Could Behe be schizophrenic?
deser...@hotmail.com
testimony and cross-examination (God bless the ACLU!), I am
puzzled at some of his behavior. (I am also puzzled at why the
defendants selected him as one of their supporters and witnesses
when he is doing such a poor job defending the defendants'
falsehoods.) Over and over again Behe has denied opinions he
himself asserted and supported in his writings in the recent past
(much of that written opinion being in "The Panda's Thumb"). Worse
yet, he clearly supports and defends "Intelligent Design" out of
occult convictions and not scientific ones, yet he has insisted
under oath and in front of many witnesses he denies it.
I'm quite serious in wondering if Behe really is not aware of his
behavior (i.e., he is nuts instead of a liar like most
Creationists). The killing stroke appears, in my opinion, when he
arbitrarily redefined what science is so that his new definition
will support his assertion that ID is "science." That is
Wonderland, Through-the-Looking-Glass behavior that didn't even
work for Humpty Dumpty, let alone in front of a judge here in the
real world.
---
http://lastliberal.org / I support privatization of religion.
Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig
"Waiter, can you help? This man has a soup in his fly." -- Mike Hammer
Bobby D. Bryant
> After reading some of the Dover court transcripts of Behe's
> testimony and cross-examination (God bless the ACLU!), I am puzzled
> at some of his behavior. (I am also puzzled at why the defendants
> selected him as one of their supporters and witnesses when he is
> doing such a poor job defending the defendants' falsehoods.) Over
> and over again Behe has denied opinions he himself asserted and
> supported in his writings in the recent past (much of that written
> opinion being in "The Panda's Thumb"). Worse yet, he clearly
> supports and defends "Intelligent Design" out of occult convictions
> and not scientific ones, yet he has insisted under oath and in front
> of many witnesses he denies it.
>
> I'm quite serious in wondering if Behe really is not aware of his
> behavior (i.e., he is nuts instead of a liar like most
> Creationists).
I haven't read much except what has been quoted here and in the
various news articles, but I've been wondering the same thing. I
considered posting a reply to one his quotes posted earlier today,
asking "Is that the way he normally thinks, or is it just the
result of trying to support an unsupportable position?"
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
shane
The thought did cross my mind whilst reading the transcript of his cross
examination that he could turn out to be the ultimate Loki as far as the
ID crowd are concerned.
Some of his answers than may come in handy for people on this forum is
these from day 12 am p.57 ll 10-21;
Q. And your conclusion is that, that complexity
provides an insurmountable obstacle to Darwinian
evolution
A. Well, you always try to avoid words like
insurmountable, but it certainly points to severe
problems for it, yes.
Q. And you reached the conclusion that certain
biochemical systems could not be produced by natural
selection because they are irreducibly complex?
A. Again, you've got to be careful about using
absolutes like could not, but it certainly seems like
they could not.
I think I will file that away for next time some creationist claims that
science always equivocates, and that ID/creationism has the absolute
answers.
Shane
Alexander
"shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:u9h8f.283$W62...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I am still waiting for an uncorrupted transcript of the final cross of Behe
to pop up (the last day looks like Rothschild managed to up a gear again and
make some pretty extensive inroads into Behe's little world) but I think
you'd be stretching the definition of schizophrenia to breaking point if you
wanted to apply it to him.
The transcripts don't include inflexion, pauses, repairs or other indicators
that would be useful so it's incredibly difficult to make any sort of
extensive assessment of the discourse. What might be the case is that Behe
does suffer from some sort of obsessional neurosis.
He seems to be responding in a controlled fashion to being challenged, but
this is a formal environment - what would be really telling is how he reacts
in private to challenges both to his professional and personal authority. I
don't know if anyone from Lehigh has been in contact with him, but if he
evidences behaviours of trying to control both his environment and
colleagues (I mean a strong degree of manipulation, beyond what you'd expect
from normal interaction) and reacts extremely badly to being denied that
control (to the extent to losing a degree of emotional control, sudden
unexpected bursts of anger or pleading with parties on an emotional level)
then that would strongly indicate narcissistic tendencies.
The other alternative would be true if Behe isolates himself from his
colleagues and avoids contact with most people except those from his
'in-group' and rarely engages in discussion with anyone except on terms
involving his own theories and abilities - that would suggest some sort of
obssession and persecutory complex.
I think it's difficult to make these kind of judgements without any sort of
detailed context though and the court environment can put into place all
sorts of other emotions and feelings that are entirely unrelated to an
individuals normative behaviour.
But schizophrenic? Nah.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I think I will file that away for next time some creationist claims that
> science always equivocates, and that ID/creationism has the absolute
> answers.
The moral of the story is that ID-ers should be questioned under oath.
These people are lying son's of bitches and their goal is the
destruction of science.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I am still waiting for an uncorrupted transcript of the final cross of Behe
> to pop up (the last day looks like Rothschild managed to up a gear again and
> make some pretty extensive inroads into Behe's little world) but I think
> you'd be stretching the definition of schizophrenia to breaking point if you
> wanted to apply it to him.
Ambiguous or ambivalent are better terms than schizophrenic. Behe is not
crazy. He is wrong minded. He is also an enemy of reason.
Bob Kolker
Ron O
Whatever he has it is common among the creationists that support this
kind of junk. Just look at the creationist posters like Nashton,
innocuous Zoe, or just-as-out-of-it-like-Behe Sean Pitman. No matter
how often they are forced to admit that there isn't anything worth
putting forward to support their junk they never seem to get a clue.
They all seem to be in some type of denial of reality. For sometime
Behe has been fairly blatant about his disregard for rational thought.
The Discovery Institute may give lip service in supporting him, but he
seems to be treated pretty much like a pariah even by them. You don't
see them actively supporting his notions, or coming in to stand beside
him when he starts claiming that ID is science. Instead you get them
claiming that the Dover rubes are "confused" for ever believing the
Discovery Institute propaganda, and wanting to teach this junk. You
get the idea that they wish that he would just shut up and get in line
with the replacement scam. The more attention they draw to the bogus
ID scam the more dishonest their current obfuscation scam looks.
Some of the cretinists like Meyer, Dembski and West understand how
bogus this junk is and are just lying to the public, but guys like Behe
seem to be incompetent. I'm not saying that guys like Meyer, Dembski
and West don't have other pathologies, but they obviously understand
how bogus their position is, but they continue with the scams.
Ron Okimoto
Harry K
deser...@hotmail.com wrote:
> After reading some of the Dover court transcripts of Behe's
> testimony and cross-examination (God bless the ACLU!), I am
> puzzled at some of his behavior. (I am also puzzled at why the
> defendants selected him as one of their supporters and witnesses
> when he is doing such a poor job defending the defendants'
> falsehoods.) Over and over again Behe has denied opinions he
> himself asserted and supported in his writings in the recent past
> (much of that written opinion being in "The Panda's Thumb"). Worse
> yet, he clearly supports and defends "Intelligent Design" out of
> occult convictions and not scientific ones, yet he has insisted
> under oath and in front of many witnesses he denies it.
>
> I'm quite serious in wondering if Behe really is not aware of his
> behavior (i.e., he is nuts instead of a liar like most
> Creationists). The killing stroke appears, in my opinion, when he
> arbitrarily redefined what science is so that his new definition
> will support his assertion that ID is "science." That is
> Wonderland, Through-the-Looking-Glass behavior that didn't even
> work for Humpty Dumpty, let alone in front of a judge here in the
> real world.
>
>
> http://lastliberal.org / I support privatization of religion.
> Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig
> "Waiter, can you help? This man has a soup in his fly." -- Mike Hammer
I am reading the transcripts in time order so just got to the cross
yesterday. Didn't make it through two pages before I was laughing at
his replies. He was tied in knots trying to justify his asinine
statements from the opening question. I love the way he was forced
(yes forced) to give real answers to the questions instead of smoke and
mirrors, e.g., astrology fits my definition. Only one example of many
and I have just gotten a good start on it.
I can only find transcripts up to and including day 12. I saw a list
of several past that but there were no links to them.
Harry K
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130467341....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> After reading some of the Dover court transcripts of Behe's
> testimony and cross-examination (God bless the ACLU!), I am
> puzzled at some of his behavior. (I am also puzzled at why the
> defendants selected him as one of their supporters and witnesses
> when he is doing such a poor job defending the defendants'
> falsehoods.) Over and over again Behe has denied opinions he
> himself asserted and supported in his writings in the recent past
> (much of that written opinion being in "The Panda's Thumb"). Worse
> yet, he clearly supports and defends "Intelligent Design" out of
> occult convictions and not scientific ones, yet he has insisted
> under oath and in front of many witnesses he denies it.
>
> I'm quite serious in wondering if Behe really is not aware of his
> behavior (i.e., he is nuts instead of a liar like most
> Creationists). The killing stroke appears, in my opinion, when he
> arbitrarily redefined what science is so that his new definition
> will support his assertion that ID is "science." That is
> Wonderland, Through-the-Looking-Glass behavior that didn't even
> work for Humpty Dumpty, let alone in front of a judge here in the
> real world.
>
yourself enough that something is true, despite evidence to the contrary,
you become...well, O.J.
And if you hang out with a bunch of like-minded sociopaths, then you have a
cult...i.e. The Discovery Institute.
JR
nbenami
amount of it from the DI in return for what shred of integrity he had
to start with. He can't admit being wrong because he'd be cut off from
the $$$. Its that simple.
Ferrous Patella
I think he just "tailors" his message for his audience.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
Ernest Major
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> writes
argumentation? (A good way to get oneself tangled up in contradictions.)
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 27/10/2005
Bobby D. Bryant
> news:1130467341....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by :
>
>> After reading some of the Dover court transcripts of Behe's
>> testimony and cross-examination (God bless the ACLU!), I am
>> puzzled at some of his behavior. (I am also puzzled at why the
>> defendants selected him as one of their supporters and witnesses
>> when he is doing such a poor job defending the defendants'
>> falsehoods.) Over and over again Behe has denied opinions he
>> himself asserted and supported in his writings in the recent past
>> (much of that written opinion being in "The Panda's Thumb"). Worse
>> yet, he clearly supports and defends "Intelligent Design" out of
>> occult convictions and not scientific ones, yet he has insisted
>> under oath and in front of many witnesses he denies it.
>>
>> I'm quite serious in wondering if Behe really is not aware of his
>> behavior (i.e., he is nuts instead of a liar like most
>> Creationists). The killing stroke appears, in my opinion, when he
>> arbitrarily redefined what science is so that his new definition
>> will support his assertion that ID is "science." That is
>> Wonderland, Through-the-Looking-Glass behavior that didn't even
>> work for Humpty Dumpty, let alone in front of a judge here in the
>> real world.
>
> I think he just "tailors" his message for his audience.
And is having trouble because, unlike with his usual audience, he
needs to make himself look self-consistent in front of the court.
Harry K
Well, he is doing a pee poor job of that. Answers a question and
Rothschild brings up an excerpt from his book, article, etc. showing
that he said just the opposite. Behe tries to weasel out of that only
to faced with another quote shooting that down. Even just reading the
transcript one can see him start to answer, pause, confused look when
he realizes the trap his answer will lead him into.
Harry K
Ari Allyn-Feuer
I think the thing is that he is on the stand, being cross-examined.
Even most creationists will do their best to tell the truth when under
oath in a federal court.
When faced with looking like a blithering idiot, Behe will choose that
over admitting under oath that he's wrong or commiting blatant
inconsistency before the court, invalidating automatically everything
he says.
It's the CX that made him do it. Behe's dishonest (and 2/3), but he's
not insane.
A.Carlson
>After reading some of the Dover court transcripts of Behe's
>testimony and cross-examination (God bless the ACLU!), I am
>puzzled at some of his behavior. (I am also puzzled at why the
>defendants selected him as one of their supporters and witnesses
>when he is doing such a poor job defending the defendants'
>falsehoods.) Over and over again Behe has denied opinions he
>himself asserted and supported in his writings in the recent past
>(much of that written opinion being in "The Panda's Thumb"). Worse
>yet, he clearly supports and defends "Intelligent Design" out of
>occult convictions and not scientific ones, yet he has insisted
>under oath and in front of many witnesses he denies it.
>
>I'm quite serious in wondering if Behe really is not aware of his
>behavior (i.e., he is nuts instead of a liar like most
>Creationists). The killing stroke appears, in my opinion, when he
>arbitrarily redefined what science is so that his new definition
>will support his assertion that ID is "science." That is
>Wonderland, Through-the-Looking-Glass behavior that didn't even
>work for Humpty Dumpty, let alone in front of a judge here in the
>real world.
Now that Buckingham has testified, Behe's testimony is looking much
better by comparison. At least Behe's contradictions have a bit of
distance between them while Buckingham was apparently flopping back
and forth just while he was on the witness stand. Perhaps Behe was
their 'least worst' option.
Seanpit
> Whatever he has it is common among
> the creationists that support this
> kind of junk. Just look at the
> creationist posters like Nashton,
> innocuous Zoe, or just-as-out-of-
> it-like-Behe Sean Pitman.
Behe does have problems with his theories, but he is certainly not "out
of it". At least he understands that there are fundamental problems
with the ToE. Unlike you, Behe is starting to see that mindless forces
of random mutation and natural selection just aren't creative enough to
do much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
You rant and rave and blow smoke all around, but you've never been able
to explain away this fundamental problem. You simply have no tenable
much less falsifiable evidence to support your position that mindless
Darwinian processes have indeed created the extreme levels of
functional complexity that we see in all living things.
> No matter
> how often they are forced to admit
> that there isn't anything worth
> putting forward to support their
> junk they never seem to get a clue.
Where have you ever explained how random mutation and mindless natural
selection can overcome the neutral gap problem? - which grows
exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity?
You can claim all day long that this problem is "junk" and that I am
"clueless", but such bald assertions aren't very helpful to me or to
anyone who thinks like I do.
> They all seem to be in some type
> of denial of reality. For sometime
> Behe has been fairly blatant about
> his disregard for rational thought.
> The Discovery Institute may give
> lip service in supporting him, but he
> seems to be treated pretty much
> like a pariah even by them. You don't
> see them actively supporting his
> notions, or coming in to stand beside
> him when he starts claiming that ID
> is science.
ID is certainly based on science. It makes falsifiable predictions
that can be disproved. The ToE, on the other hand, is not
fundamentally falsifiable. Genetic evolution, in particular, cannot be
tested in such a way in which the overall ToE could fail. The modern
ToE is kinda like the middle age notion of spontaneous generation of
life from dead and rotting organic matter - like maggots from rotting
meat. Such a notion, although ultimately wrong, was a more scientific
notion than the modern ToE. The modern ToE claims basically the same
thing, but says that although rapid spontaneous generation of life and
high levels of complexity cannot occur, that it can given enough time.
In other words, this time requirement places the ToE beyond the
abilities of a modern Pasteur to come along and test such an assertion.
Therefore, at best the modern ToE is a historical science, which
cannot be directly tested or falsified.
On the other hand, the predictions of ID in regard to genetic evolution
can fail in real time. This places the predictions of ID on a much
higher level of science than the ToE. I've presented many such
falsifiable predictions in this forum myself and none of you have come
even remotely close to falsifying any of these predictions with actual
experimental evidence.
> Some of the cretinists like Meyer,
> Dembski and West understand how
> bogus this junk is and are just
> lying to the public, but guys like Behe
> seem to be incompetent.
This is very interesting . . . Meyer, Dembski, and West know that they
are wrong, but they continue to make their false assertions in an
attempt to fool people into believing what they know to be a lie? Wow!
Do you know how insane this accusation is? You've said the same thing
about me several times. The problem with saying such things is that it
make you look like a conspiracy theorist. It is obvious that Meyer,
Dembski, West, and I really do believe the "nonsense" that we promote.
To say that we really don't believe, but are just liars, is delusional.
> I'm not saying that guys like Meyer, Dembski
> and West don't have other pathologies,
> but they obviously understand
> how bogus their position is, but
> they continue with the scams.
LOL - right ; )
> Ron Okimoto
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
CreateThis
> ... the extreme levels of
> functional complexity that we see in all living things.
Present company excepted.
> ... such bald assertions aren't very helpful to me or to
> anyone who thinks like I do.
Maybe nothing is, but there are drugs you can try.
> ID is certainly based on science. It makes falsifiable predictions
> that can be disproved.
Finally! OK, I'm ready. Let's hear the first one.
> ... It is obvious that Meyer,
> Dembski, West, and I really do believe the "nonsense" that we promote.
It's difficult to believe that you're all foaming-at-the-mouth nuts, but
if you insist...
CT
Glenn
That could falsify ID and support ToE as being testable. And ID's IC,
if testable, could falsify ToE. Darwin said it himself. Why is this
not true?
Ernest Major
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> writes
>
>Where have you ever explained how random mutation and mindless natural
>selection can overcome the neutral gap problem? - which grows
>exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity?
>You can claim all day long that this problem is "junk" and that I am
>"clueless", but such bald assertions aren't very helpful to me or to
>anyone who thinks like I do.
>
2) The onus is on you to demonstrate that the space of viable genotypes
is insufficiently connected for the biota to have arisen by known
processes.
3) The onus is also on you to demonstrate that the alleged problem grows
exponentially with "each step up the ladder of functional complexity".
4) The observation of the appearance of a nylonase via a frame shift
mutation is evidence that gaps of considerable magnitude can be crossed.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 28/10/2005
Ron O
Seanpit wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
> > Whatever he has it is common among
> > the creationists that support this
> > kind of junk. Just look at the
> > creationist posters like Nashton,
> > innocuous Zoe, or just-as-out-of-
> > it-like-Behe Sean Pitman.
>
> Behe does have problems with his theories, but he is certainly not "out
> of it". At least he understands that there are fundamental problems
> with the ToE. Unlike you, Behe is starting to see that mindless forces
> of random mutation and natural selection just aren't creative enough to
> do much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
Is this really Sean?
Have you managed to turn the same level of scrutiny on your own views
as you do on science? Doesn't look like it. It is obvious that you
are in the same boat with Behe. Incompetence isn't a really good
defense, but it seems to be the only one that you have.
>
> You rant and rave and blow smoke all around, but you've never been able
> to explain away this fundamental problem. You simply have no tenable
> much less falsifiable evidence to support your position that mindless
> Darwinian processes have indeed created the extreme levels of
> functional complexity that we see in all living things.
What is untenable? What is my position on mindless Darwinian
processes? Have you started to halucinate too? In science you have to
weigh evidence. There is no such thing as a perfect scientific theory.
We are working on all of them. You have just decided that your bull
pucky doesn't require the work. If there is mindless adherance to
anything, you must have it. Have you tried to weigh the evidence?
Have you scrutinized your own junk? That is the problem with
incompetents like Behe and yourself. You obviously can't do something
as simple as compare alternatives. At some point this crosses the edge
to some type of insanity, and, frankly, you and Behe have crossed.
Put up your evidence for your alternative and lets compare it to the
evidence that you claim isn't good enough for common descent. You know
that you can't do it, so why keep pretending.
You had dropped out for so long that I had hoped that someone you trust
had managed to break through the insanity, but that seems to be a
forlorn hope. Really, get someone that you trust go through your posts
like this and have them tell you where you are going bonkers.
>
> > No matter
> > how often they are forced to admit
> > that there isn't anything worth
> > putting forward to support their
> > junk they never seem to get a clue.
>
> Where have you ever explained how random mutation and mindless natural
> selection can overcome the neutral gap problem? - which grows
> exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity?
> You can claim all day long that this problem is "junk" and that I am
> "clueless", but such bald assertions aren't very helpful to me or to
> anyone who thinks like I do.
I think that you did that yourself, when you made the calculations that
a tremendous amount of variation is expected in populations. Not all
of it has to be selectable at any moment. You know this, so you kept
shifting the goalposts to more and more neutral mutations, but you
couldn't put up an example where even three had to be crossed. Your
own calculations showed that two neutral mutations would be routine and
three weren't out of the question, so what is your beef? Do you have
anything that is even that good that supports what you think happened?
You keep making these assertions, but you are the one that never seems
to have anything to back up your assertions. Just look at Behe, did he
have anything to support IC in court? Nothing, is nothing, you can't
make it into something by claiming the insanity defense.
If any of this junk about ID being science were true, why have the scam
artists given up on it and gone with a new scam that doesn't even
mention that ID ever existed? Have you gone to the Discovery Institute
web site and looked up the Ohio Model lesson plan. Where is the ID in
the lesson plan?
This is just another example where you can't accept reality, so you
just make junk up.
ID would really have something if lifeforms were observed to spring out
of rotting organic junk, or even out of thin air, but that isn't the
reality that we live in. Life comes from existing lifeforms. New
species are evloving from existing species. What do you observe that
supports ID intervention in the process? Even Behe admitted that God
may be dead. He wouldn't have had to do that if he had any evidence
that ID was working in nature. Science has the evidence that the
mechanisms that we have worked out are working in nature. Even you
admit that, but you claim that they aren't good enough even though you
have nothing better to put forward.
>
> On the other hand, the predictions of ID in regard to genetic evolution
> can fail in real time. This places the predictions of ID on a much
> higher level of science than the ToE. I've presented many such
> falsifiable predictions in this forum myself and none of you have come
> even remotely close to falsifying any of these predictions with actual
> experimental evidence.
If ID could present any experimental data they would have done it by
now. They failed. They have known for years that ID was a failure.
If it wasn't, why didn't the scientific theory of ID get taught in
Ohio? The rubes that had been scammed wanted to teach it, but what
were they told by the ID scam artists? What did the ID scam artists
tell the rubes in Dover? Didn't they call them "confused" for wanting
to teach the junk that the ID scammers had made up?
>
> > Some of the cretinists like Meyer,
> > Dembski and West understand how
> > bogus this junk is and are just
> > lying to the public, but guys like Behe
> > seem to be incompetent.
>
> This is very interesting . . . Meyer, Dembski, and West know that they
> are wrong, but they continue to make their false assertions in an
> attempt to fool people into believing what they know to be a lie? Wow!
> Do you know how insane this accusation is? You've said the same thing
> about me several times. The problem with saying such things is that it
> make you look like a conspiracy theorist. It is obvious that Meyer,
> Dembski, West, and I really do believe the "nonsense" that we promote.
> To say that we really don't believe, but are just liars, is delusional.
This is just an observation. Guys like Meyer, West and Dembski have
enough on the ball to know when to shut up. Behe and you, aren't that
competent. These guys changed tactics and dropped the ID scam for the
"teach the controversy" creationist scam that doesn't even mention ID,
years ago. They know that ID can't be supported at this time. They
are just too dishonest to get the message to rubes and incomptents like
yourself in a clear and honest manner.
If they believed the ID junk, why didn't Meyer support the Ohio rubes
in their quest to teach the scientific theory of ID? Why did Dembski
tell the scammers to cool it after Ohio and not "over state" the case
for ID? All the Ohio rubes wanted to do is teach the scientific theory
of ID, but Dembski knew that, that was over stating the case. Unlike
you, I don't have to make this stuff up. These guys are scam artists,
they know what they are doing, but they do it anyway.
You and Behe are the lucky ones. You can claim the insanity defense.
>
> > I'm not saying that guys like Meyer, Dembski
> > and West don't have other pathologies,
> > but they obviously understand
> > how bogus their position is, but
> > they continue with the scams.
>
> LOL - right ; )
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
I'd laugh, but it isn't funny. Get some help. Get someone that you
trust to go over the ID scam with you. Try and get some handle on why
you want to lie to yourself about this junk.
Is it really important to your religious beliefs? You have trusted the
wrong people, you can't trust your own inferences. If you could you
would have realized it a long time ago. You can't claim ignorance, so
it is either incompetence or dishonesty. That isn't funny.
Ron Okimoto
Seanpit
> 1) You've omitted other known processes.
Like what? What other known process is going to help out random
mutation and natural selection get over the exponentially expanding
gaps?
> 2) The onus is on you to demonstrate
> that the space of viable genotypes
> is insufficiently connected for the
> biota to have arisen by known
> processes.
I have shown this. I've shown that not only is this concept
intuitively true in all information/language systems, to include
genetics, exponentially expanding neutral gaps are demonstrable in real
life experiments. I've detailed these experiments both in this forum
and on my website.
> 3) The onus is also on you to demonstrate
> that the alleged problem grows
> exponentially with "each step up the
> ladder of functional complexity".
Certainly - and I've done this.
> 4) The observation of the appearance
> of a nylonase via a frame shift
> mutation is evidence that gaps of
> considerable magnitude can be crossed.
The evolution of the nylonase function is evidence of true evolution in
action, but it is not evidence of crossing a gap of "considerable
magnitude". The minimum sequence needed for the nylonase function to
be achieved to a selectable level in the right environment is only a
few hundred amino acid residues at best. In the sequence space of this
size there is likely a fairly high ratio of potential nylonases. The
same thing is true of the minimum lactase sequence space (i.e.,
~20^400). However, try looking at functions that require more than a
couple thousand fairly specified residues at minimum. Such functions
simple do not evolve like low-level nylonase or lactase functions
evolve. It just doesn't happen. Why? Because of the exponentially
expanding neutral gaps problem.
> alias Ernest Major
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Andrew Mead Mc Clure
> Has he said anything that is not explicable as a result of tactical
> argumentation? (A good way to get oneself tangled up in contradictions.)
Really, if there's one impression I've walked away with from my time spent
on the internet, it's that if there's a difference between a sociopath
and a person engaging in "tactical argumentation"... well, if the
difference even exists, you're going to have a hard time identifying it.
Harry K
I suspect a cold dash of reality is causing the rat's deserting the
ship syndrome. The heavy guns of creationism are facing the bitter
truth that their tactics cannot prevail in a tightly structured domain
such as the trial where they can't stack the audience or use the common
methods. They cannot do the Gish Gallop as they must respond to
specific questions. The 'moving goalposts' ploy is a failure as so
aptly demonstrated by Rothschild and Behe. Every time Behe shifted the
posts, Rothschild yanked them back and planted them ever firmer.
Has there been any other court case where their feet were held so tight
to the fire?
Harry K
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
> > Whatever he has it is common among
> > the creationists that support this
> > kind of junk. Just look at the
> > creationist posters like Nashton,
> > innocuous Zoe, or just-as-out-of-
> > it-like-Behe Sean Pitman.
>
> Behe does have problems with his theories,
What "theories"? He's admitted under oath that ID doesn't qualify as a
scientific theory.
> but he is certainly not "out
> of it". At least he understands that there are fundamental problems
> with the ToE.
Oh? He has asserted that there are problems with the theory of
evolution, but has failed to support that assertion.
> Unlike you, Behe is starting to see that mindless forces
> of random mutation and natural selection just aren't creative enough to
> do much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
He has? Where has he presented the evidence that natural selection is
inadequate? Every instance he has presented to argue for the inadequacy
of natural selection has been thoroughly debunked by researchers in the
relevant fields, and Behe has failed to address those refutations.
>
> You rant and rave and blow smoke all around, but you've never been able
> to explain away this fundamental problem.
The ranting, raving and smoke blowing come from the ID crowd. It's very
illuminating to see them subjected to public scrutiny in a forum in
which they can't rant, rave and blow smoke.
> You simply have no tenable
> much less falsifiable evidence
Evidence is not falsifiable. Hypotheses based on evidence are
falsifiable. Surely you know more about science that this?
> to support your position that mindless
> Darwinian processes
Natural selection makes predictions which are supported by the
evidence. At a very simple level, the abilit of populations of bacteria
to develop resistance to a range of chemicals is a prediction of
natural selection which has been demonstrated over and over again in
the laboratory and in the wild. Your ignorance of the evidence won't
make it disapear.
> have indeed created the extreme levels of
> functional complexity that we see in all living things.
So you are suggesting that we discard one of the fundamental premises
of science - that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent
manner - because you don't like it?
>
> > No matter
> > how often they are forced to admit
> > that there isn't anything worth
> > putting forward to support their
> > junk they never seem to get a clue.
>
> Where have you ever explained how random mutation and mindless natural
> selection can overcome the neutral gap problem?
...which only exists in your head....
> - which grows
> exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity?
...a concept which you fail to define ....
> You can claim all day long that this problem is "junk" and that I am
> "clueless", but such bald assertions aren't very helpful to me or to
> anyone who thinks like I do.
I've given an analysis of one of your web pages - the one dealing with
the fossilisation of ichthyosaurs - in which I demonstrated that you
are clueless and that your argument is based on lack of knowledge and
falsehoods you have swallowed wholesale from other creationist sources.
Is that page still on-line?
>
> > They all seem to be in some type
> > of denial of reality. For sometime
> > Behe has been fairly blatant about
> > his disregard for rational thought.
> > The Discovery Institute may give
> > lip service in supporting him, but he
> > seems to be treated pretty much
> > like a pariah even by them. You don't
> > see them actively supporting his
> > notions, or coming in to stand beside
> > him when he starts claiming that ID
> > is science.
>
> ID is certainly based on science.
It is?
> It makes falsifiable predictions
> that can be disproved.
Such as? How can the assertion that an "Inteligent Designer" has
interfered with normal evolutionary processes using undefined by
possibly supernatural methods in an unpredictable manner for unknown
reasons falsifiable?
> The ToE, on the other hand, is not
> fundamentally falsifiable.
Yes it is.
Rabbits in the precambrian would be one hell of a challenge, as would a
dog giving birth to cat.
> Genetic evolution, in particular, cannot be
> tested in such a way in which the overall ToE could fail.
Wow!
Why not?
> The modern
> ToE is kinda like the middle age notion of spontaneous generation of
> life from dead and rotting organic matter - like maggots from rotting
> meat.
What on earth has the theory of evolution to do with the long-falisfied
notion that maggots can arise spontaneously from rotting meat? You are
clutching not so much at straws as at the places straws used to be.
> Such a notion, although ultimately wrong, was a more scientific
> notion than the modern ToE.
Why?
> The modern ToE claims basically the same
> thing,
Perhaps you can give us a citation in which an evolutionary biologist
claims that life can arise spontaneously from rotting meat?
> but says that although rapid spontaneous generation of life
The theory of evolution does not address the issues of abiogenesis.
> and high levels of complexity cannot occur,
> that it can given enough time.
So the "ToE" predicts
1) That high levels of complexity cannot occur and
2) That high levels of complexity can occur.
Might I suggest that you try to find out what modern evolutionary
theory actually predicts, rather than pulling contradictions out of
...wherever you pull such contradicitons?
> In other words, this time requirement places the ToE beyond the
> abilities of a modern Pasteur to come along and test such an assertion.
No it doesn't. We can observe evolutionary processes in real time. We
have observed morphological change in populations leading to
speciation.
> Therefore, at best the modern ToE is a historical science, which
> cannot be directly tested or falsified.
Another of those nonsensical categories into which creationists try to
cram evolutionary science in a rather transparent and pathetic attempt
to deny that it is science.
Please give me an example of a science which does not study phenomena
which occured in the past. This would be a scientific discipline which
studies phenomena which are going to occur in the future, by the way.
>
> On the other hand, the predictions of ID in regard to genetic evolution
> can fail in real time.
What predictions of ID?
> This places the predictions of ID on a much
> higher level of science than the ToE.
There are no predictions of ID!
> I've presented many such
> falsifiable predictions
Nonsense. You have presented a series of unfounded assertions which
have been ripped to shreds by contributors to this forum with a
knowledge of the areas of science in which you are trying to build your
argument.
> in this forum myself and none of you have come
> even remotely close to falsifying any of these predictions with actual
> experimental evidence.
What experimental evidence can support the assertion that GIMAID
fiddled with the normal processes of evolution using unknown but
possibly supernatural processes in an unpredicatable manner for unknown
motives?
>
> > Some of the cretinists like Meyer,
> > Dembski and West understand how
> > bogus this junk is and are just
> > lying to the public, but guys like Behe
> > seem to be incompetent.
>
> This is very interesting . . . Meyer, Dembski, and West know that they
> are wrong, but they continue to make their false assertions in an
> attempt to fool people into believing what they know to be a lie? Wow!
> Do you know how insane this accusation is?
It's backed up rather strongly by the evidence from the current trials.
> You've said the same thing
> about me several times. The problem with saying such things is that it
> make you look like a conspiracy theorist. It is obvious that Meyer,
> Dembski, West, and I really do believe the "nonsense" that we promote.
If this is the case, it suggests that you are delusional.
> To say that we really don't believe, but are just liars, is delusional.
Or it could be that you and the others are delusional. Certainly there
are contradictions in your assertions which you refuse to face.
>
> > I'm not saying that guys like Meyer, Dembski
> > and West don't have other pathologies,
> > but they obviously understand
> > how bogus their position is, but
> > they continue with the scams.
>
> LOL - right ; )
Why not? They are in positions in which they have good salaries,
substantially higher than those of many working scientists, yet do no
research, produce no scientific papers, and continue to repeat the
same, discreditted assertions. Seems like a scam to me.
RF
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>
> > 1) You've omitted other known processes.
>
> Like what?
Saltation?
>What other known process is going to help out random
> mutation and natural selection get over the exponentially expanding
> gaps?
So if we don't know how it happened, it must be GIMAID?
When the precession of the orbit of Mercury was observed, and could not
be accounted for using Newtonian mechanics, would the explanation the
GIMIAD ("GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner") is responsible be acceptable?
>
> > 2) The onus is on you to demonstrate
> > that the space of viable genotypes
> > is insufficiently connected for the
> > biota to have arisen by known
> > processes.
>
> I have shown this.
No you haven't. You have made assertions based on your rather poor
knowledge of the biological processes involved which have been
eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
> I've shown that not only is this concept
> intuitively true in all information/language systems,
You have not demonstrated why such an analogy is relevant to the
biological sciences.
> to include
> genetics,
Only by analogy, and in doing so you have exposed your ignorance of
genetics
> exponentially expanding neutral gaps are demonstrable in real
> life experiments. I've detailed these experiments both in this forum
> and on my website.
What experiments? You have made assertions.
>
> > 3) The onus is also on you to demonstrate
> > that the alleged problem grows
> > exponentially with "each step up the
> > ladder of functional complexity".
>
> Certainly - and I've done this.
Not to the satisfaction of anyone except yourself, and in failing to
address the errors in your "demonstration" you have shown that your
assertions lack support.
>
> > 4) The observation of the appearance
> > of a nylonase via a frame shift
> > mutation is evidence that gaps of
> > considerable magnitude can be crossed.
>
> The evolution of the nylonase function is evidence of true evolution in
> action, but it is not evidence of crossing a gap of "considerable
> magnitude". The minimum sequence needed for the nylonase function to
> be achieved to a selectable level in the right environment is only a
> few hundred amino acid residues at best. In the sequence space of this
> size there is likely a fairly high ratio of potential nylonases. The
> same thing is true of the minimum lactase sequence space (i.e.,
> ~20^400). However, try looking at functions that require more than a
> couple thousand fairly specified residues at minimum. Such functions
> simple do not evolve like low-level nylonase or lactase functions
> evolve. It just doesn't happen. Why? Because of the exponentially
> expanding neutral gaps problem.
You've been corrected on this slew of misinformation on this forum. Why
do you persist in regurgitating discredited ideas?
RF
Ernest Major
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> writes
>Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> 1) You've omitted other known processes.
>
>Like what? What other known process is going to help out random
>mutation and natural selection get over the exponentially expanding
>gaps?
You're begging the question. However you omitted mention of genetic
drift. You omitted mention of changes to the adaptive landscape.
>
>> 2) The onus is on you to demonstrate
>> that the space of viable genotypes
>> is insufficiently connected for the
>> biota to have arisen by known
>> processes.
>
>I have shown this. I've shown that not only is this concept
>intuitively true in all information/language systems, to include
>genetics, exponentially expanding neutral gaps are demonstrable in real
>life experiments. I've detailed these experiments both in this forum
>and on my website.
Firstly, "intuitively true" reads like a confession that you haven't
shown what you're claiming to have shown. Intuition can be wrong. See
Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics for well supported theories
contrary to lay intuition.
Secondly, what you're claiming to have shown doesn't seem to be that
same as what I stated that you have to demonstrate.
As I recall you demonstrated that the gaps grew with length for the
subspace of English words in the space of letter sequences. As the
subspace is biased towards letter sequences of short length this is true
for that subspace. (Even so your predictions of how difficult it was to
reach longer sequences were greatly exaggerated, demonstrating that even
in this case your modelling was not an accurate representation of the
problem.) This does not necessarily follow through to the subspace of
functional peptides in the space of peptides; at first sight it appears
that the density of function peptides increases with length.
>
>> 3) The onus is also on you to demonstrate
>> that the alleged problem grows
>> exponentially with "each step up the
>> ladder of functional complexity".
>
>Certainly - and I've done this.
See above.
>
>> 4) The observation of the appearance
>> of a nylonase via a frame shift
>> mutation is evidence that gaps of
>> considerable magnitude can be crossed.
>
>The evolution of the nylonase function is evidence of true evolution in
>action, but it is not evidence of crossing a gap of "considerable
>magnitude". The minimum sequence needed for the nylonase function to
>be achieved to a selectable level in the right environment is only a
>few hundred amino acid residues at best. In the sequence space of this
>size there is likely a fairly high ratio of potential nylonases. The
>same thing is true of the minimum lactase sequence space (i.e.,
>~20^400). However, try looking at functions that require more than a
>couple thousand fairly specified residues at minimum. Such functions
>simple do not evolve like low-level nylonase or lactase functions
>evolve. It just doesn't happen. Why? Because of the exponentially
>expanding neutral gaps problem.
>
>
Does this mean that you accept that all vertebrates evolved from a
common ancestor by known processes?
Ron O
Actually, Behe is probably the most prominent "scientist" type of the
"creationist" type to be cross examined in court. The Louisiana and
Arkansas court cases did not involve any of the major creationist
players. Guys like Gish, Morris, and even fringe creationists like
Hovind that the Kansas rubes listened to in 1999 have never made it to
court. No defense would be stupid enough to call them as witnesses,
and for some reason you can't seem to call hostile witnesses for the
plantiff side. We almost saw Meyer and Dembski in court. That would
have been worth the price of admission.
So Behe is about the "best" that the creationists have ever put up for
evaluation. That should tell any creationist just how bad things are
for them in the sciences.
Ron Okimoto
Seanpit
Ernest Major wrote:
> >> 1) You've omitted other known processes.
> >
> >Like what? What other known process
> >is going to help out random
> >mutation and natural selection
> >get over the exponentially expanding
> >gaps?
>
> You're begging the question. However
> you omitted mention of genetic
> drift. You omitted mention of
> changes to the adaptive landscape.
I've not omitted genetic drift or changes in adaptive landscapes.
Genetic drift is the result of random mutations and changes in adaptive
landscapes are the result of changes in environment and/or changes in
the genetic makeup of a particular creature - which are again the
result of random mutations. Again, this all boils down to random
mutation and natural selection and these mindless forces, to include
the mindless forces you just mentioned, just aren't creative enough to
do anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
> Firstly, "intuitively true" reads
> like a confession that you haven't
> shown what you're claiming to have
> shown. Intuition can be wrong. See
> Special Relativity and Quantum
> Mechanics for well supported theories
> contrary to lay intuition.
Sure, intuition isn't enough, but it is a very good place to start. If
something seems obviously true, intuitively true, it is certainly worth
taking a closer look - right? The fact is that ID is not only
intuitively true, it is demonstrably true. It stands up under close
investigation.
> Secondly, what you're claiming to
> have shown doesn't seem to be that
> same as what I stated that you
> have to demonstrate.
>
> As I recall you demonstrated that
> the gaps grew with length for the
> subspace of English words in the
> space of letter sequences. As the
> subspace is biased towards letter
> sequences of short length this is true
> for that subspace. (Even so your
> predictions of how difficult it was to
> reach longer sequences were greatly
> exaggerated, demonstrating that even
> in this case your modelling was not
> an accurate representation of the
> problem.) This does not necessarily
> follow through to the subspace of
> functional peptides in the space of
> peptides; at first sight it appears
> that the density of function peptides
> increases with length.
How do you get that? In order to calculate density, you cannot simply
look at the overall number of functional sequences, you have to look at
the number of functional sequences, which does increase with length,
compared to the number of non-functional/non-beneficial sequences that
also increase with length in a relatively exponential manner. This
assertion of yours, that the density of functional peptides actually
increases with length, is simply wrong. The relative density of
beneficial sequences does indeed *decrease* exponentially with
increasing minimum sequence length and/or minimum sequence specificity.
This exponential decline in ratio of potentially beneficial vs.
non-beneficial happens in every language system, not just English. It
happens in Russian, German, Italian, computer code, and genetic codes.
This is demonstrably true. Just look into it yourself.
At lower levels of functional complexity, the islands of beneficial
sequences are rather sticky. As the level of complexity is gradually
increased, the ocean of non-functional sequences grows exponentially
faster than do the islands of functional sequences. However the
islands stick together with bridges that cross between various islands.
But, with every increase in minimum complexity, the growth of the
ocean of non-beneficial sequences grows so much that it stretches these
interconnecting bridges more and more, exponentially so, until these
bridges start to break appart. At this point, the islands of
beneficial sequences start to become truly isolated. And, they become
more and more isolated, exponentially so, with each increase in
functional complexity. Very quickly, this rapidly growing isolation
makes it impossible for any mindless process to find the very rare
islands of beneficial function this side of trillions upon trillions of
years of average time. In real life, there simply are no examples of
evolution beyond those functions that require just a thousand or so
fairly specified residues.
Below this level, such as those functions requiring just a few hundred
or so fairly specified residues, such as lactase or nylonase-type
single protein enzymes, evolution can and does happen. But not beyond
such low levels of complexity.
The problem here is that every single living thing is made up of
functional systems that occupy very high levels of functional
complexity - requiring many thousands of fairly specified residues and
base pair sequences to be in the proper order. Such high-level
functional order just doesn't happen mindlessly - regardless of the
time involved.
AC
I think this is all taking it a bit far. I don't think Behe suffers from
any sort of overt mental illness, merely from that sort of cognitive
dissonance that most Creationists suffer from. He, of course, has it much
worse because he really does know what science is, but his religious
motivations are so strong that he ends up being forced to absurd positions,
and into pathetic and easily falsifiable denials.
The problem here is that the Creationists aren't going to give a damn. They
have their deeply held preconceptions on this issue, and Behe being forced
to admit that astrology might come under the definition of science he's
trying to foist upon the world isn't going to mean a damn thing to them.
They aren't listening to Behe's words, because they don't need to. He has a
problem with evolution, and that's enough for them.
How do you think the Big Tent is held together? Hostility to science and
mutual ignorance are the glue.
That being said, I suspect that even a fairly conservative SCOTUS is going
to piss on the IDers. Behe's absurdities and the very clear dishonesty of
the other defendants has pretty much cooked the ID goose.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
>
> Seanpit wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>
>> > Whatever he has it is common among
>> > the creationists that support this
>> > kind of junk. Just look at the
>> > creationist posters like Nashton,
>> > innocuous Zoe, or just-as-out-of-
>> > it-like-Behe Sean Pitman.
>>
>> Behe does have problems with his theories,
>
> What "theories"? He's admitted under oath that ID doesn't qualify as a
> scientific theory.
And here is a demonstration of my point from my previous post. Sean isn't
even really listening to what Behe is saying at all. He isn't hearing the
words, all that matters to Sean is that Behe thinks there are problems with
evolution.
This is why, no matter how much of an ass Behe makes of himself over this,
Sean and his ilk will still nod their heads furiously in agreement.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> And here is a demonstration of my point from my previous post. Sean isn't
> even really listening to what Behe is saying at all. He isn't hearing the
> words, all that matters to Sean is that Behe thinks there are problems with
> evolution.
The challenge that Behe raises was also raised by Darwin himself. See
-Finding Darwin's God- by Kenneth Miller, pp 130-164.
Darwin raised the challenge (pre-emptively) and he answered it. It has
been answered even more thoroughly in subsequent developments of the
theory.
By the way, Behe is no idiot. He is a competent molecular biologist. He
just happens to be wrong on the matter of irreducible complexity. The
error into which Behe (and others) have fallen is a very plausible error
and it requires sophistication to avoid. Having a PhD in molecular
biology is no guarantee of not making the error.
Bob Kolker
Victor Eijkhout
> Q. And your conclusion is that, that complexity
> provides an insurmountable obstacle to Darwinian
> evolution
>
> A. Well, you always try to avoid words like
> insurmountable, but it certainly points to severe
> problems for it, yes.
>
> Q. And you reached the conclusion that certain
> biochemical systems could not be produced by natural
> selection because they are irreducibly complex?
>
> A. Again, you've got to be careful about using
> absolutes like could not, but it certainly seems like
> they could not.
Apart from the waffling, the whole notion behind ID was that if you
could _prove_ that something couldn't have evolved, it had to have been
crea^H^H^H^Hdesigned. Failing such an absolute proof, you have to stick
with what has worked so far, namely naturalistic explanations. Since
Behe himself admits that there is no airtight proof....
Victor.
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: www cs utk edu tilde lastname
Seanpit
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> By the way, Behe is no idiot. He is a
> competent molecular biologist. He
> just happens to be wrong on the matter
> of irreducible complexity. The
> error into which Behe (and others)
> have fallen is a very plausible error
> and it requires sophistication to
> avoid. Having a PhD in molecular
> biology is no guarantee of not
> making the error.
Behe is right about irreducible complexity (IC). IC is just another
way of stating the neutral gap problem. All Behe has yet to see, as
far as I can tell, is that there are different levels of IC. Lower
levels of IC can indeed be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. However,
higher levels of IC, which are equivalent to higher levels of
functional complexity, cannot be evolved by any mindless process,
Darwinian or otherwise, this side of a practical eternity of average
time.
You and your friends in this forum just don't seem to understand how
close to the truth Behe really is and how far away from the truth
Darwinists really are. It doesn't seem to matter what degrees one has
or doesn't have. It is very easy to fall into the subtle error to
which Darwin himself fell prey. Not only does one have to be
sophisticated to avoid such an error, one has to be independent minded
as well - willing to go out on one's own even in the face of scoffing
and open ridicule from the majority in popular science.
> Bob Kolker
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> No you haven't. You have made
> assertions based on your rather poor
> knowledge of the biological
> processes involved which have been
> eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
My assertions aren't that difficult and don't take much biological
knowledge to understand. They're actually quite simple and
straightforward. I've simply suggested that lower levels of functional
complexity in any language system, to include genetic codes, can be
evolved using mindless Darwinian-style mechanisms while higher levels
are exponentially harder and harder to evolve. Such a simple
statement, a simple question actually, should not be hard to disprove,
or answer, with real time examples of evolution in action at a level
that satisfies my rather elementary question.
Specifically, I've suggested that no system of function requiring more
than a 1,000 or so fairly specified residues or equivalent amount of
genetic real estate (i.e., over 3,000bp), at minimum, can be evolved be
evolved this side of a practical eternity of average time.
So far, none of those experts in this forum, whom you claim have
eviscerated my position, have yet to produce such a single example of
real time evolution at such a level of minimum informational
complexity. All real time examples of evolution in action, that I have
been shown, require a minimum of only a few hundred fairly specified
residues at best to realize beneficial selectivity of a truly novel
function.
Take flagellar motility, for example. Such a function requires a
minimum of at least 30,000 fairly specified bp genetic real estate. So
far, not a single proposed step in the evolution of such a highly
complex (informationally complex) system of function has yet to be
demonstrated in real time - not a single step. In comparison, many
examples of lower-level evolution exist - such as nylonase or lactase
evolution, where a minimum of only a few hundred fairly specified
residues is required.
What should such experimental examples of positive evolution at lower
levels and negative evolution at higher levels tell me? Why does
evolution tend to decline in creative power in an exponential manner?
Where have such simple questions been answered in this forum or
elsewhere in a way that could even remotely be called "eviscerating"?
I just don't get it . . . and it isn't all that helpful for you to tell
me that my not getting the truth of your position is due to ignorance
or insanity. Perhaps if you could make your position a bit more easily
understood by answering a few simple questions for a simple mind?
< snip >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You and your friends in this forum just don't seem to understand how
> close to the truth Behe really is and how far away from the truth
> Darwinists really are. It doesn't seem to matter what degrees one has
> or doesn't have. It is very easy to fall into the subtle error to
> which Darwin himself fell prey. Not only does one have to be
> sophisticated to avoid such an error, one has to be independent minded
> as well - willing to go out on one's own even in the face of scoffing
> and open ridicule from the majority in popular science.
Ridicule and the preponderance of empirical evidence. Evolution theory
is accepted because it is supported by evidence and is yet to be
falsified by evidence.
Bob Kolker
CreateThis
> You and your friends in this forum just don't seem to understand how
> close to the truth Behe really is and how far away from the truth
> Darwinists really are.
Yeah, either...
99.9 percent of the scientists on the planet still have it wrong,
despite the handful in the know (backed by the full scientific authority
of the fundamentalist Christian right) telling them about it for decades.
Or...
It's a 150-year-old conspiracy of virtually all the scientists on the
planet to conceal the truth from the rest of us, impressively without a
single leak about the conspiracy in all that time (not to mention
without any plausible motive).
I don't know why we just don't get this.
CT
Bobby D. Bryant
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>> No you haven't. You have made assertions based on your rather poor
>> knowledge of the biological processes involved which have been
>> eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
>
> My assertions aren't that difficult and don't take much biological
> knowledge to understand.
And every biologist in the newsgroup, without exceptoin, says that
they're *wrong*.
8<
> Take flagellar motility, for example. Such a function requires a
> minimum of at least 30,000 fairly specified bp genetic real estate.
What's the mathematical definition of "fairly specified"?
8<
Matthew Isleb
>> Firstly, "intuitively true" reads
>> like a confession that you haven't
>> shown what you're claiming to have
>> shown. Intuition can be wrong. See
>> Special Relativity and Quantum
>> Mechanics for well supported theories
>> contrary to lay intuition.
>
> Sure, intuition isn't enough, but it is a very good place to start. If
> something seems obviously true, intuitively true, it is certainly worth
> taking a closer look - right? The fact is that ID is not only
> intuitively true, it is demonstrably true. It stands up under close
> investigation.
Then why does the Discovery Institute admit that there is nothing to teach
in a classroom regarding ID? Seems to me that ID has to make some positive
arguments before it can even face close invenstigate, much less stand up
to it. Just saying something is designed without saying how or when is
useless. Who is going to bother investigating a "theory" which
consists solely of negative arguments about another theory? Imagine if
Special Relativity simply stated that Newtonian mechanics are inadequate
and that there must be something else at work... without ever saying what
that something else is or how it works or when we can observe it. Einstein
would have been ridiculed and scoffed too.
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>> No you haven't. You have made
>> assertions based on your rather poor
>> knowledge of the biological
>> processes involved which have been
>> eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
>
> My assertions aren't that difficult and don't take much biological
> knowledge to understand. They're actually quite simple and
> straightforward.
Overly simple, it would seem.
> I've simply suggested that lower levels of functional
> complexity in any language system, to include genetic codes, can be
> evolved using mindless Darwinian-style mechanisms while higher levels
> are exponentially harder and harder to evolve. Such a simple
> statement, a simple question actually, should not be hard to disprove,
> or answer, with real time examples of evolution in action at a level
> that satisfies my rather elementary question.
Perhaps the problem is that your question is insincere.
> Specifically, I've suggested that no system of function requiring more
> than a 1,000 or so fairly specified residues or equivalent amount of
> genetic real estate (i.e., over 3,000bp), at minimum, can be evolved be
> evolved this side of a practical eternity of average time.
>
> So far, none of those experts in this forum, whom you claim have
> eviscerated my position, have yet to produce such a single example of
> real time evolution at such a level of minimum informational
> complexity. All real time examples of evolution in action, that I have
> been shown, require a minimum of only a few hundred fairly specified
> residues at best to realize beneficial selectivity of a truly novel
> function.
You'd just most the goal posts. What is the point?
-matthew
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > No you haven't. You have made
> > assertions based on your rather poor
> > knowledge of the biological
> > processes involved which have been
> > eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
>
> My assertions aren't that difficult and don't take much biological
> knowledge to understand.
Quite so.
On the other hand they demonstrate that your knowledge of biology is
rather less than you think that it is, and this has been demonstrated
by the postings of other contributors with a greater knowledge of the
subject than you posess.
> They're actually quite simple and
> straightforward. I've simply suggested that lower levels of functional
> complexity in any language system, to include genetic codes,
It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that genetic codes are not a
language.
> can be
> evolved using mindless Darwinian-style mechanisms while higher levels
> are exponentially harder and harder to evolve.
So what? Genetic codes are not a language. It's a false analogy.
> Such a simple
> statement, a simple question actually, should not be hard to disprove,
> or answer, with real time examples of evolution in action at a level
> that satisfies my rather elementary question.
The premise is flawed.
Genetic codes are not a language and your analogy is false.
>
> Specifically, I've suggested that no system of function requiring more
> than a 1,000 or so fairly specified residues or equivalent amount of
> genetic real estate (i.e., over 3,000bp), at minimum, can be evolved be
> evolved this side of a practical eternity of average time.
Which, as it is based on a false premise, is meaningless.
>
> So far, none of those experts in this forum, whom you claim have
> eviscerated my position, have yet to produce such a single example of
> real time evolution at such a level of minimum informational
> complexity.
Which, as it is based on a false premise, is meaningless.
> All real time examples of evolution in action, that I have
> been shown, require a minimum of only a few hundred fairly specified
> residues at best to realize beneficial selectivity of a truly novel
> function.
Which is garbage, as has been pointed out to you over an over again.
The system is far more flexible than your inaccurate model of its
workings suggests.
>
> Take flagellar motility, for example. Such a function requires a
> minimum of at least 30,000 fairly specified bp genetic real estate.
Which may appear to you to be nice, scientific-sounding language, but
is an assertion based on wishful thinking, not evidence.
> So
> far, not a single proposed step in the evolution of such a highly
> complex (informationally complex) system of function has yet to be
> demonstrated in real time - not a single step.
You are arguing from a series of false premises, and demanding a
demonstration of something all the biologists on this forum tell you
does not happen.
Why not listen to them?
> In comparison, many
> examples of lower-level evolution exist - such as nylonase or lactase
> evolution, where a minimum of only a few hundred fairly specified
> residues is required.
As has been pointed out to you over and over again, the term "fairly
specified" is nonsensical in biological terms, and in scientific terms
generally.
>
> What should such experimental examples of positive evolution at lower
> levels and negative evolution at higher levels tell me?
IT tells you that you are setting up a straw man to push down.
Why not listen to the people who know about the systems in question?
> Why does
> evolution tend to decline in creative power in an exponential manner?
It doesn't.
> Where have such simple questions been answered in this forum or
> elsewhere in a way that could even remotely be called "eviscerating"?
They have. You have not addressed the criticisms, but merely reverted
to assertions which demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the subject.
>
> I just don't get it . . . and it isn't all that helpful for you to tell
> me that my not getting the truth of your position is due to ignorance
> or insanity. Perhaps if you could make your position a bit more easily
> understood by answering a few simple questions for a simple mind?
>
So why not address the criticism I have made of your web page in which
you witter on about ichthyosaurs, and which contains a number of
statements which are verifiably false, being gleaned from unreliable
creationist sources?
Check the references, do the research, go to museums and examine the
specimens themselves, spend time in wind and rainswept quarries
excavating specimens, and then come back and tell me I'm wrong give
your reasons for doing so.
Note that I'm not asking you to take my word for it, but to check it
out for yourself from sources which can track back any hypotheses they
form to physical evidence you can go and look at yourself, and for
which you are perfectly entitled to provide an alternative hypothesis.
But unless you can, you will continue to make yourself look silly by
insisting that you are right and those who know about the subject are
wrong.
RF
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> > By the way, Behe is no idiot. He is a
> > competent molecular biologist. He
> > just happens to be wrong on the matter
> > of irreducible complexity. The
> > error into which Behe (and others)
> > have fallen is a very plausible error
> > and it requires sophistication to
> > avoid. Having a PhD in molecular
> > biology is no guarantee of not
> > making the error.
>
> Behe is right about irreducible complexity (IC).
Is Behe right when he says that astrology has as good a claim to being
science as ID?
> IC is just another
> way of stating the neutral gap problem. All Behe has yet to see, as
> far as I can tell, is that there are different levels of IC. Lower
> levels of IC can indeed be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. However,
> higher levels of IC, which are equivalent to higher levels of
> functional complexity, cannot be evolved by any mindless process,
> Darwinian or otherwise, this side of a practical eternity of average
> time.
So tell me: even if I were to concede that evolution by natural
selection cannot cross these gaps, what support would this give for the
assertion that the only other possible alternative explanation is that
an "intelligent designer" is responsible?
Could you give me an example from the annals of scientific research in
which it is claimed that the falsification of one hypothesis is claimed
as evidence in support of another hypthesis?
RF
>
> You and your friends in this forum just don't seem to understand how
> close to the truth Behe really is
He is close to the truth: he has more or less admitted that ID is not
science.
> and how far away from the truth
> Darwinists really are. It doesn't seem to matter what degrees one has
> or doesn't have.
Quite so.
It's worth noting that the people who make most fuss about the
qualifications of their proponents (no matter how irrelevant to the
subject) are the ID crowd.
> It is very easy to fall into the subtle error to
> which Darwin himself fell prey.
And what 'subtle error' is that?
> Not only does one have to be
> sophisticated to avoid such an error, one has to be independent minded
> as well - willing to go out on one's own even in the face of scoffing
> and open ridicule from the majority in popular science.
>
> > Bob Kolker
>
Well, as Behe has conceeded that ID is not science, don't you think
that if people continue to claim that it is science are making a
ridiculous statement?
RF
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Kleuskes & Moos
Richard Forrest schreef:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > No you haven't. You have made
> > > assertions based on your rather poor
> > > knowledge of the biological
> > > processes involved which have been
> > > eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
> >
> > My assertions aren't that difficult and don't take much biological
> > knowledge to understand.
>
> Quite so.
> On the other hand they demonstrate that your knowledge of biology is
> rather less than you think that it is, and this has been demonstrated
> by the postings of other contributors with a greater knowledge of the
> subject than you posess.
>
> > They're actually quite simple and
> > straightforward. I've simply suggested that lower levels of functional
> > complexity in any language system, to include genetic codes,
>
> It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that genetic codes are not a
> language.
Ummm...
I do not wish to support the IDists argument, but DNA certaily *does*
comply to all the definitions of a formal language. If it didn't, we
would not be able to predict the poly-peptide sequence from a
DNA-sequence and the ribosome would not be able to translate it. It
does so less than exact ('wobble'), but that does not contradict the
statement that DNA *is* a formal language.
See:
http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/ribosome.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/expl_02_start.html
The syntax of the language is quite simple, btw
xlatUnit ::= <start_codon> <sequence> <stop_codon>
start_codon ::= 'ATG'
stop_codon ::= 'TGA' | 'TAG' | 'TAA'
sequence ::= <triplet> sequence
| <triplet>
triplet ::= See
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html
The mistake Sean Pit makes is that a formal language, by definition,
points to some designer. That is an assertion which he has not
supported by any evidence.
He also make the mistake of ignoring all the other layers of
functionality involved: like gene-expression and regulation, proteine
activity, proteine complexes, signal substances, etc. The formal
language does nothing but specify poly-peptides. Things like morphology
are defined in the other functional layers.
Kleuskes & Moos
Kleuskes & Moos schreef:
<snip>
> > It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that genetic codes are not a
> > language.
>
> Ummm...
See also:
http://www.cis.udel.edu/~dna4/cs.html
Formal language theory and DNA: an analysis of the generative capacity
of specific recombinant behaviors. Bull Math Biol. 1987;49(6):737-59.
Computational Linguistics for DNA Evolution
and RNA Structure Modeling, Takashi YOKOMORI
Gheorghe M.1; Mitrana V.2
Comparative and Functional Genomics, Volume 5, Number 1, February 2004,
pp. 91-94(4)
Kleuskes & Moos
Kleuskes & Moos schreef:
> Kleuskes & Moos schreef:
>
> <snip>
Oooppss...
'A formal language-based approach in biology'
Kleuskes & Moos
Kleuskes & Moos schreef:
Iterestingly, various different 'syntaxes' are used. Specifically
mitochondrial DNA uses different stop-codons ('AGA' and 'AGG' in all
vertebates). Also there are differences between interpretation of
triplets in yeast mitochondria.
Some unicellular eukaryots use one or two stop-codons to code for
aminoacids. Archaea and eubacteria use 'non-standard' aminoacids
(selenocysteine and pyrrolysine) and have to distinguish between it's
use as a normal codon and stop-codon. How this is achieved is not yet
known. To my simple programmers mind, it suggests decoding is
state-full.
Interesting stuff. The differences mentioned respect cladograms, and
hence support the hypothesis that they are a result of natural
evolution, rather than design.
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> > They're actually quite simple and
> > straightforward. I've simply
> > suggested that lower levels of functional
> > complexity in any language system,
> > to include genetic codes,
>
> It has been pointed out to you repeatedly
> that genetic codes are not a language.
Where have you or anyone else ever explained how genetic information is
stored and retrieved in a way that is fundamentally different from a
true language system?
Isn't genetic information written in coded form just like any other
symbolically represented language system? Different sequences of base
pairs are decoded with the use of specific rules of grammar. These bp
sequences can be read just like any other coded language system - very
much like computer languages comprised of 0s and 1s or English or
French or Russian. There are discrete sequences that are even
comparable to letters, words, sentences and paragraphs. There are
start sequences and stop sequences that are very similar to sentence
structure. Computer language, spoken language, and genetics do seem to
be fundamentally the same as far as I can tell. Really, where is the
fundamental difference?
> > can be
> > evolved using mindless Darwinian-style
> > mechanisms while higher levels
> > are exponentially harder and
> > harder to evolve.
>
> So what? Genetic codes are not a
> language. It's a false analogy.
Look it up. Both "The" Genetic Code and the coded information found in
sequences of DNA and amino acid residues are actual language systems.
Genetic information, just like any other language system, uses symbolic
representation to code for various forms and functions of the cell.
There are rules of grammar and specific ways in which the series of
base pairs must be read in order for meaningful information to be
extracted from the coded DNA sequence. Not just any sequence caries
meaningful information and not just any way of reading this sequence
will end with meaningful/beneficial results.
Exactly the same thing is true of all language systems. They all work,
fundamentally, the very same way. They are the same. Genetics is a
language system(s).
This concept, that genetics is a language, is fundamental to
understanding how evolution works or does not work. If we can't agree
on this, then there is simply no way we are ever going to end up on the
same page regarding the plausibility of the ToE. If the ToE is true,
then the same mindless mechanisms can indeed be used to put computer
programmers and poets and novelists and doctors and even scientists out
of business. Why? Because, given the right mindless evolutionary
mechanism, the mindless can be so much more creative than the
intelligent mind.
< snip repeated assertions that genetics is not a language system >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > They're actually quite simple and
> > > straightforward. I've simply
> > > suggested that lower levels of functional
> > > complexity in any language system,
> > > to include genetic codes,
> >
> > It has been pointed out to you repeatedly
> > that genetic codes are not a language.
>
Okay. The genetic code can be described as as formal language system.
See this posting from someone who evidently knows more about such
matters that I do:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/30472e6f0b052a2d?dmode=source&hl=en
Note the following:
"The mistake Sean Pit makes is that a formal language, by definition,
points to some designer. That is an assertion which he has not
supported by any evidence.
He also make the mistake of ignoring all the other layers of
functionality involved: like gene-expression and regulation, proteine
activity, proteine complexes, signal substances, etc. The formal
language does nothing but specify poly-peptides. Things like morphology
are defined in the other functional layers. "
I notice that you have not addressed this.
Now to return to the areas of science in which I work, and in which I
have demonstrated your ignorance:
Kleuskes & Moos
Seanpit schreef:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > They're actually quite simple and
> > > straightforward. I've simply
> > > suggested that lower levels of functional
> > > complexity in any language system,
> > > to include genetic codes,
> >
> > It has been pointed out to you repeatedly
> > that genetic codes are not a language.
>
> Where have you or anyone else ever explained how genetic information is
> stored and retrieved in a way that is fundamentally different from a
> true language system?
>
> Isn't genetic information written in coded form just like any other
> symbolically represented language system? Different sequences of base
> pairs are decoded with the use of specific rules of grammar. These bp
> sequences can be read just like any other coded language system - very
> much like computer languages comprised of 0s and 1s or English or
> French or Russian.
Neither english, french or russian is (in the true sense of the word) a
formal language. None of them is in any way comparable to computer
languages or DNA.
> There are discrete sequences that are even comparable to letters, words,
> sentences and paragraphs.
Nonsense. There is an 'alphabet', sure, but any other 'analogy' is not
supported by the facts. There are no 'sentences' or 'paragraphs'. Just
very narrowly defined translation units, which work quite differently
than any human/natural language.
> There are start sequences and stop sequences that are very similar to
> sentence structure.
Nonsense. Sentence structure in humaan/natural languages do not have
start-sequences, not does it have stop sequences. There are no
adjectives, compund sentences, qualifiers, etc. You are by no means
required to start or end a sentence by specified words or sequences of
words.
> Computer language, spoken language, and genetics do seem to
> be fundamentally the same as far as I can tell.
That does not reach very far. Natural human laguages cannot be fully
specified, since both syntax and semantics are highly context
dependent.
> Really, where is the fundamental difference?
You cannot express Russian, English or French (or any other human
language, for that matter) in a formalized syntax. And that's not for
lack of trying. Human laguages use 'figures of speech', well understood
'euphemisms', have homonyms and synonyms, and the actual meaning of
words depends heavily on the context in which words or sentences are
used.
You read far too much in my post.
> > > can be
> > > evolved using mindless Darwinian-style
> > > mechanisms while higher levels
> > > are exponentially harder and
> > > harder to evolve.
> >
> > So what? Genetic codes are not a
> > language. It's a false analogy.
>
> Look it up. Both "The" Genetic Code and the coded information found in
> sequences of DNA and amino acid residues are actual language systems.
They are _formal_ language systems. Not comparable to _human_ or
_natural_ languages. Moreover, that _formal_ language has a very
limited scope and semantics. Much of the actual functioning of cellular
systems and _specifically_ morphology depends on a wide range of other
systems.
> Genetic information, just like any other language system, uses symbolic
> representation to code for various forms and functions of the cell.
You read selectively. DNA codes for sequences of amino-acids. The
_folding_ of these sequences is crucial, but not encoded in DNA.
Moreover, morphology, as I pointed out before, is determined by a
completely different mechanism, determined by (amongst many others) the
presence of signal-substances (The famous Sonic Hedgehog proteins being
just one example, which forms a completely different functional layer,
which has nothing to do with the formal language of DNA/RNA.
> There are rules of grammar and specific ways in which the series of
> base pairs must be read in order for meaningful information to be
> extracted from the coded DNA sequence.
The rules of "grammar" (that part is called 'syntax') do not impose any
strict sequence. The formal language used by DNA has /closure/, that
is, no combination of codons exist such that the translation mechanism
breaks down. At worst, you get non-functional aminoacid-sequences.
> Not just any sequence caries meaningful information and not just any way of
> reading this sequence will end with meaningful/beneficial results.
In terms of DNA decoding, it most certainly does. A polypeptide can
_always_ be derived. Not every sequence of polypeptides result in a
functional proteine, though, but that is quite another matter. You keep
ignoring the 0other functional layers, like gene-regulation, signal
substances (again Sonic Hedgehog serves as a prime example), proteine
folding and formation of protein-complexes.
You misrepresent (deliberatly or out of ignorance) the statements i
made.
> Exactly the same thing is true of all language systems.
Nonsense.
> They all work, fundamentally, the very same way.
Nonsense.
> They are the same. Genetics is a language system(s).
You do not seem to have any expirience with formal language systems. So
beware of drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data.
> This concept, that genetics is a language, is fundamental to
> understanding how evolution works or does not work.
This is a gross oversimplification. There are many other systems at
work, which do not have anything to do with the formal language of
DNA/RNA.
> If we can't agree on this, then there is simply no way we are ever going to
> end up on the same page regarding the plausibility of the ToE.
Probably. The claims you make in this case is a severe
misrepresentation of the facts. You cannot draw any kind of conclusions
based on this.
> If the ToE is true, then the same mindless mechanisms can indeed be used to
> put computer programmers and poets and novelists and doctors and even
> scientists out of business. Why? Because, given the right mindless
> evolutionary mechanism, the mindless can be so much more creative than the
> intelligent mind.
This conclusion is not supported by the facts. For one, the same
mindless meachanisms are used by programmers on a daily basis when GA's
are employed. In order to do so, the formal language used *must* have
closure. One example is limited forms of symbolic expressions, others
are narrowly defined sets of primitives.
Since human languages are *NOT* formal languages systems, the same does
*NOT* apply to poets and novelists. Nor for ordinary imperative
computer languages. None of them have /closure/. In fact machine-code
as used by your CPU is highly fragile. It is easy to come up with
sequences that will blow the translatio mechanism, resulting in an
exceptions (resuting in a SIGSEGV).
> < snip repeated assertions that genetics is not a language system >
You misunderstand the gist of my post and extrapolate onto area's not
covered by the definitions of formal language systems, which were
developed (By Boole at al) *EXPLICITLY* to eliminate the (many)
ambiguities of human languages.
Please inform yourself on formal language theory before making such
bold, and unjustified claims.
Seanpit
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> Neither english, french or russian
> is (in the true sense of the word) a
> formal language. None of them is
> in any way comparable to computer
> languages or DNA.
Computer languages and DNA use symbolic representation, just like
spoken human languages, to hold information that can be decoded using
specific rules to successfully read the information contained in the
coded sequence. This is the fundamental basis of all language systems
- to include useful information contained in DNA sequences.
> > There are discrete sequences that
> > are even comparable to letters, words,
> > sentences and paragraphs.
>
> Nonsense. There is an 'alphabet', sure,
> but any other 'analogy' is not
> supported by the facts. There are no
> 'sentences' or 'paragraphs'. Just
> very narrowly defined translation units,
> which work quite differently
> than any human/natural language.
Not true. These "units" work in very much the same way as computer
languages or other spoken human languages to convey specific thoughts,
commands, ideas, etc. There really is no fundamental difference in how
genetic information "works".
> > There are start sequences and stop
> > sequences that are very similar to
> > sentence structure.
>
> Nonsense. Sentence structure in humaan/
> natural languages do not have
> start-sequences, not does it have
> stop sequences.
What would you call capital letters at the beginning of a sentence and
periods at the end? Are not these symbols indeed used as start and
stop sequences in human/natural written languages? Natural breaks and
pauses are also used the same way in spoken languages - right?
> There are no
> adjectives, compund sentences,
> qualifiers, etc. You are by no means
> required to start or end a sentence
> by specified words or sequences of
> words.
There are clearly understood rules of grammar that tell both the
speaker/writer and listener/reader where one idea stops and the next
one starts. The same is true of genes in a genome. There may be more
ways to do it in human languages than in genetics, but fundamentally,
they are the same.
> That does not reach very far. Natural
> human laguages cannot be fully
> specified, since both syntax
> and semantics are highly context
> dependent.
Just because they aren't fully specified does not mean that they cannot
be or that they are set up, fundamentally, in such a way that they
could not be. Context is also very important in genetics. Environment
is everything. If it doesn't make sense in the creature's
environment, then it is worthless as far as "survival of the fittest"
is concerned. This "context" can also change, just like in human
language systems, so that what once meant something useful, may now be
neutral or even detrimental.
> > Really, where is the fundamental difference?
>
> You cannot express Russian, English
> or French (or any other human
> language, for that matter) in a
> formalized syntax.
Technically, such a spoken language system could be set up according to
formalized syntax. This is possible. Just because it hasn't happened
doesn't mean it is impossible. Besides, this is not the fundamental
similarity I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that
genetics is based on coded information just like any other language
system - that changes in this underlying code affect the overall
function and meaning of the programs of the cell. This same thing is
true in any language system. That's a fact.
> And that's not for
> lack of trying. Human laguages use
> 'figures of speech', well understood
> 'euphemisms', have homonyms and
> synonyms, and the actual meaning of
> words depends heavily on the context
> in which words or sentences are
> used. You read far too much in my post.
The meaning/function of coded genetic information is also heavily
dependent upon context. Also, figures of speech and various euphemisms
are meaningless outside of the right context. In other words, both the
speaker and the hearer must understand the same code for a particular
"figure of speech" in order for it to be meaningfully transmitted.
Exactly the same thing is true in genetics.
> They are _formal_ language systems.
> Not comparable to _human_ or
> _natural_ languages. Moreover, that
> _formal_ language has a very
> limited scope and semantics. Much of
> the actual functioning of cellular
> systems and _specifically_ morphology
> depends on a wide range of other
> systems.
So do human natural languages. All languages are context dependent.
> > Genetic information, just like any
> > other language system, uses symbolic
> > representation to code for various
> > forms and functions of the cell.
>
> You read selectively. DNA codes for
> sequences of amino-acids. The
> _folding_ of these sequences is
> crucial, but not encoded in DNA.
The folding of amino acid residues is indeed coded for by DNA. DNA
codes for certain proteins that help other proteins fold properly.
Even when such proteins are not required for proper folding, the final
"correctly folded" product is only possible if the correct DNA sequence
is there to begin with. Without the information written correctly into
the DNA sequence, folding will not happen properly.
> Moreover, morphology, as I pointed
> out before, is determined by a
> completely different mechanism,
> determined by (amongst many others) the
> presence of signal-substances (The
> famous Sonic Hedgehog proteins being
> just one example, which forms a
> completely different functional layer,
> which has nothing to do with the
> formal language of DNA/RNA.
But it has everything to do with the language of DNA/RNA. The proper
sequence of DNA/RNA is the basis of all other protein-based systems,
like Sonic Hedgehog. The DNA/RNA code is much like the Morse Code
which codes for specific characters in another language system.
However, the order of the characters in the Morse Code determines the
order of the characters in the code of the overlying language system -
like English (or proteins in the case of genetics). It's all the same.
> > There are rules of grammar and
> > specific ways in which the series of
> > base pairs must be read in order
> > for meaningful information to be
> > extracted from the coded DNA sequence.
>
> The rules of "grammar" (that part is
> called 'syntax') do not impose any
> strict sequence. The formal language
> used by DNA has /closure/, that
> is, no combination of codons exist
> such that the translation mechanism
> breaks down. At worst, you get
> non-functional aminoacid-sequences.
Exactly, and the worst you get if you can't read a code in the English
language system is gibberish. Not just any combination of codons will
result in a "beneficially" recognized protein sequence. Likewise, not
just any string of characters in the English language alphabet will
result in a beneficially recognized sequence of words. Beneficial
sequences do indeed require a fairly strict order in all language
systems - to include genetic languages.
> > Not just any sequence caries meaningful
> > information and not just any way of
> > reading this sequence will end with
> > meaningful/beneficial results.
>
> In terms of DNA decoding, it most
> certainly does. A polypeptide can
> _always_ be derived.
Don't play dumb here. A meaningful/beneficial polypeptide cannot
always be derived from just any DNA sequence. Sure, you can get a
polypeptide of some sort, just like I can type a series of letters of
some sort, which can be read, but the result is not always or even
often going to be helpful. . . wer hoihhayewr p9yhjn bnb9tv!!!! See
what I mean? ; )
> Not every sequence of polypeptides result in a
> functional proteine, though, but that is
> quite another matter.
This is not "another matter" at all. This is the whole point if this
discussion. This is what makes genetics a language system. The
sequence of base pairs in DNA is vitally important to the beneficial
function, non-function, or detrimental function of the final result.
> You keep
> ignoring the 0other functional layers,
> like gene-regulation, signal
> substances (again Sonic Hedgehog serves
> as a prime example), proteine
> folding and formation of protein-complexes.
I do not ignore these layers at all. All of these layers are included
in the language system of genetics. They are all based on the order of
base pairs of DNA - just like all other language systems are based on
the fundamental order of character sequences for all the overlying
emergent functions of the language in the proper context/environment.
Again, there is no fundamental difference.
> You misrepresent (deliberatly or out
> of ignorance) the statements i
> made.
I don't see how . . .
< snip >
> This is a gross oversimplification.
> There are many other systems at
> work, which do not have anything to
> do with the formal language of
> DNA/RNA.
Not true. They all are fundamentally based in the order of DNA/RNA.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Walter Bushell
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> either english, french or russian is (in the true sense of the word) a
> formal language. None of them is in any way comparable to computer
> languages or DNA.
When did computer science get to determine the true meanings of words?
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Walter Bushell
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Technically, such a spoken language system could be set up according to
> formalized syntax. This is possible. Just because it hasn't happened
> doesn't mean it is impossible.
and the language if it acquires speakers will become irregular. I've
heard this is already happening to Esperanto.
John Stockwell
>> Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> 1) You've omitted other known processes.
>
> Like what? What other known process is going to help out random
> mutation and natural selection get over the exponentially expanding
> gaps?
Natural selection could, if the gaps are selected early. As near as
I can gather, you are talking about an asymptotic analysis that you
allegedly have performed, but apparently still have not published.
It may be that the exponentially expanding gaps that you are referring
to are immediately selected out, and never become an issue.
>> 2) The onus is on you to demonstrate
>> that the space of viable genotypes
>> is insufficiently connected for the
>> biota to have arisen by known
>> processes.
>
> I have shown this. I've shown that not only is this concept
> intuitively true in all information/language systems, to include
> genetics, exponentially expanding neutral gaps are demonstrable in real
> life experiments. I've detailed these experiments both in this forum
> and on my website.
You apparently have not sent your analysis to a journal. Just for fun,
why don't you act like a real scientist, write it up and publish it in
a journal? You could raise your currency if you were totally open about
posting on this group your experience including all reviewer comments.
>
>> 3) The onus is also on you to demonstrate
>> that the alleged problem grows
>> exponentially with "each step up the
>> ladder of functional complexity".
>
> Certainly - and I've done this.
Apparently not, or you would be waving published papers in our faces.
Certainly you have opined, and conjectured, but you have yet to demonstrate.
>
>> 4) The observation of the appearance
>> of a nylonase via a frame shift
>> mutation is evidence that gaps of
>> considerable magnitude can be crossed.
>
> The evolution of the nylonase function is evidence of true evolution in
> action, but it is not evidence of crossing a gap of "considerable
> magnitude". The minimum sequence needed for the nylonase function to
> be achieved to a selectable level in the right environment is only a
> few hundred amino acid residues at best. In the sequence space of this
> size there is likely a fairly high ratio of potential nylonases. The
> same thing is true of the minimum lactase sequence space (i.e.,
> ~20^400). However, try looking at functions that require more than a
> couple thousand fairly specified residues at minimum. Such functions
> simple do not evolve like low-level nylonase or lactase functions
> evolve. It just doesn't happen. Why? Because of the exponentially
> expanding neutral gaps problem.
Yet obviously such evolution occurs. Perhaps your exponentially expanding
gaps never happen in real life?
>
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
>
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
gbo...@paradise.net.nz
Seanpit wrote:
>
> Behe is right about irreducible complexity (IC). IC is just another
> way of stating the neutral gap problem. All Behe has yet to see, as
> far as I can tell, is that there are different levels of IC. Lower
> levels of IC can indeed be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. However,
> higher levels of IC, which are equivalent to higher levels of
> functional complexity, cannot be evolved by any mindless process,
> Darwinian or otherwise, this side of a practical eternity of average
> time.
>
So, what you are saying is that lower levels of Irreducible Complexity
are, in fact, reduceable? And the higher levels aren't because they
would take too long despite having millions of years and (importantly)
many simultaneous genetic instances (eg, you're not getting one
possible gentic change per generation, but multiple) to work with?
I'd like to see you working on the second statement, but the first
merely indicates your intelligent designer is once again moving into
smaller premises.
-Giles
Seanpit
gbo...@paradise.net.nz wrote:
> So, what you are saying is that lower
> levels of Irreducible Complexity
> are, in fact, reduceable?
No. Lower levels of functional complexity are evolvable in relatively
short periods of time, but functions at such low levels have limits
beyond which they cannot be further reduced at yet maintain function.
They are therefore "irreducibly complex". In other words, they cannot
be reduced in size and/or specificity any farther without a complete
loss of that type of function. However, such low level functions can
be evolved rather quickly because the neutral gaps at such low levels
are quite small and can be crossed by random walk and function-based
selection.
<snip>
> -Giles
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
Hi Dr. Pitman:
I am barging in and hope the "debate" here does not mind as the topic
at its inception was a typical atheist rant to begin with.
I have perused your very impressive website - it is super stuff.
IF you have the time and interest would you mind reading the OP here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1262280cc7926546?hl=en&
....then adding your thoughts and expertise ?
Specifically, your views on genetic homeostasis ?
Presently, I am reading "Growth of Biological Thought" by Mayr (1982)
where he conspicuously cedes to Lerner's work "Genetic Homeostasis"
(1954). In other words Mayr appears to want his 1963 work "Animal
Species and Evolution" that is the chapters about GH to go away.
A rose by any other name is still a rose, in other words; GH is a
natural barrier - the falsifier of Darwinian evolution/macroevolution
nonsense.
Thanks in advance and if not - thanks anyway.
Ray Martinez