On Dec 6, 5:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk
> > wrote:
> >> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com
> >>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:17:24 -0800 (PST), Randy C
> >>> <randyec...@gmail.com
> >>>> The web page athttp://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darw.
> >>>> has an article matching the subject of this post. It says that there
> >>>> is nothing new in ID theory and there hasn't been anything new in ID
> >>>> theory for a number of years.
> >>> Probably because there was never a theory of ID to begin with.
> >> Surely we're just waiting for all the research from the Biologic
> >> Institute to be properly evaluated? (I feel sure it'll be just as
> >> convincing as that from the Creation Science movement.)
> >> [...]
> > Strangely enough, I don't recall ever reading about the Biologic
> > Institute. Is that a subset of the Discovery Institute?
Do you know the answer, John?
> > Anyway, Jason Rosenhouse's whole article reads like a bunch of fluff
> > to me, with no serious attempt to back up its conclusions. Look at
> > the extreme generality in which the following is couched:
> > [begin excerpt]
> > But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have
> > simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly
> > absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and
> > internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments
> > ID has to offer.
> > [end of excerpt]
> > I've seen a lot of those purported refutatilons, including the ones on
> > talk.origins, and about the only one I have seen that holds water is
> > the Miller-Robison theory of how complicated cascades like the blood
> > clotting mechanism and the immune system could arise by gradual
> > evolution IF the key molecules are autocatalytic.
> > If anyone here disagrees, I would like to see some NEW examples of
> > real refutations.
> Joe Felsenstein has decisively refuted most of Dembski's stuff,
> including his NFL theorem interpretations and his "Law of Conservation
> of Information", on Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. Is that new?
To me, it is. Can you give me some urls?
> > The rest of what I have seen is a mountain of misrepresentations,
> > sincere misunderstandings, and premature claims of refutation. And
> > one of the worst offenders was PZMyers, whom the author of this
> > propaganda post somehow admires:
> > "What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining
> > why irreducible complexity is nonsense? "
> > The concept of irreducible complexity coherent, and makes eminent
> > sense, and no one in talk.origins has been able to show otherwise in
> > all these years.
> > Myers was one of the worst offenders in the 1990's as far as
> > misrepresenting it and what others said about it are concerned. I
> > doubt that he has changed his stripes in the meantime.
> That sounds like fluff to me, with no attempt to back up your conclusions.
Thanks for flattering me. ["Imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery."] But there are some minor differences:
(1) Jason initiated the discussion, and had enough time to come up
with meaningful links. If he posted any, I missed them.
(2) Myers is long gone from here, except for a brief cameo appearance
earlier this year when certain people [I don't think you were
included, btw.] fawned all over him without bothering to defend
anything he said. I'm not sure anyone is interested in defending him
now. Are you?
(3) I'm willing to defend my claims; I haven't seen much sign of Jason
Rosenhouse defending his. See beginning of a defense at the end of
this post. But before that...
The post to which you are replying has a lot in common with something
I posted to his blog post at about the same time. It will be
interesting to see whether he does any better than the people who have
replied to me up to now. So far, none of them has shown any sign of
knowing the definition of "irreducible complexity" and plenty of sign
of being wedded to standard misconceptions about the concept.
> > He makes much of Myers knocking down a strawman, a Quranic crank
> > having nothing to do with irreducible complexity, as though this were
> > relevant to the topic. He links to a typical blustering rant of
> > Myers, and I have to laugh at Myers's list of 1990's "heavyweights"
> > who "stomped on" Intelligent Design
> > [begin excerpt]
> > Letï¿½s not forget all those other science bloggers and writers whoï¿½ve
> > also stomped on ID repeatedly: Ian Musgrave, Wesley Elsberry, Carl
> > Zimmer, John Wilkins, Larry Moran, Steve Matheson, Jeff Shallit, Allen
> > MacNeill, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller and many more.:
> > ___________ end of excerpt
> > fromhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/28/lonely-broken-heart.
> > Julie Thomas more than held her own against all members of this crowd
> > who challenged her in talk.origins, and also posted articles about
> > some of the non-t.o. folks, e.g. "Coyne attempts to refute Behe".
> > With the one exception noted above, and some of Larry Moran's posts,
> > they cut a pretty poor figure in competititon with her. [Btw, Robison
> > never even competed, IIRC. He and I had a few arguments, but I don't
> > recall him arguing with Julie.]
> Your mileage may vary.
Here is a little teaser for you about my mileage:
____________ begin excerpts from 1997 reply to Myers_____
Subject: Re: The Irreducibly Complex ATP Synthase
Myers's biological experise is nowhere in evidence here; instead,
we see some name-dropping and a brazen display of disingenousness
and hypocrisy from him.
CC to Julie, with the usual reminder that Myers has buried
his head in the sand over my posts.
(PZ Myers) writes:
>In article <65agcd$2...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
>(Julie Thomas) wrote:
>> This is the first reply to my ATP synthase article that my server has
>> picked up. But apparently there are other replies. If anyone wants
>> to be sure that I see their reply, I suggest they e-mail me a copy.
Myers left this in without comment. OTOH he makes a
highly suspicious looking snip below.
>> In a previous article, sar...@ix.netcom.com
(Stanley Friesen) says:
>> >Chris Carrell <cjc...@super.zippo.com
>> >>Well, that perks the ears up. Doing a search, I find no mention of
>> >>Andrew Leslie and one mention of Paul Boyer. Was this really based
>> >>on primary literature? (No mention of John Walker, either.)
>> What now? I'm supposed to be a name-dropper? My article was
>> based on recent review articles and primary literature. If the folks
>> you name have anything relevant to say about the origin of the
>> F-ATP synthases, why not share it? My article (like the previous
>> DNA rep and flagellum articles) was not intended as the conclusive
>> last word.
Myers responds with some more name-dropping.
>Ummmm...you are aware that Boyer and Walker (with Jens Skou) won
>this year's Nobel in chemistry for their work on, you guessed it,
>*ATP synthase* and Na+/K+-ATPase, aren't you?
____________end of first excerpt, begin second__________
Let's just see some of what Myers snipped, shall we?
======================= begin restoration, names added in brackets
>>>> What about the literature? I have been unable to find any speculations
>>>> about the origin of this complex.
>>>>Why is "We don't know," such an unacceptable answer to you? Do you
>>>>want science to have easy answers? (If it did, it wouldn't be very
>>>Indeed, considering how *recent* the discovery of this mechanism is, our
>>>lack of knowledge of its origin is to be expected.
=========================== end restoration
>> When it came to DNA replication, "we" didn't know. When it came to
>> the bacterial flagellum, "we" didn't know. When it came to the
>> eucaryotic flagellum, "we" didn't know. When it comes to abiogenesis,
>> "we" didn't know. Now, "we" don't know about the origin of the F-ATPase?
>> It ain't goin' stop here, folks. An if y'all don't know about the origin
>> of this, and that, and that, and that, and that, and that, etc., how
>> do y'all know they evolved without intelligent intervention? After all,
>> if these are indeed designed features, that y'all "don't know" is to
>> be expected. After all, if someone still subscribed to the old
>> blending theory of inheritence, I expect she wouldn't know how to
>> explain Mendel's results also.
>Why all the emphasis on "we"?
As if you didn't know from Chris and Stanley's words,
which you snipped and I restored, dissembler.
> Do **you** know?
As if you didn't know from Julie's words which you snipped
and I restored, hypocrite.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
========== end of excerpts
There's plenty more where that came from.