was not an independent authority
> of truth -- because no such entity exists.
> It depended upon the testimony of experts on both
> sides and then wet it's finger and stuck it in the
> air to decide.
So, typical creationist, you have no respect for the
rules of evidence whether in a court-room or in
scientific inquiry. How sad for you then, that until
you can produce some evidence for your bogus theist
contentions, you will continue all your lifetime to
be a humiliated figure of jest.
> Even if we assume that the Dover court rightly
> applied the "lemon" test to the Dover case this is
> hardly relevent(sic) to the truth or falsity of
> Behe's IC theory or Dembski's ID theory.
It is quite relevant that Behe explicitly repudiated
IC under oath, and that Dembski refused even to
testify for ID under oath, knowing that he had no
truth to offer that would not destroy his
organization of mendacious theist fools.
Does "by their works shall ye know them" ring a
bell?
It should.
That's how we evaluate you.
You're not doing too well so far.
xanthian.
[M]adman
It seems to me that the only reason ID is not acceptable is because of such
a narrow criteria used as acceptable evidence.
wf3h
yeah. it's called 'science'. go figure
Dave Oldridge
news:apagano-balfl495pj249...@4ax.com:
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>>> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and
>>> about problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>>
>>> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals?
>>> I know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his
>>> argument against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>>
>
>snipped Ron O's paranoia.
>
>
>>
>>Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
>>rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
>>Dover fiasco.
>
>It is highly amusing that Ron O cites the decision of a non scientific
>court as a determining authority over whether or not IC and ID were
>relevent to any scientific issue. Unfortunately the Dover court
>neither proved nor established much of anything.
>
>The Dover Court's only mission was to determine if the teaching of ID
>in a particular public school district violated the Supreme Cout's
>"lemon test." The "lemon test" has nothing to do with truth or
>falsity of a particular concept---scientific or otherwise.
>
>The Dover court was not an independent authority of truth--because no
>such entity exists. It depended upon the testimony of experts on both
>sides and then wet it's finger and stuck it in the air to decide. Even
>if we assume that the Dover court rightly applied the "lemon" test to
>the Dover case this is hardly relevent to the truth or falsity of
>Behe's IC theory or Dembski's ID theory.
True, but the fact that Behe's IC cannot ever be really demonstrated to
exist in biological systems and Dembski's stuff is a steaming pile of
sophistic rhetoric mixed with an abuse of mathematical rigor might tend
to put anyone interested in intellectual honesty off the whole
enterprise.
Which means it will probably attract creationists like flies to honey.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Ron O
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> >> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> >> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> >> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> >> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> >> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
> >justify testing the notion.
>
> IC is no more or less defined than any other concept---all words (and
> concepts) have fuzziness. The label "species" is a case in point.
> "Species" held differing value, meaning, and importance to Darwin,
> Mayr, Dawkins, and Gould (for examples) not only because of what they
> attached to that label but how it fit into their framework of
> evolutionary theories.
Pagano ignores the fact that each had a definition of species that
they could get others to use to understand what they were talking
about. Not only that, but species is sort of a special case in
biology specifically because of biological evolution. We have all
degrees of relationship between the extant species for the simple
reason that there are all degrees of time of divergence and various
mechanisms of speciation acting in nature. Some species are separated
by mating behavior, but can still produce fertile offspring. Other
species are separated by geography and do not interbreed because they
are physically separated and have diverged enough from eachother so
that some people call them different species. Other species are in
the process of speciation and rarely produce fertile offspring when
mating occurs, and still others do not produce viable offspring let
alone fertile ones. Biological evolution is expected to do that. It
makes producing a single definition of species difficult, so each
designation has to be accompanied by additional information.
IC on the other hand was supposed to do a specific thing. It was
supposed to identify structures that could not have evolved by natural
means. To make it useable Behe had to put forward a definition of IC
that anyone else could use to make the same determinations that Behe
claimed to be making. Behe's definition turned out to be "I know it
when I see it." The problem was that no one should have believed him
without being able to verify his conclusions. Behe was never able to
produce a definition of IC that others could use. If Pagano thinks
that he has such a definition he is free to put it forward for
evaluation. Behe never could. The last thing that I heard was that
the more parts something had the more IC it was, but Behe couldn't
tell anyone how many parts was enough to make something his type of
IC.
Probably the stupidest thing about IC is that the ID perps put the
cart before the horse. The ID perps were claiming that IC
demonstrated that some intelligent designer must exist. It was a
stupid claim because they first had to determine if their type of IC
existed in nature and once they made that determination, if ever, they
would then have to examine the positive case to determine if, in fact,
that example of IC could tell them something about the designer. They
never got past the phase where they determined that their type of IC
existed in nature, so they were never able to determine if IC can tell
them anything about their supposed designer.
>
> >Any rebuttals of the IC junk has to face
> >the shifting goal posts of an unstable definition.
>
> This is nonsense since in 1996 Behe reported two real world biological
> systems that fit the definition and grounded the concept in reality.
> And the truth is that atheists have yet to apply any extant real world
> system which fits the definition of IC-----in all its
> fuzziness-----AND also can be explained by real world purely
> naturalistic processes.
Behe has admitted that the definition in his book did not exclude the
possiblity that such an IC system could not evolve. Why else would
he have to keep modifying the definition? All Pagano has to do is put
forward the current definition of IC for everyone to evaluate. If he
can't how is anyone atheists or not supposed to find such a system and
demonstrate that it isn't IC? Science just has to claim that they do
not know something. IC IDiots have to claim that they know something
and can demonstrate that they know it, so demonstrate that you know a
system is actually IC. Put up the current definition of IC and then
some system that you think is IC. Like I said, the last thing I saw
Behe claim about IC is that the more parts a system had the more IC it
was. That obviousy doesn't tell anyone very much so put up or shut up
and present the current definition of IC and where we can find it.
>
> And I think that sounds like a challenge to Ron O. None of the heavy
> hitters have produced, but maybe Ron O can. Heaven knows Harshman is
> too terrified to produce anything.
If you are going to put up a challenge, put up the definition of IC
and the source of the definition so that we all know what the
challenge is. It isn't Behe's original definition because Behe never
came up with a measure of "well matched" and has admitted that his
simplistic notion of taking away a part and having the system stop
working was not adequate for his purposes. So I'd like to see the
current definition of IC. Sorry, that I won't take your word for it,
so you will have to provide a reference that can be checked out.
Really, Pagano, what is your excuse for the ID perps running in the
bait and switch if they really have something in IC? Why run the
bait and switch if they don't have to? Are they just trying to make
guys like you look stupid? Anyone knows that the ID perps aren't
needed to do that so what is the excuse?
Ron Okimoto
>
> snip, more to follow if time permits
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Ron O
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> >> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> >> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> >> Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> >> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> >> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
>
> >Even Behe admitted
> >under oath that he hadn't gotten around to any verification testing.
> >He even claimed that it wasn't up to him to do any testing.
>
> real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington. Neither have
> any of the String Theorists conducted any empirical tests. And it is
> readily admitted that there is no hope of any possible empirical test
> in the near future yet it is accepted for review, investigation, and
> no one goes to court to keep it out of the schools.
Well Einstein's work did not become accepted scientific theories until
they were tested, and no one can deny that they were able to generate
hypotheses that could be tested to verify the work. The IDiots have
not been able to do this.
Even the guys working on string theory admit that they haven't
verified their hypothesis. It is called string theory, but I've heard
guys like Greene admit that they do not yet have a scientific theory.
Even in the eyes of the guys working on it, string theory hasn't
gained the status of relativity or biological evoluiton. They have
done a lot of work on it and it is light years ahead of anything the
pathetic ID perps ever came up with, but they haven't been able to
verify it.
>
> Darwin was principly a naturalist; that is, he made observations of
> nature. He made not a single experiment to prove that random
> mutations conjoined to natural selection ever resulted in the
> emergence and development of novelty. And in 1859 he knew well that
> the fossil record contradicted his purely naturalistic and by
> necessity gradualistic process. He hoped others AFTER hime would
> conduct tests as more was known.
Darwin could make predictions about what would be found in the fossil
record, and he was vindicated. Can any ID perp make such a claim?
Why would anyone expect Darwin to do experiments on mutations when no
one knew what a mutation was? Once we figured it out, we have things
like population genetics and the new synthesis. Darwin's notions were
not accepted by quite a few scientists. In some cases they turned out
to be right and others they turned out to be wrong. The problem with
the IDiots is that we can't determine if they are wrong or right, and
they haven't provided any reason to believe that they can come up with
the means to make such determinations.
>
> I suspect I might find with a little digging that it is often the case
> that revolutionary new theories about the world rarely have empirical
> support and often require other fields to progress before such tests
> can be completed.
The problem with ID is that it isn't new. It was the default notion
of Western science, but it never amounted to anything. 100% failure
of the notion resulted in our modern understanding of science. All
Pagano has to do to demonstrate otherwise is to put forward a single
ID sucess.
>
> In other words Ron O is grossly ignorant of the history of science and
> applies rules to ID and creationism which his atheist pet theories
> don't have to meet.
Someone is grossly ignorant, but it isn't me. Pagano knows that I am
not an atheist, but he has to keep lying to himself. That is so sad
that you wonder why he even tries.
>
> >With
> >crackpot claims like that, there is no reason to refute the junk in
> >his book until he comes up with something that he thinks is worth
> >testing and arguing about.
>
> Interestingly atheistic scientists took Behe's [1996] "Darwin's Black
> Box" more seriously than they had taken any other creationist work
> since the re emergence of creationism in the early 1960s.
>
> And Behe's latest "The Edge of Evolution" has completely stymied the
> atheist world because, like "Darwin's Black Box" doesn't present
> philosophical hot air but presents real world biological systems.
>
> I rather suspect that Ron O has neither read the Dover Transcript in
> its whole any more than he's actually read Behe's books. In other
> words he argues from near complete ignorance.
The only reason why Behe's book was considered by anyone is because
the IDiots were using it as part of their scam to teach ID in the
public schools. It turned out that there was nothing in the book
worth teaching and the ID perps droped the ID scam and started to run
the bait and switch on anyone that had believed that they had any ID
science to teach. Hey Pagano, how much ID science can you find in the
switch scam that the ID perps are currently running?
Shouldn't zero tell you something about how valuable Behe's 1996 book
is to them?
Ron Okimoto
>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Perplexed in Peoria
Ah!! So you want answers from someone who has actually READ
Behe. Not just someone who has opinions about Behe. Well,
I'm not sure you have come to the right place.
I'd like to help you, and, as it happens I have read Edge of Evolution.
But that doesn't mean I actually went out and bought it!!! So I
really don't remember what point Behe was trying to make on
pp 65-67. In fact, until your second posting I had no idea which
of Behe's books you were talking about.
Yeah. This newsgroup has really failed to help you today. But
if you don't mind posting the passages that you want interpreted,
and a link to the Matske refutation that you think might be relevant,
then maybe some of the molecular biology wonks here can give
you an answer.
Switch89
wrote:
> "Switch89" <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:00eadbc1-dc91-4c3c...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know, I didn't buy Behe's book either! I actually had just been
looking at it in the bookstore previously that day. I had bought "The
Edge of Evolution" about a year ago, but returned it to the store
after reading it : )
Anyway, I got "The Case for a Creator" at the Library the other day
[I'm Writing a book refuting theism, but that's another story] and
Behe seems to say the same thing there. Let me see if I can dig out
some of the quotes:
Okay the context of the quote: Strobel [the interviewer] mentions the
possibility of the parts of the flagellum serving other functions
before being combined into one.
"A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular
highway might not have the strength necessary to push two microtubules
relative to each other... A Nexin Linker would have to be exactly the
right size before it was useful at all. Creating the cilium inside the
cell would be counterproductive, it would need to extend from the
cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the
right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-
existing in the cell." - Michael Behe, page 203, The Case for a
Creator
My Preliminary thoughts:
Notice that Behe speculates that a motor protein "MIGHT not have the
strength... to push the two microtubules relative to each other."
He seems to be speculating his way out of a tight spot, which is
exactly what he criticizes his opposition for.
"A Nexin Linker would have to be exactly the right size before it was
useful at all"
I'm in over my head here. Can any molecular biologist tell me if this
statement is accurate?
"Creating the Cilium inside the Cell would be counterproductive..."
I think this is refuted by the fact that Nick Matzke's scenario for
the evolution of the cilia BEGINS with a passive pore on the outside
of the cell:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
I'd really appreciate comments from people know the field of molecuar
biology more than I.
Perplexed in Peoria
On Dec 28, 9:00 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
My Preliminary thoughts:
---------------------
PiP: Well, the best advice I can give you is to not devote a chapter
of your book to giving a detailed critique of a molecular biology
argument if you don't know much about molecular biology and the
guy you are critiquing is a professor of that subject. If you try, there
is an excellent chance you will just make a fool of yourself. Limit
yourself to generalities, and leave the detail work to the people
who know what they are talking about. Just summarize the critiques
that the experts produce and provide a link or cite for the benefit
of your readers who want to dig deeper.
And if that seems overly harsh, I have to point out that the Matzke
link you have provided deals with the bacterial flagellum whereas
the things you quote Behe as saying deal with the eukaryotic
cilium - an object 100 times larger than a flagellum in an organism
1000 times larger than a bacterium. You don't even know which
IC structures Behe and Matzke are talking about.
It seems to me that the essential thing that you need to say about
Behe is this: it has been known for a long time that a lot of the steps
that evolution takes seem implausible at first glance. But those
implausible steps only have to happen once in a billion or so years
to one of a billion billion microorganisms. So simply saying that
something is implausible is not a good argument at all that it could
not have happened as a result of evolution.
But Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box" claimed that he had an argument
against evolution that was much stronger and more ironclad than
those simple naive arguments from implausibility. He defined
something that he called 'irreducible complexity' (IC), pointed out
a number of examples of features of living things that are IC,
and then claimed that evolution could not produce IC things.
But then when his critics pointed out indirect pathways by which
evolution could indeed possibly produce those IC features of life
Behe's response was something like "Well, yeah, that could happen,
but it would be very implausible." In other words, he is back
to the old implausibility argument - an argument that has been
considered weak since long before Behe was born. All that
Behe has accomplished with his two books is to come up with a
name ('IC') for one of the several kinds of implausible results that
evolution can come up with. And he doesn't help his case by
pointing out that it has not been shown that the indirect pathways
suggested by his critics are the pathways that evolution actually
traveled. That is irrelevant. Behe claimed the evolution of IC
was impossible. His critics showed by story that it IS
possible. Behe is just shifting the goalpost if he then demands
that the story be proven to be the actual history. He has provided
no proposals for the actual history himself, and certainly has
not proved any..
If I were a dolphin, I would think it implausible that my species
had evolved from a fish-like ancestor which developed legs
so that it could walk on land, but then lost those legs when it
returned to the sea. It really IS implausible, but Behe and I
agree that it happened because it is even more implausible
that the dolphin genome would be so similar to the hippo
genome otherwise. Behe knows that evolution has done
some implausible things - he just can't seem to accept the
possibility of a Nexin linker that happens to be just the
right size. Which is simply silly. Even Goldilocks was able
to find "just right" three times.
HTH
Switch89
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi PiP,
I just got confused about the bacterial flagella and cilia because the
cilia is also known as the eukaryotic flagella.
But with all due respect, your post hasn't addressed anything I've
asked about.
Cubist
> On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
calls "indirect" evolutionary pathways to IC. He just claims they're
so astronomically improbable that it's foolish to think that any of
said pathways might have ever actually happened -- that is, he's
making a textbook Argument From Incredulity, gussied-up with biochem
jargon.
Any anti-evolutionary argument which (like Behe's) depends on the
sheer improbability of a given mutation's occurance, *must* take into
account how many living things there *are* which might end up with
that mutations. Consider that ID poster child, the bacterial
flagellum: Currently, the best guess at the total number of bacteria
on Earth -- the *entire planet* -- is about 10^30. That's 1 followed
by 30 zeroes. You say that the mutation(s) a bacteria needs to have,
in order to end up with a flagellum, are a one-in-a-billion longshot?
No problem! One in a billion is 1 / 10^9, so there should be roughly
(10^30 / 10^9 =) 10^21 bacteria which are *living examples* of that
one-in-a-billion mutation. Likewise, a one-in-a-*quadrillion* (1 /
10^15) mutation is so rare that there are only (10^30 / 10^15 =) a
quadrillion or so living examples of it; and even a one-out-of-10^30
longshot isn't unlikely enough to prevent there being at least one or
two living examples of it.
Okay, fine, but what about mutations that are *rarer* than 1 /
10^30?
When you're talking about evolution, the mutations that count are
those which have a chance to be passed along to offspring (or a chance
to *fail to be* passed along, as the case may be). So every time a
bacteria reproduces itself, is another opportunity for a mutation to
pop up in that bacteria's lineage. Now, bacteria can reproduce
themselves a *lot* faster than us humans do; whereas human beings'
generation time is measured in tens of years, bacteria have generation
times anywhere from a day down to 10 *minutes*. This means that the
fastest-reproducing bacteria can go through 144 generations *in* *one*
single* *day*, which adds up to (144 * 365 =) more than 52,000
generations *in* *one* *single* *year*. And if all 10^30 of Earth's
bacteria multiplied *that* fast, they'd have an aggregate total of
(10^30 * 144 * 365 =) well over 5 * 10^34 opportunities for mutations
to zap 'em!
Of course, there *are* slower-reproducing bacteria. If you assume
that all bacteria have a 1-day generation time, Earth's bacteria
accumulate (10^30 * 365 =) well over 3 * 10^32 opportunities for
mutations to zap 'em over the course of 1 (one) year.
In other words: If the mutation(s) which are responsible for the
bacterial flagellum are *so* rare that they have a 1 / 10^30 chance of
hitting any one bacteria, those mutations ought to show up, de novo,
in about *three hundred* bacteria *during the course of a year*.
And over the 3-4 *billion* year history of life on Earth...
See the problem with Behe's "that's TOO unlikely" argument against
evolution?
Ron O
Science simply uses what works. There is absolutely no reason to use
what does not work. 100% failure of ID in the history of science may
not mean that it will always continue to fail, but it does mean that
not a single theory that we currently have, and not a singal valid
experimental design has to change whether ID is true or not. It just
doesn't matter at this time. Even you have to admit that ID had many
chances to be verified throughout the history of science, but it
always came up short. Where do babies come from? Why do the seasons
change? Who pulls the sun and moon across the sky? Who created the
earth less than 10,000 years ago? All failures. 100% failure upon
adequate testing. What is worse is that it isn't the usual scientific
testing. There have been no tests for or against some designer. It
is a proposition that is "not even wrong." Science has had to figure
out what is really happening and push ID to the next gap in our
knowledge. A lot of theologians have stopped playing that game for
the simple reason that 100% failure tells them that it is either low
grade ore or hopeless.
What the bogus ID perps have to do is produce a reason to include ID
in the study of nature. Until they do that why should science
change? Try to find what the ID perps claim that ID can do for
science. It is pretty pathetic. Behe's only claim about what ID
could do is to tell scientists not to do certain research because
since his designer did it they are wasting their time trying to figure
out how it happened. How bogus can you possibly get. Who would use
an assertion with a 100% failure rate to set your research
priorities? What rational scientists would do that except to use it
to do exactly the opposite?
Ron Okimoto
Switch89
You can't just throw chance at the problem and walk away. Getting a
bacterial flagellum from nothing is extremely unlikely, as Behe's
calculations in the "Edge of Evolution" show. What you have to do is
find a step by step method for getting the flagellum. That has been
done.
What I'm talking about explaining is the cilium. I want to see what
others have to say about his argument for the improbability of an
indirect pathway to the cilium. And no, a structure like the cilium
can't be explained by a single ultra-mutated bacterium, as any
competent biologist should be able to tell you.
VoiceOfReason
Obviously you haven't read the decision, or you wouldn't say such a
silly thing. It's obvious that ID is based on religion.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
Ron O
I don't know if you need to read the book since nothing that they have
ever come up with was good enough even for the ID perps. All you have
to notice that the ID perps are the ones making the claims. Some of
them are specific claims that they need to back up for their arguments
to make sense. Sort of "if this and this and this and this are true
then I might have an argument."
Ultimately arguments like IC come down to a bogus probability
argument. They look at a system and claim that there is some reason
that they can see that it is unlikely that the system evolved by
natural causes. They make another assertion that since it is unlikely
to have happened by known natural causes that it supports their
crackpot ID notions. Even if you forget about the bogousity of the
either or argument what they have to demonstrate is that the
probability of evolving such a system is so low that it makes their ID
proposition look viable. So it is up to them to calculate the
probability of evolving the system under question. They then have to
compare this probability to the likelyhood that their proposition
happened. They admit that they can't begin to calculate the
probability of their designer did it notions, so they are stuck. What
they have to resort to is that they have to calculate the probability
of all biologically relevant pathways and demonstrate that the
probability is so low for each of them that it makes their worthless
proposition viable. It would take quite a low probability to do
this. They have a big problem in that they can't calculate the
probabilities. They have to calculate them all, but they can't even
calculate the probablity of a single biologically relevant pathway.
The tornado through a junkyard probability calculation isn't
biologically relevant. They have to determine the starting conditions
and figure out a path and then calculate the probability.
As your examples above indicate they have to know what the starting
materials were. Where did the motor parts come from and how would
they have to be modified to work in the flagellum? What was the
protein sequence and how many mutations had to occur to change from
one to the other?
All science has to claim is that we don't know, yet. The ID perps
have to make specific claims and back them up or their arguments
fail. Science has gene duplication and other mutations to work with.
We can see how the parts of the flagellum are related to each other
and to other proteins in the cell. What do the ID perps have?
They ended up empty. They wouldn't be running the bait and switch
scam if they had not.
Ron Okimoto
wf3h
>
> Science simply uses what works. There is absolutely no reason to use
> what does not work. 100% failure of ID in the history of science may
> not mean that it will always continue to fail, but it does mean that
> not a single theory that we currently have, and not a singal valid
> experimental design has to change whether ID is true or not. It just
> doesn't matter at this time. Even you have to admit that ID had many
> chances to be verified throughout the history of science, but it
> always came up short.
yep...a key failure in the creationist/ID movement is the double
standard they use for evidence. they manufacture all kinds of
restrictions on science ('gee...no one was around 14B years ago so the
big bang is false') while allowing all kinds of mythology to pass
through their own gates (no recognition at all about creationism's
failures).
Perplexed in Peoria
Hi PiP,
I just got confused about the bacterial flagella and cilia because the
cilia is also known as the eukaryotic flagella.
But with all due respect, your post hasn't addressed anything I've
asked about.
------------------
PiP: With decreasing amounts of respect, your first post asked about
pp 65-67 of "EoE" and I still have no idea what they say. And your
second post asked whether Matzke's discussion of the flagellum
answers Behe's points about the cilium. And I answered you.
The answer is "No. Duh."
TomS
<8dafeac4-ed6d-435c...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>On Dec 29, 7:10=A0am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Science simply uses what works. =A0There is absolutely no reason to use
>> what does not work. =A0100% failure of ID in the history of science may
>> not mean that it will always continue to fail, but it does mean that
>> not a single theory that we currently have, and not a singal valid
>> doesn't matter at this time. =A0Even you have to admit that ID had many
>> chances to be verified throughout the history of science, but it
>
>yep...a key failure in the creationist/ID movement is the double
>standard they use for evidence. they manufacture all kinds of
>restrictions on science ('gee...no one was around 14B years ago so the
>big bang is false') while allowing all kinds of mythology to pass
>through their own gates (no recognition at all about creationism's
>failures).
>
That double standard for evidence is just one facet of the
overall pattern of inconsistencies.
So that the flood-geologists can forget about the supposed 2nd
law of thermodynamics when giving mechanisms which can sort
fossils.
And the ID advocates can insist upon minute details of
evolutionary history while proclaiming that they're not going
to give even the roughest outline of what happened when.
Bob T.
>
> It seems to me that the only reason ID is not acceptable is because of such
> a narrow criteria used as acceptable evidence.
Yeah, that whole "not being a lie" requirement is so onerous, there is
no way ID could be expected to meet such narrow criteria.
- Bob T.
Burkhard
>
> > All your points are self-evident. Too bad you had to say them. Ron
> > Okimoto's omission sins are premeditated and egregious. Evolutionists
> > cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
>
> > Since Judge Jones is a Darwinist, that is, a believer in evolution
> > before the so called trial, his decision was predetermined.
>
> Obviously you haven't read the decision, or you wouldn't say such a
> silly thing. It's obvious that ID is based on religion.
>
> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District...
Matter of fact, that's what even the expert for the IDlers, Steve
Fuller, seems to have argued.... Doesn't help you a bit of the
opposition cites your own expert in the closing statements,
Rolf
> Okimoto's omission sins are premeditated and egregious. Evolutionists
> cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
>
> Since Judge Jones is a Darwinist, that is, a believer in evolution
> before the so called trial, his decision was predetermined.
>
The decision was determined when Dembski bailed out and Behe revealed what
fool he is.
> Ray
Matt Silberstein
<Ryans...@yahoo.com> in
<a37b7517-0731-40ba...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
>Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
He has no argument about indirect evolution, only against some
strawman "direct" evolution. That is, he has an argument that is it
unlikely that some systems evolve via the stepwise addition of parts.
I agree.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
TomS
<eh7il4ttooni6jjrh...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein stated..."
>
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:49:40 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins , Switch89
><Ryans...@yahoo.com> in
><a37b7517-0731-40ba...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>>arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>>problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>
>>Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>>know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>>against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
>He has no argument about indirect evolution, only against some
>strawman "direct" evolution. That is, he has an argument that is it
>unlikely that some systems evolve via the stepwise addition of parts.
>I agree.
>
That agrees with the first impression that I got, that he has some
concept of direct:indirect evolution, where direct evolution means
an addition, while indirect evolution includes removal. In the
inanimate world, natural arches would be an example of arriving at
a situation which cannot be gotten at by a process of only addition,
for an arch without a vital piece in place cannot exist; but it is
simple to get at by erosion.
But I balk at that, because surely everybody knows that there are
undoubted cases of evolution in which something is lost. After a
moment's reflection anyone would think of parasites or blind cave
dwellers.
Matt Silberstein
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> in
<240578515.000...@drn.newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:00:49 -0500, in article
><eh7il4ttooni6jjrh...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein stated..."
>>
>>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:49:40 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins , Switch89
>><Ryans...@yahoo.com> in
>><a37b7517-0731-40ba...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
>>>arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
>>>problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>>>
>>>Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
>>>know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
>>>against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>>
>>He has no argument about indirect evolution, only against some
>>strawman "direct" evolution. That is, he has an argument that is it
>>unlikely that some systems evolve via the stepwise addition of parts.
>>I agree.
>>
>
>That agrees with the first impression that I got, that he has some
>concept of direct:indirect evolution, where direct evolution means
>an addition, while indirect evolution includes removal.
Or change.
>In the
>inanimate world, natural arches would be an example of arriving at
>a situation which cannot be gotten at by a process of only addition,
>for an arch without a vital piece in place cannot exist; but it is
>simple to get at by erosion.
>
>But I balk at that, because surely everybody knows that there are
>undoubted cases of evolution in which something is lost. After a
>moment's reflection anyone would think of parasites or blind cave
>dwellers.
Behe is able to pull this trick because he is talking about biochem
and so people don't notice the hand waving. They can barely understand
what chemicals do, no less understand that they can do more than one
thing.
Matt Silberstein
<roki...@cox.net> in
<bcda9c4f-37e3-4476...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Well Einstein's work did not become accepted scientific theories until
>they were tested,
Mostly, but not quite. Einstein found a way to simplify a complex
physics structure. His model did make testable predictions, but it
also explained everything we had at the time and did so simpler than
the existing work. His work was given strong tentative acceptance
because of that.
[snip]
Switch89
wrote:
> "Switch89" <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:3df47fdf-46cd-4eb1...@f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> > evolution could indeed possibly produce those IC features of life
> > Behe's response was something like "Well, yeah, that could happen,
> > but it would be very implausible." In other words, he is back
> > to the old implausibility argument - an argument that has been
> > considered weak since long before Behe was born. All that
> > Behe has accomplished with his two books is to come up with a
> > name ('IC') for one of the several kinds of implausible results that
> > evolution can come up with. And he doesn't help his case by
> > pointing out that it has not been shown that theindirectpathways
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't appreciate your being so incredibly rude. Try having some
respect, Will ya?
Frank J
> On Dec 28, 7:44 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 7:38 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 5:49 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On pages 65-67 of his book. Its hard to figure out just what he is
> > > > arguing. He talks about parts not being able to fit together and about
> > > > problems with the evolution of the cilia.
>
> > > > Can anyone help me understand this and also link to some rebuttals? I
> > > > know of the rebuttals to IC, I just want refutations of his argument
> > > > against the indirect evolutionary pathways to IC.
>
>
> > We're all troll weary lately, especially due to "Muriel," but I'd give
> > Switch89 the benefit of the doubt to start.
>
> > > The ID
> > > perps are currently running a dishonest bait and switch scam on their
> > > own creationist support base. Every school board and legislator that
> > > has claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent design has had
> > > the bait and switch scam played on them. They even tried to run in
> > > the switch in Dover, but those guys are the only ones that would not
> > > take the switch or drop the issue and the rest is history. Florida,
> > > earlier this year, was the latest major public bait and switch. You
> > > had multiple legislators and local school boards claiming that they
> > > wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but all they got
> > > was the bogus switch scam.
>
> > > Others can point you to the relevant material about IC, but no
> > > rebuttal of IC is required at this time, and you can look into the
> > > justify testing the notion. Any rebuttals of the IC junk has to face
> > > the shifting goal posts of an unstable definition. Even Behe admitted
> > > under oath that he hadn't gotten around to any verification testing.
> > > He even claimed that it wasn't up to him to do any testing. With
> > > his book until he comes up with something that he thinks is worth
> > > testing and arguing about.
>
> > > bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters rather than
> > > support their lame junk like IC. All you have to do is look into the
> > > switch scam and notice that it doesn't even mention that ID ever
> > > existed and you know for a fact that they don't have anything worth
> > > supporting at this time. Why would they hide some wonderful ID
> > > science and run a bogus bait and switch? Only the most clueless will
> > > deny that they claimed that they could teach the science of
> > > intelligent design, but now the ID perps are running in a switch scam
> > > on any rube stupid enough to have believed them. They even started to
> > > run the bait and switch years before they lost in court in Dover. You
> > > don't do that if you believe that you really have an argument.
>
> > > Anyone that doesn't believe this, just get your local school board to
> > > teach the science of intelligent design and watch the switch come in.
> > > You can even make it a point to claim that IC is one of the IDiot
> > > claims that you are going to teach. Look at who is running the switch
> > > scam and you will find that it is the same dishonest bunch that fooled
> > > you with the ID scam. No further arguments should be necessary.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > Actually I can use some clarification as to what is "switched." AIUI
> > the IC and CSI arguments flood the non-peer-reviewed literature as
> > "evidence" of ID (but not necessarily "creationism"), but what is
> > planned for 9th grade science class is not that at all, but rather
> > long-refuted "weaknesses" such as Haeckel's embryos, Peppered moths,
> > Piltdown Man, etc. Is that right? But what about the flagellum? I
> > would guess that they wouldn't want to pass that up, at least as a
> > "weakness" of "Darwinism," if not "evidence" of ID.-
>
> Without the bogus probability argument and something like IC or the
> explanatory filter to back it up the ID perps can't really use the
> flagellum in any teachable lesson. Yeah, I know that doesn't stop
> them from using all kinds of other bogus junk. Who could believe that
> the Ohio rubes would put the Wellsian lie about no moths on tree
> trunks in their switch scam lesson plan?
>
> What would the take home message be? The wonders of nature? How much
> we have learned in the last 50 years? Science just doesn't know
> everything, but that doesn't mean that science has learned nothing.
> Are they going to tell the students that the flagellum has been around
> for over 2 billion years? Would they use the protein sequences to
> show the students evidence that a lot of the proteins in the flagellum
> are related to each other and the evidence that gene duplication has
> played a major part in the evolution and construction of the
> flagellum? They could do a lot with the flagellum, but nothing that
> would really help the IDiots unless they just put it up and said look
> how complex it is and moved on. If anyone tried to teach what we
> actually know about the flagellum the anti-science creationists would
> not like it a bit.
>
> There is also the fact that the IDiots are trying to hide under a rock
> and at the same time trying to slither out and slime anyone that
> passes within reach. The flagellum is obviously tied to the ID scam.
> The dishonest creationist scam artists want as few links back to the
> bogus ID scam as they can manage. It sounds stupid since they are the
> guys that ran the bogus ID scam. They have to work hard to make the
> switch scam look like it is different from the ID scam. Only a moron
> would be deceived, but they have to try or nothing really matters what
> they do. If the ID perps were really interested in advancing the
> religious political movement that they claimed to support in the Wedge
> Document, they would bow out and appologize for running the bogus ID
> scam and let a pristine group of scam artists take over. This group
> seem more interested in hiking onto a gravy train than doing anything
> constructive, and it looks like the Wedge document was likely just a
> fund raising document to bilk money out of any creationist rube
> willing to give it to them. It was the Discovery Institute that made
> just that claim to try to lie about their motives being scientific in
> stead of religious. The claim that the Wedge document was just a fund
> raising document may be about the only honest claim that has come out
> of the Discovery Institute. Just think how little regard the ID perps
> had for their supporters to think that their supporters would accept
> the lie about the Wedge document in order to keep lying about their
> political and religious motives for running the ID scam? The saddest
> thing is enough of their supporters accept such bogus antics to keep
> the organization running.
>
> There are still scientific creationist organizations so ID will likely
> be around for quite a while, but that obviously doesn't mean that ID
> is legitimate, or that the movement's political muscle haven't given
> up on it to move on to something else just like they dropped
> scientific creationism for the ID scam.
>
> All they can do is pretend. If they put blood clotting or flagellum
> into the switch scam lesson plan it gets harder to pretend. There is
> likely to be a breaking point even for the creationist rubes that want
> to be lied to, and the ID perps probably don't want to push their luck
> that far.
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Having read all of Switch's replies I'm starting to reconsider my
"benefit of the doubt."
Perplexed in Peoria
--------
PiP:
With all due respect, your post hasn't clarified anything you've
asked about.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:38:19 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
[...]
> >Even Behe admitted
> >under oath that he hadn't gotten around to any verification testing.
> >He even claimed that it wasn't up to him to do any testing.
> With regard to General Relativity Einstein never conducted a single
> real experiment; he left it to others like Eddington.
While Einstein did not personally set up the telescopes, he corresponded
a great deal with experimentalists, and actively proposed a set of very
specific experimental tests of general relativity, suggesting in detail
what should be looked for. Eddington looked at the deflection of light
by the Sun because Einstein proposed the experiment; it was Einstein,
in fact, who suggested looking during a Solar eclipse. Similarly, it
was Einstein who proposed looking for gravitational red shift in spectral
lines as a test of general relativity.
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that Behe, while not going into the lab
himself, has published proposals for specific experiments to verify IC?
If so, where are these published?
Steve Carlip
Krubozumo Nyankoye
emotion intoned: news:mbidnZ2P_LTHlsXU...@earthlink.com:
<snip>
> You snipped my example of continental drift--and I'm going to put it
> right back into this discussion because I think it proves a point.
>
> Your same objection could have been made of continental drift when
> Wegener first proposed it in 1915: He didn't offer an account of just
> what happened (the mechanism), exactly when it happened, or how it
> happened. He had noticed that the fossil record seemed to show
> commonality between the ancient fossils of the Americas and those of
> Europe and Africa. And he had noticed that the shapes of the
> continents seemed to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. But that's
> not much evidence by which to draw such a sweeping conclusion as
> continental drift. And mainstream geologists attacked his theory
> strongly, for lack of adequate evidence and lack of a proposed
> mechanism by which continents can drift.
You overlook the fact that a mechanism was proposed but it was patently
impossible. That was that only continents "drifted" and they did so by
plowing through oceanic crust (even though that concept was very poorly
understood at the time). Also it is not true that "continental drift" was
universally rejected. Some geologists sought to find evidence in support of
it and argued in favor of it. I may be mistaken but I believe Du Toit was
one.
Moreover, the "fit" of continents had been notice long before continental
drift was proposed, Francis Bacon was one of the earliest persons to
observe the jigsaw fit of S. America and Africa.
> I think it's a good example of how a fringe theory that is little more
> than a half-baked idea in 1915 could ultimately be accepted.
Well, in actual fact, plate tectonic theory is not very similar to what was
proposed in 1915. It has similar features in terms of the alignment of
continental landmasses but the similarity ends there.
> The boundary between a fringe theory and a half-baked idea isn't a
> clearly drawn line.
While this assertion may be true in my experience half baked ideas have
little if any traction with the existing evidence.
Fringe theories on the other hand, if they are well argued, use the
existing evidence to make their case.
> What *you're* trying to do is exclude ID as not even worthy of
> debate--anywhere. That's unworthy of a proponent of science. Of
> course ID is worthy of debate in appropriate forums. So is *any*
> other fringe theory. Even UFOs. (Believe me, I've spent enough of my
> time in bull sessions in college and cocktail hours after scientific
> symposia, in which we debated propositions that were dumber than ID
> even.)
Why is ID worthy of debate? How does it conform to the evidence? And please
explain why it is worth while to expend scarce if not paltry resources for
scientific discussion on subjects with zero empirical basis?
> But public schools are not that forum.
On that we can agree.
> I don't believe there is any issue that is too dangerous to debate.
> But not every issue should be debated in front of a group of
> impressionable youngsters who must learn the fundamentals of their
> subject first.
The group of impressionable youngsters you refer to have already been
indoctrinated long before they encounter their first academic course of
biology or geology.
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
Ron O
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:39:23 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins , Ron O
> <bcda9c4f-37e3-4476-b0d7-38d3b659e...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well Einstein's work did not become accepted scientific theories until
> >they were tested,
>
> Mostly, but not quite. Einstein found a way to simplify a complex
> physics structure. His model did make testable predictions, but it
> also explained everything we had at the time and did so simpler than
> the existing work. His work was given strong tentative acceptance
> because of that.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Well that is the thing about a good new "theory." It explains a lot
of the existing data. It doesn't have to explain it all for the
simple reason that mistakes are made and there isn't a theory of
everything. The fact remains that even Einstein acknowledged that his
ideas had to be testable. The histories that I've seen had him very
nervous and looking forward to having his ideas tested and further
confirmed.
By comparison the ID perps did everything that they could to keep
their notions from being testable. They specifically skirted the
issues and refused to put up testable claims. They learned from their
creation science predecessors that the 100% failure rate was going to
bite them if they dared try. Even the ID perps have to admit 100%
failure because if they ever had a success we would already be
teaching it in the science class. Instead of embracing the scientific
process as they claim to be doing they make it a point to deny science
as much as possible. One of the most bogus things that the anti-
science creationists on the Kansas State school board did was drop the
big bang out of the science standards along with biological evolution,
radiometric dating etc. The only half way decent creation event ever
documented by science and they didn't want the students to learn about
it.
Ron Okimoto
J. J. Lodder
> On Dec 29, 2:17 pm, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:39:23 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins , Ron O
> > <rokim...@cox.net> in
> > <bcda9c4f-37e3-4476-b0d7-38d3b659e...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Well Einstein's work did not become accepted scientific theories until
> > >they were tested,
> >
> > Mostly, but not quite. Einstein found a way to simplify a complex
> > physics structure. His model did make testable predictions, but it
> > also explained everything we had at the time and did so simpler than
> > the existing work. His work was given strong tentative acceptance
> > because of that.
> >
> > [snip]
> Well that is the thing about a good new "theory." It explains a lot
> of the existing data. It doesn't have to explain it all for the
> simple reason that mistakes are made and there isn't a theory of
> everything. The fact remains that even Einstein acknowledged that his
> ideas had to be testable. The histories that I've seen had him very
> nervous and looking forward to having his ideas tested and further
> confirmed.
Einstein's relation with experiment was more subtle
than naive empirists or Popperians would want you to believe.
On some occasions he definitely took a
'so much the worse for the experiments' attitude.
And with good reason: Einstein was (contrary to popular mythology)
quite good at understanding and interpreting experiments. [1]
His response to them always was a carefully considered judgment.
(and he was usually right)
And yes, while being strongly convinced of having it right
he was also anxious to have that confirmed experimentally.
Best,
Jan
[1] He would also have made a good enginneer.
He chose not to become one.
His boss in Bern has said that Einstein
was the best patent examiner they ever had.
wf3h
often the case that if results are not what's expected, something
generally went wrong with the experiment. doing a good experiment is
very, very hard.
Switch89
<jimmene...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Switch89" <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2626b0f2-af72-49c6...@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I asked about Behe's arguments against indirect pathways to
irreducible complexity. I do not own a copy of Darwin's Black Box, but
I did get "The Case for a Creator" in which Behe says something
similar to what he said in his book. Here it is:
"A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular
highway might not have the strength necessary to push two
microtubules
relative to each other... A Nexin Linker would have to be exactly the
right size before it was useful at all. Creating the cilium inside
the
cell would be counterproductive, it would need to extend from the
cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the
right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-
existing in the cell."
My main question is: What are the rebuttals to this argument?
Switch89
<jimmene...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Switch89" <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2626b0f2-af72-49c6...@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
My main goal was to find out what rebuttals there were to Behe's
argument against indirect pathways to "irreducible complexity".
Earlier I posted a quote from Behe that I found in "The Case for a
Creator" which seems to say the same thing he said in his book:
"A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular
highway might not have the strength necessary to push two
microtubules
relative to each other... A Nexin Linker would have to be exactly the
right size before it was useful at all. Creating the cilium inside
the
cell would be counterproductive, it would need to extend from the
cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the
right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-
existing in the cell."
That is his argument. I'm just trying to find response to it.
wf3h
>
> I asked about Behe's arguments against indirect pathways to
> irreducible complexity. I do not own a copy of Darwin's Black Box, but
> I did get "The Case for a Creator" in which Behe says something
> similar to what he said in his book.
one of the strangest things about ID is it's built on negative
evidence. theories in science are built on explaining evidence in
support of a theory....brownian motion to explain the existence of
atoms; velocity of planets to explain the elliptical orbits of planet,
etc.
only ID seems to focus on what is NOT happening to a 'competing'
theory as evidence in support of its assertions. it is bad science
Perplexed in Peoria
I asked about Behe's arguments against indirect pathways to
irreducible complexity. I do not own a copy of Darwin's Black Box, but
I did get "The Case for a Creator" in which Behe says something
similar to what he said in his book. Here it is:
"A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular
highway might not have the strength necessary to push two
microtubules
relative to each other... A Nexin Linker would have to be exactly the
right size before it was useful at all. Creating the cilium inside
the
cell would be counterproductive, it would need to extend from the
cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the
right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-
existing in the cell."
My main question is: What are the rebuttals to this argument?
-----------
PiP:
And, as I already wrote, it is true that the motor protein might not
have the strength, that the linker would have to be the right size,
and that a cilium just is not a cilium unless it sticks outside. True,
but so what? This is now an old fashioned argument from
implausibility. It is weak. It is not a proof of impossibility and
it doesn't use the logical machinery of IC at all. Nor does it
use any numbers - just how implausible does he think it is that
a motor designed for one purpose would be strong enough
for another purpose? Just off the top of my head, knowing
nothing about the details of the two purposes, I would assess
the probability as about 1/2 that the first function needs a
stronger motor than the second. And if the first attempt at a
mutated motor protein just doesn't have enough strength,
or if the first mutated linker is the wrong size, evolution simply
uses its God-given right to try-it-again. Sooner or later, like
Goldilocks, it comes up with one that is just-right.
Frank J
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I had more time and were better at web searching I would try to
find rebuttals to the specific quote. But you can do that too, and
chances are you're even better than I at web searching. AIUI, Talk
Origins is down, but there are other sites that address Behe's later
claims. Since you originally mentioned "Edge of Evolution" I would
start with this collection that I found last year:
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123
But let's assume for the moment that no one yet addressed that
particular claim - or the original one from "Edge of Evolution" that
you asked about if it's different. What do you think that would mean
for evolution and Behe's alternative? Specifically, do you think that
it would be a problem for the former and/or support for the latter?
hersheyh
> On Dec 29 2008, 4:39 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
> I asked about Behe's arguments against indirect pathways to
> irreducible complexity. I do not own a copy of Darwin's Black Box, but
> I did get "The Case for a Creator" in which Behe says something
> similar to what he said in his book. Here it is:
I suggest going to this site and its figures first.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mcb.section.5478
>
> "A motor protein that has been transporting cargo along a cellular
> highway might not have the strength necessary to push two
> microtubules
> relative to each other...
Yet it is quite clear that structurally similar motor proteins *do*
have the strength to do this. Does Behe make any evidenced argument
that shows that it is impossible to generate one from the other?
Changes that are *quantitative* in nature are what variation and
selection does best. Besides, it is likely that eucaryotic cilia/
flagella arose from cytoplasmic extensions whose initial purpose was
not motility of the organism. Merely waving around such an extension
can be functionally useful. Doing it faster may be more useful. Such
directional changes can lead to the *emergent* function of motility.
> A Nexin Linker would have to be exactly the
> right size before it was useful at all.
Look at where nexin is; it links outer doublets to one another in a
chain around the outer ring. If nexin were significantly smaller or
larger, that might have an effect on the *number* of microtubules that
could be arrayed in the outer ring. But is the usual number of
doublets in the outer ring (9) a *necessity*? Because of certain
oddball cilia/flagellae, we have an answer to that question. There is
no magic in the number nine (which cannot be symmetrically distributed
around the central core. That number *can* be changed (and *is* in a
few oddball flagella, which have either 3 or 6 outer doublets and no
central core doublet). The reason why nearly all eucaryotic cilia and
flagella have the 9+2 system is a consequence of *history* (common
descent usually retains structure), not *necessity*.
> Creating the cilium inside
> the
> cell would be counterproductive, it would need to extend from the
> cell.
Of course. But similar structures are found in neuronal axons and
other cytoplasmic extensions from a central cell body and are
important in bringing nutrients from those ends back to the cell body
and exporting organelles to the tips. Look up the phylum sarcodina.
The pseudopod is produced by the assembly of microtubules. A
eucaryotic cilia/flagella can be thought of as a specialized pseudopod
with the other cytoplasmic components removed. Surely, especially in
certain shelly amoebae, having the ability to wave their food-
gathering pseudopods might reasonably have some utility in some
environments.
> The necessary components would have to come together at the
> right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-
> existing in the cell."
Why must they? This is assuming (falsely) that simpler structures
would have no possible utility. Again, given that modern cilia are
clearly using proteins that have structurally related proteins
involved in simpler useful systems would argue that one does not have
to magically poof these proteins from scratch. This is *the* fallacy
of IC. The assumption that the loss-of-function effect resulting from
the *loss* of a structure from a modern system is the reverse in the
assembly of the system: that the modern system arose by the addition
of a structure to a functionless set of other proteins. By this
argument, the assembly of an arch is the exact reverse of what happens
when you remove the keystone. When you remove the keystone, the arch
collapses into a pile of bricks. But one does not create an arch by
adding a keystone to a pile of bricks. One produces an arch through a
series of specific intermediate steps, not by poofing the arch into
existence merely by having the parts together in the same place and
time. [In evolutionary theory, of course, the intermediate steps
*must* have some independent functional utility and not just be a step
along a path to a teleologic end goal.]