Dr. Michael J. Behe
Michael Behe is a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He argued in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box that the cell structures of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” and cannot be explained by Darwin’s Theory of natural selection. This concept launched the intelligent design movement. His latest book is The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.
Can you summarize the thesis of your new book?- The book is called The Edge of Evolution and the gist is to find reasonable estimates for the limits of what Darwin’s theory — natural selection acting on random mutations — can actually accomplish. Clearly Darwin’s process can account for some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance. But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell? Up until recently that question was impossible to answer because the molecular mutations underlying biological changes were unknown, and also because we couldn’t examine really vast numbers of organisms.
- But in the past ten years all that has changed. As I detail in the book, the molecular changes underlying resistance to malaria by humans, resistance to antibiotics by the malarial parasite, and other well-studied systems show that random mutation is incoherent — that is, a series of mutations usually has little to do with each other, and doesn’t add up to a new molecular machine. What’s more, most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes — and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes. I conclude that Darwinian processes account for little of the machinery of life, and that most positive evolution must be nonrandom — guided somehow — and I argue that result fits well with the fine-tuning of the universe discovered by physics.
- In Richard Dawkins’ review of your book in the New York Times, he points to the hundreds of very different dog breeds that have evolved in a relatively short period of time. And although this was done through controlled breeding, he claims that your theory would not allow for such variation in so few generations – it would be mathematically impossible. How do you respond to that?
- I would suggest that Richard Dawkins re-read my book. In it I clearly state that random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too. But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution. Darwinian evolution works well when a single small change in an organism’s DNA produces a notable effect. That’s what happens to give the various breeds of dogs. But when multiple, coordinated changes are needed for an effect, chance mutation loses its power.
- Have you published this theory in a peer-reviewed journal? Have other scientists put forth a challenge to this quantitative argument?
- No, no journal these days would touch a paper which investigates intelligent design with a ten foot pole (unless the paper aims to debunk ID). However, all the science I rely upon for my argument in the book is indeed peer-reviewed, from the best, most relevant journals. My conclusions are rather straightforward deductions from data in the literature. As you might expect for such a controversial topic, some scientists have stumbled over each other to challenge my argument. I’ve examined their writings closely and think none of them touch the heart of my argument.
- Is there any way to test the concept of a designer? Is there any evidence of his or her actions interceding in the development of life on earth?
- Well, it depends on what you mean by “test” and “evidence”. If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed. Not for a moment would you think they were the result of random forces such as wind and erosion. Your conclusion of design would be certain, because you would see how well the pieces of the mountain fit the purpose of portraying an image.
- Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.
- Do you believe a designer only set the universe in motion, or do you think a designer intercedes occasionally?
- Well, as a Christian I think God has intervened in human history. But in order to set up the general universe — including the design apparent in cells — I think God could have done that in a single instant, which unfolded over time.
- Why is intelligent design science? Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t yet fully understand?
- Intelligent design is science because it is based completely on physical data — the molecular machinery of cells — plus ordinary logic. Whenever we see systems in our everyday world of a certain degree and kind of complexity (like clocks), we always have found them to be designed. Now, much to our surprise, science has discovered similar systems in the cell. I see no reason to withhold the conclusion of design for cellular components. So the design of cellular machinery is an inductive argument based on physical evidence — a scientific conclusion.
- When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis. Many scientists of that time hated the idea of a beginning to nature, because it seemed to have theistic overtones. What if they had said that the Big Bang hypothesis was simply giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t fully understand yet? If they had, physics would have missed out on a lot of progress. Science has to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or it ceases to be science. Right now the biological evidence is leading to the conclusion of design.
- But that’s how they might have phrased it – “a beginning to nature” not “a designer got things started.” Do you appreciate the concern that many people have about introducing a “designer” into science textbooks?
- Yes, I do appreciate people’s concerns about explicitly talking of a “designer” in textbooks. Nonetheless, science is supposed to be a no-holds-barred search for the truth. Throughout the history of science we’ve had to get used to a lot of ideas that people thought were odd. There’s no reason to shy away from the concept of a designer just because it makes some people uneasy.
- Where do your Christian beliefs diverge from a literal interpretation of the Bible? I’m thinking of those areas that might conflict with our current understanding of the universe.
- I’m a Roman Catholic; I never was taught a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I was taught Darwin’s theory of evolution in parochial school. As far as I’m concerned, the universe and earth are as old as most physicists say they are, and life developed over immense ages. My main point of disagreement with the standard scientific story is that I think most of the development of the universe and life was set up; little was left to chance.
- I’m curious if you’ve ever read mystics such as Sri Aurobindo or Ken Wilber, who take a spiritual, purposeful, but non-Christian view of evolution.
- Gee, no, I haven’t. I’ll have to look them up.
- Do you have any second thoughts about irreducible complexity, the theme of your first book? Do you consider this quantitative approach a better challenge to Darwinism?
- I think irreducible complexity is a swell concept, which easily gets across the problem for Darwinian evolution to a general audience. It shows us quickly that Darwin’s theory is the wrong answer for much of life. However, the more quantitative approach in The Edge of Evolution actually builds on the concept of irreducible complexity, and allows us to put numbers on the likelihood of random processes building a coherent structure. It can show us that design reaches much deeper into life than we otherwise would have thought.
Follow the California Literary Review on Twitter: @calitreview
September 24th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Bunch of softball questions. Behe was on the stand in the Dover trial and his theories were ripped to shreds. A Republican appointee judge threw called it “breathtaking inanity”. And ID promoter Dembski responded by making a Youtube video of the judges speech by adding the only substance they have in plenty in the ID camp, toilet noises.
Dawkins wrote a whole book explaining how the “irreducibly complex” eye could evolve, people have found the flagellum in various stages of evolution still living.
It is one thing to vaguely suppose a designer and generally about the inference of design. But it is high time ID starts answering specific questions. Like for example, why human being lack the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. Most of the other mammals can synthesize it. Humans (and primates) have the DNA code to do it too. But the code is turned off. Why would a designer install the entire vitamin C factory in our cells and turn it off? Remember the number of pious Christian sailors who died of scurvy in long sea voyages without fresh fruit/vegetables. And they were on the mission to bring the name of the Lord and Savior to the uncivilized pagan heathens, and God perversely turned the Vitamin C factory in their own bodies off.
An IDer prodded me into explaining lactation. I looked and found that there were atleast 10 theories to explain the origin of lactation. Even Darwin proposed one and it was subsequently shot down. Think about it. The IDers will have you believe that scientists blindly follow Darwin. But they rejected his theory of origin of lactation.
ID has to answer a few questions better than evolution to earn the right to even ask a question.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Does Behe still hold, as he did during the Dover trial, that astrology meets the definition of “scientific theory”? (That would be Behe’s own definition, which is looser than that of the National Academies of Science or the American Association for the Advancement of Science; loose enough to allow Intelligent Design to pass.)
September 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“Why is intelligent design science? Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t yet fully understand?”
That’s pretty dern close to what ID is. A more exact description might be, “Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t want to fully understand? – because it conflicts with what we want to believe?”
September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’s just not possible to put up an interview with an IDist without a bunch of embittered Darwinists chiming in. With the same old tired and worn out debating points. Do you guys have to be so freakin’ boring and predictable?
Next I’ll be asked to make a lock-tight, compelling argument for ID in a comment box.
Or someone will post a dozen links to some blather from talk.origins.
Or someone will use the term “IDiot”.
Yawn.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Matteo,
Congratulations! You have made more predictions in that post than the entire field of Intelligent Design in the last 10 years. Pity you did not predict this post ;-)
September 24th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Matteo makes the “argument from jadedness” – he’s seen it all before. Nonetheless, he cannot make a compelling argument for ID, let alone a lock-tight one. ID has no evidence, and no hypotheses that might generate evidence*. All it consists of is low quality, unoriginal criticisms of modern biology. He dismisses the content at http://www.talkorigins.org as “blather”, although it is accurate, coherent, and filled with references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They even have complete trial transcripts from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Check it out for yourself.
I have seen plenty of negative reviews of “The Edge of Evolution” from competent biologists, but I have not seen a positive review by anyone who is not on the payroll of the Discovery Institute.
It’s also not possible to put up an interview with a geocentrist without drawing criticism from those who are knowledgeable enough to understand that some ideas deserve their place i nthe dustbin of history.
* Paul Nelson of the Disovery Institute admits that ID has no theories. George Gilder of the Discovery Institute acknowledges that “Intelligent Design itself has no content.”
September 24th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
[...] 24th, 2007 · No Comments The California Literary Review has a good interview with Dr. Michael Behe posted on their site. The interviewer is pretty even-handed and Behe comes across very well – [...]
September 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Although your review correctly states that Dr. Behe is a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, you conveniently left out the fact that the entire remainder of the biology faculty at Lehigh is mortally embarrassed at his presence there. Here is part of their statement: “The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm)
If this was the “California Science Review,” I would be disappointed and surprised with this review of Dr. Behe’s latest book. But as _literature_ I’m not surprised at its vaguely favorable review. After all, it is an exercise in a form of literature called propaganda – not science. As has been noted in other comments, reviews of Dr. Behe’s book in every scientific journal have uniformly panned it, as its subject is not science, but intelligent design creationism.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has recently issued a report titled “The dangers of creationism in education” which starts “Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes…. The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.” (http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11375.htm)
As a counterpoint to Dr. Behe’s book’s favorable treatment of intelligent design creationism, those who want to get a much better understanding of the movement’s true nature and goals should read http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocacy/id_creationist_movement/ .
September 24th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I don’t see a problem. What difference does it make if some of us believe stupid impossible things? What difference does it make if unbelievably deep ignorance is expressed by some of us? What difference does it make if some of us are able to overlook facts, dismiss logic, and ignore accumulation of evidence validated over many years, in order to maintain an extremely infantile, not to mention laughable view of the way things are? It’s uproariously funny! This simply tells us about ourselves. Behe is happy I suppose and will continue declare the validity of his view no matter what. He no doubt loves to say what he is saying. It should make us aware of our blindness when we desperately want what we declare to be true, to be true. We are all victims of our willfulness and Behe is a very good reminder. Eventually we as a group will have fewer people believing ID theology,but some other equally ignorant stanve will take its place. That’s the way we are!
September 25th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Why does anything associated with ID always seem to elicit a vitriolic response, mainly bitter name-calling, rather than much in the way of respectful reasoning? The vitriol seems to me to be motivated by more than a desire to protect science from pseudoscience. When is the last time you went after anything else you considered pseudoscience with anywhere near this kind of passion? You are reacting exactly as if your religion were being attacked, and it reflects poorly on your intelligence and self control.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Matteo Says:
“September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’s just not possible to put up an interview with an IDist without a bunch of embittered Darwinists chiming in. With the same old tired and worn out debating points.”
Yes, they’re called facts, Matteo. Sorry you’re tired of them.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Behe-”When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis. Many scientists of that time hated the idea of a beginning to nature, because it seemed to have theistic overtones. What if they had said that the Big Bang hypothesis was simply giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t fully understand yet? If they had, physics would have missed out on a lot of progress. Science has to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or it ceases to be science. Right now the biological evidence is leading to the conclusion of design”.
Great quote!
As a college student, I ha to listen to professors tell me with a straight face that life on earth was “possibly” started by aliens from outerspace(Panspermia)…while at the same time trying to convince me that Intelligent Design is not scientific. The TOE is DOA!
September 25th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Much ventilation and fury; yet no engagement with the arguments. Huff and puff . . .
Ensure that ‘it is not science’ and then you don’t have to engage with the arguments. Even though the arguments are all based on peer-reviewed science as Behe points out.
The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.
Sound off as much as you like but there are serious problems for Darwinism and ID theory is compelling if you studyhow cells work and the DNA database is built.
Talk from knowledge. Engage with the facts on both sides and try and avoid the hysteria….
If it so easily refuted just simply answer Behe’s arguemnts.
Your comments will have much more authority then.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Bill; your use of expressions such as “we are all victims of our wilfulness…” and “that’s the way we are” etc conveys the impression that you refer to the entire human race and that it is in all our natures to be biased and foolish. I totally agree! But this is obviously not what you mean. You regard these observations as true only of Michael Behe and those who concur with his views. The ability to “believe stupid impossible things” is confined to those with whom you personally disagree. Yes?
Nevertheless, you have thoroughly and effectively exposed the fact that ID is a “belief” and not science. But here’s the thing: So is evolution. But “evolution is a fact” isn’t it? Yes. Of course it is – if we understand the word in the sense of the variations which are observed to occur in what are essentially stable organisms and species. But the gratuitous and totally unwarranted extrapolation of those processes to the huge metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind ‘evolved’ entirely by purposeless mechanical forces is religion. And almost without exception this is what those evolutionists involved in these controversies believe. Now here is where we need to be absolutely clear.
There is much dishonesty around on both sides of this argument. If these people, both the Evolutionists and ID supporters, looked at their ideologies full in the face they would have to admit that their arguments resolve themselves down into the one big question: “Did God create, or did everything just get here by itself?” This is what these controversies are really all about. Both are religious points of view because they are both held by faith and faith alone – for science cannot, as a matter of principle, have anything whatever to say about this question of “Why does something, as opposed to nothing, exist?” Only by recognising this common sense fact will those involved in the Creation/Evolution debate begin to produce some light instead of mere heat and pseudoscientific waffle.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:49 am
What I have seen hear from Behe’s/ ID’s detractors
is not what one would expect to see from those
who have arguments of substance and meaning on
their side.
In fact, it is difficult if not impossible to see
something in their choice of words that does not
ooze out political/ Darwinist/ philosophical
ideology. Are you capable of offering a
straightforward and substantive response to a
straightforward positive claim such as Behe’s
“Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.”?
I didn’t see it as of “Bill’s” 10:27 blog or prior.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bill,
I don’t have any problem with Behe or other ID pushers believing in whatever they want to believe in. The problem is they don’t stop at that. They run stealth candidates to local school boards and try to force down their theology on all the rest. And these heavy handed breathtakingly inane idiots in the school board mess with science teaching, and sometimes incur very heavy legal costs for the whole school district.
I realize the pious Christians are being played, repeatedly roused up to fight causes of marginal benefit to them and to fight injustices real and mostly imagined slights etc.
But I don’t have any problems with that. It is their problem, and if a group consistently elects to follow bad leadership, natural selection will take care of that group in the long run. Or they will wake up and throw these bums out.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Excellent interview. Very informative. Thank you.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Couldn’t agree more, Bill. I personally get much entertainment from reading the rants of the “flooders” and IDists – “oops, can’t explain it, so it must be designed!”
The problem comes when these folks attempt to insert this stuff in public schools. Google “Wedge Document”. Then it’s no longer funny, and becomes costly.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Does science rule out God prior to investigation? Certainly not!!! How can anyone dare say they know God can’t be involved in this universe prior to investigation! To do so reveals an atheistic philosophy parading under the guise of scientific authority and has no more merit than a lunatic declaring himself emperor of the world I find the Theistic philosophy very persuasive scientifically!
There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past and then it will be my goal to show where Materialism may currently be tying science up in an unnecessary problem. First, lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate.
1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.
6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.
11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.
12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
The Darwiist really haven’t come up with anything more explicit that biological adaptations “just happen” for no particular reason. And the “natural selection” somehow organizes these genetic accidents into complex biological systems.
http://myauthorsite.com/
September 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
A lot of people are upset that Behe has articulated an argument for Intelligent Design starting from the facts. But no one has been able to provide a counter argument starting from the same facts.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:17 am
To all the Darwinists and believers who claim that biology says that creationists are bogus :
What I really cannot understand is the big fuss over how one thinks/believes we got here. If God created all things, as Genesis teaches, or if we evolved by random chance mutations working over millions of years…who cares? Both can study cells, DNA, virus actions, etc. and get the same results. This is operational science.
Origins science is where the debate lies, but has zero impact on studying how things work now. The whole issue would go away if science would stick to this is what it is and this is what it does. It has no business tackling a religious/philosophical concern of where we came from.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Dave wonders why there are no “arguments of substance” against ID, but rather only what he characterizes as “oozing political/ Darwinist/ philosophical ideology”. Then he posts this quote from Behe “Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.”
and wonders why nobody addresses it logically (without the oozing).
So here goes.
Science works like this. Observation leads to hypothesis leads to experiment leads another observation to a conclusion. Enough consistent conclusions, accompanied by successful predictions from the observations, can get us to a theory, but that is not necessary for this discussion.
So lets look at what Behe has done.
Observation = perception of a “purposeful arrangement of parts”
Hypothesis = this arrangement of parts was designed
Experiment = ??????????????
Another observation = these other things look designed too
Conclusion = “involvement of a designer in life on earth”
Note how two important steps in the scientific method are omitted. Note how the conclusion is reached without doing any experiments, but is actually based only on the original observation (gee, this looks designed). Note that this is NOT science.
A caveat for those who think that Behe does, or cites, actual experiments. Pointing to actual experiments cited in the Edge of Evolution is irrelevant. Those experiments are cited in support of the notion that a caricature of modern evolutionary theory (aka “darwinism”) is incorrect. Even if Behe could prove that evolutionary theory is incorrect, it does NOT prove that his theory (design) is correct. He cites no positive observations in support of design, other than the original inference.
If Behe wants scientists to consider this as science, he will need to make predictions and do experiments. Conflating observation (“looks designed” with conclusion (“is designed” without predictive hypotheses and experiments is unscientific. As such, it rightly was rejected as science schoolroom material by the judge in the Dover case.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
It’s interesting that in all of the dust stirred up in these comments I have not seen a single one that actually deals with the contents of Behe’s book. There’s lots of name calling, accusations, and attempted character assasination… but not a single reference to whether or not the book contains valid information. The assumption seems to be “Behe is (insert choice of negative here) therefore the argument is over”. Sorry folks, that’s bad science akin to the mystics of the dark ages. Shame on you.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Chemfarmer Says:
“Why does anything associated with ID always seem to elicit a vitriolic response, mainly bitter name-calling, rather than much in the way of respectful reasoning?” and continues to theorize explanations for the (non existent) vitriol. Look at the postings here, and see for yourself how many evolutionists resorted to name calling.
Well, Chemfarmer, did you know that Dembski, yes that very same Dembski the leading luminary lawyer of Intelligent Design posted a youtube video of the Judge in Dover trial reading the judgment and added fart noises in the background? And you declare, as usual without any evidence, that it is the “evoltionists” and the “Darwninists” who resort to name calling and react with vitriol.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Is archaeology also a science of “giving up”? It must be- that is according to the illogic of the anti-IDists.
Is SETI the same? Would they give up once they determined a signal was from an alien civilization?
Also one must consider the alternative to ID- which would be sheer dumb luck- is completely void of scientific merit.
How to get around sheer dumb luck? Invoke the metaphysical explanation of a multiverse system.
Dawkins did not show, via scientific rigor, how a visual system could arise. And also all of Behe’s irreducibly complex structures still stand. IOW no one has shown how culled genetic accidents could have given rise to them.
In the end ID is NOT anti-evolution. The debate is about the mechanism- designed to evolve vs evoplved via culled genetic accidents.
IOW one can falsify ID just by substantiating their anti-ID position.
For those who focus on the “Wedge Doc” you probably should read the DI’s response- “The Wedge Doc, so what?”.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Here is one of the many links to the level intellect of
Dembski:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dave.cfm
He made a you tube video of a talking doll with a pull-rope that reads out the Dover judgment. The doll represents the
judge and the various evolutionists are shown to be pulling the string. The audio is high pitched and has fart noises added at many places. Dembski made an offer to reduce the the “special effects” if the judge himself would agree to read the judgment for him.
Tell me Chemfarmer and other ID apologists, are you guys really proud of rallying behind Dembski?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:57 am
scott:
This is the main point of Behe’s book as iterated by DaveScot of UD at Dembski’s blog:
ID predicted that even billions of trillions of generations of RM+NS working in the real world are not enough to produce complex structures such as those we see in all living cells. This prediction was based on statistical probability. As we continue to explore the extents of the complexity in living things we are continually finding that it’s even more complex than we previously imagined. When we actually had an opportunity to examine what happened at the nucleotide level in billions of trillions of generations where random mutation and natural selection was working, thanks to the prolific and ly parasite p.falciparum, we found that the prediction made by ID held true – no significant novel complexity was generated. ID offers an explanation – no intelligent agency was involved so there were no complex structures generated. What explanation for this does neo-darwinian theory offer?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Ravilyn Sanders Said:
“Dawkins wrote a whole book explaining how the “irreducibly complex” eye could evolve, people have found the flagellum in various stages of evolution still living.”
I do not know which book you are referring to. The only explanation of the evolution of the eye that I have seen begins with the light sensitive spot (with no explanation of how it evolved) and continues with a series of more complex eyes that end with the vertebrate eye.
Now if Dawkins wrote a book explaining how the evolution of the visual system could evolve, then I would be more impressed. (I notice, too, that the operatvie verb is “could”, and not “did”.)
I would rephrase the classic question, “What good is 5% of an eye?” as follows. “What good is 100% of an eye?”
An eye is not a “stand-alone” part, just as a television camera is not a stand-alone intstrument. It needs lots of other “stuff’ to be useful.
So many detailed questions need to be answered before the evolution of the visual system can be said to have been explained.
I am not a biologist (I’m an engineer), and even I can see in general outline what is needed to build a visual system.
The eye must have a physical support structure adapted to its shape: eye socket and muscles.
The eye must have a signaling system to transmit the image to the brain: nerves.
The eye must have a brain to interpret the image so that the organism can respond according to the image presented.
The eye must have nourishment so it needs to have blood vessels routed to it.
The eye and all its associated parts must have construction instructions that specify how the visual system is built.
The construction of the visual system must have some kind of process control so that all the parts come together at the right time, and in the right relationship to each other.
Within each of these categories, there are many questions that must be answered as well.
I submit that the evolution of the eye has not been explained until we get a handle on how all of the various components of the visual system have evolved. I don’t see how each part could have evolved independently since there will be no functioning visual system until all the parts are in place, but I am willing to be shown.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Can’t understand why ID generates so much heat. Brings to mind a quote by William Murray, 1st earl of Mansfield: The greater the truth, the greater the libel.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Can any of the anti-IDists tell me what methodology was used to detremine that living organisms arose from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes?
And then what methodolgy was used to determine the subsequent evolution of all organisms rests solely with those same types of processes?
IOW how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum, for example, evolved via culled genetic accidents?
What predictions can be made from that mechanism?
Wm. Dembski and I do NOT see “eye-to-eye” on everything related to ID. I see that as a good thing as it invokes debate- constructive debate.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
ID proponents – will you be doing another hilarious flash animation, or are you too busy doing experiments?
Thanks!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Neil Johnson wrote: “I submit that the evolution of the eye has not been explained until we get a handle on how all of the various components of the visual system have evolved. I don’t see how each part could have evolved independently since there will be no functioning visual system until all the parts are in place, but I am willing to be shown.”
No disagreement here. I might have missed it, but did anyone claim to have the entire explanation, or is that a straw man that you can conveniently set aflame? As I recall, the assertion was that Dawkins explained how the eye “could have evolved”, using data from paleontology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, and phylogenetic analysis. This approach generates testable predictions, some of which will turn out to be true, and some which will be false. And all of them are getting us closer to the explanation, even though it may never be enough detail for many.
On the other hand, what is your explanation for the evolution of the eye? Does it generate testable hypotheses/ Have you (or anyone else) tested them? Until you get past the “think-poof” notion described in Genesis, it looks to me like science is ahead in the race to describe the evolution of the eye.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Science is supposed to increase our knowlege by providing evidence to substantiate a claim, so where is the evidence to back the prediction that random chance can form the complex interactive mechanical systems needed for life?
ID says that such complex interactive mechanical systems similar in function to those found in life are caused/formed by intelligence. The evidence for this is found almost everywhere one may look. One could start observing some of the best evidence by looking at the current intelligently designed space shuttle.
Would anyone like to question this positive empirical evidence for the positively proveable ability of intelligence to create complex interactive mechanical systems.
Can anyone provide evidence that anything other than intelligence is capable of forming such system arrangements?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Gene, That’s the whole point of Behe’s book. You believe in the magical ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce stunning complexity. We Disagree! Behe uses real world demonstrations to prove that evolution is severely limited in its ability to produce complexity. You state that “similarities” between point A and point B prove that point B came from point A “naturally”. We Disagree! Behe provides concrete evidence that natural processes are insufficient to produce such complexity. What do you do? Instead of providing evidence of natural methods producing complexity you just restate your first statement “point A is similar to point B thus point B came from point A “naturally”.
To believe with no concrete proof is called faith the last time I checked. Therefore your belief in evolution to produce stunning complexity is no better than a fanatics blind adherence to a religion!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Can any of the IDists tell me what methodology was used to detremine that living organisms arose from non-living matter via purely non-stochastic processes?
And then what methodolgy was used to determine the subsequent evolution of all organisms does not rest solely with those same types of processes?
IOW how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum, for example, was created by the “intelligent Designer”?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Niel Jhonson,
The book is Climbing the Mount Improbable. Dawkins does not deny that the visual system is and the subsystems are as complex as you describe, or even more so. He does not deny that it looks impossible. It looks as though you are standing at the foot of a sheer cliff. It looks impossible anyone could climb this tall a cliff in one bound.
But the fallacy is you DONT HAVE TO CLIMB it one bound. Extending the analogy he shows that there is a gentle slope on the other side of the cliff. All that you need to climb this high is just small incremental improvements. If a small light sensitive patch helps one amoeba escape predators better than others, that is enough. Very small improvements, over millions of years could accumulate to such impossible to imagine complex structures. A 5% eye is better than a 1% and one percent eye is better than 0.0001% eye and even that is better than zero eyes.
You say, you are willing to be convinced. Fine, just hold the IDers to the same high skeptical standards. I mentioned the inability of humans to synthesize vitamin C. The code exists in our cells but we lack the enzyme needed to trigger the synthesis. Ask ID to give a clear explanation. The same level of unambiguity you demand from evolution for the eye. Evolution has stood the test of time and skeptics. It is not worried about skeptics. It is the people who are credulous about ID and skeptical about evolution who create trouble.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
John Edward wrote:
“Ensure that ‘it is not science’ and then you don’t have to engage with the arguments. Even though the arguments are all based on peer-reviewed science as Behe points out.”
Sorry, but that’s not how real science works. Real scientists test their hypotheses, producing new data even when the hypotheses are wrong. Controversies are resolved by new evidence (something Behe hasn’t done once since he took up the pseudoscience of ID ten years ago), not engaging with the arguments in a book designed to fool laypeople.
“The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.”
The term “theory” is reserved for hypotheses that have a long track record of successful predictions, with those confirmations producing new knowledge. The notion of ID isn’t remotely close to being a theory, as none of its proponents have sufficient faith in it to put it to the test.
“Sound off as much as you like but there are serious problems for Darwinism…”
We moved beyond Darwin long ago, John. Didn’t you realize this? We have stuff like drift and horizontal transfer.
“… and ID theory is compelling if you studyhow cells work and the DNA database is built.”
I’ve done both cell biology and genetics, and ID is neither compelling nor a theory. Have you studied either of these subjects to the extent that you have produced new data?
“Talk from knowledge.”
Indeed!
“Engage with the facts on both sides and try and avoid the hysteria….”
If we’re doing science, we need to engage with the predictions and the data that come from testing them. There’s a mountain of data from evolutionary theory, and absolutely zero from the “other side.”
“If it so easily refuted just simply answer Behe’s arguemnts.”
Behe hasn’t produced a new datum in 10 years, choosing to deceive laypeople instead. That says it all.
——
gene wrote:
“I would rephrase the classic question, “What good is 5% of an eye?” as follows. “What good is 100% of an eye?””
Or better yet, contrast an eagle’s eye with ours, and ask, “What good is ~175% of a human eye?” (the eyes of eagles have two foveas to our one)
“An eye is not a “stand-alone” part, just as a television camera is not a stand-alone intstrument. It needs lots of other “stuff’ to be useful.”
Yes, but you haven’t thought in any depth about what stuff is required.
“I am not a biologist (I’m an engineer), and even I can see in general outline what is needed to build a visual system.”
Obviously, you don’t.
“The eye must have a physical support structure adapted to its shape: eye socket and muscles.”
Nope. There are plenty of eyes in nature that have no muscles, such as insect eyes and the pineal glands of early vertebrates (ours have evolved to process signals from the visual system).
“The eye must have a signaling system to transmit the image to the brain: nerves.”
Yes and no. The pineal gland (even ours) signals the entire body using endocrine mechansims, so you are completely, utterly, hopelessly wrong. This illustrates why real science is done by testing predictions of hypotheses, and why ID is pseudoscience that consists of quote-mining the works of real scientists.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sorry, that was Neil Johnson I was responding to, not Gene.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Excellent article. Thanks.
Comments from ID proponents for the most part are reasoned and thoughtful. Most of the comments from Darwin proponents seem vitriolic. Such comments speak volumes.
Behe has done an excellent service for Darwin proponents; he has postulated a limit to the ability of random mutation to affect change in an organism.
Why wouldn’t anyone convinced of evolutionary processes NOT want to know about this finding of limits? Behe has replaced speculation with factual findings.
That’s good, isn’t it?
September 25th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Dear Gene (gene?)
Ummmm, a major problem with the data from paleontology, et.al. is that the data is simply data, not a real experiment by any stretch of the definition. How can past events generate predictions? I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form. No real EVOLUTION at all. And while you are at it, please read Neil Johnson’s appropriate analogy from the real world. Also please answer my previous question.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
John Edwards
puff . . .
Ensure that ‘it is not science’ and then you don’t have to engage with the arguments. Even though the arguments are all based on peer-reviewed science as Behe points out.
The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.
Sure care to point me to the actual theory?
September 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Christopher,
How can past events generate predictions?
Things like: You will never find a hominid fossil in the Cambrian layer of sediments. You will never find fossils of Australopithecine in Antarctica.
Remember the great mammal-reptile jaw debate? Creationists were arguing mammalian jaw and reptilian jaw were attached to the skull (articulation is the technical term) in such a different way, mammals could not have evolved from the reptiles. Evolution predicted a common ancestor that would have evolved in two ways, one becoming reptiles and one becoming mammals. see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
The fossils confirming the common ancestors were found eventually.
Now before you start more questions do some answering. The standard play book for ID is “ask questions, don’t listen for answers, ask more questions, trash the answers, ask more questions.” Why don’t you provide clear and concise examples of things explained better in ID than in evolution. Start from my current favorite, Vitamin C synthesis among humans.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
PS: Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
September 25th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
bornagain77,
You missed one. Materialism didn’t predict the internets.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Christopher Gieschen Says:
Ummmm, a major problem with the data from paleontology, et.al. is that the data is simply data, not a real experiment by any stretch of the definition.
By ruling out the use of historical data, you are denying the predictive power of astronomy, cosmology, several major branches of physics, archaeology, paleontology, most branches of geology, not to mention any kind of academic practice of history.
In that manner, you can’t prove that Napoleon ever existed. Certainly not Julius Caesar, either. By those suggestions, you can’t prove that the universe didn’t pop into existence on the day I was born. In fact, you can’t prove that you exist other than as a figment in my imagination…
So. To recap, we’ve ruled out the use of historical data to prove any time of evolution. We can only do controlled laboratory experiments. However, the types of changes observable in the typical human lifetime are too small to convince you. Do you see that you’ve painted yourself into a corner? The only way to look at data over long stretches of time is to look at historical “experiments” left in nature for us. But if you rule that out, and you rule out experiments in the lab as being too short, you’ve rather made it impossible to prove anything to you.
Would you call that wilful ignorance?
September 25th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
James Collins Says:
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
Do you promise that this is all it will take to convince you? Promise?
Google the J. Craig Venter Institute. Keep an eye on the news section of their webpage. From discussions with folks who work there, they are less than a year away from doing exactly that. I actually get the impression that they have already succeeded, but they’re not quite ready to publish.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
John Edward said: “The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.”
I’ll read ID theory just as soon as ID proponents get around to working one up. Paul Nelson of hte Discovery Institute acknowledges, “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
September 25th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
James Collins said,
“Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over.”
Nope. The argument will not be over. You will start questioning the experiment and claim that the scientist cheated and continue to believe whatever you want to believe. Buddy, go ahead and believe in anything you want.
Just don’t come dunning for my tax dollars to preach that ideology to my children. Fair enough?
September 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Where is the ID science? So far, ID appears to be a public relations scheme. There are no papers, ID isn’t taught in Universities, and no recent discoveries are reported. In contrast, it seems odd that ID is pushed towards inclusion in grade school. Why is that? Read the Wedge Document to find out.
I recommend all IDists to demand that Behe, et al, send all their “research” to the Nobel Prize Committee. Surely, if what they claim about ID, not to mention what they claim about evolutionary science, is legit, numerous Nobel Prizes await.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
A compendium of reviews of “The Edge of Evolution”:
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#links
Here’s one example from a prominent biologist:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Coyne.cfm
“Professor Jerry Coyne addresses Michael Behe’s Reply to Coyne’s Review of Behe’s New Book”
Here’s more commentary by a grad student who points out that Behe’s claim, made in EoE, that HIV has no new genes is just plain wrong:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
“ERV and HIV versus Behe. Behe loses.”
September 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Glenn:
“Why wouldn’t anyone convinced of evolutionary processes NOT want to know about this finding of limits?”
Because Behe hasn’t found anything. In fact, his book is filled with falsehoods about real findings by real scientists who do real science–the best example is his false claim that HIV hasn’t evolved any new protein-protein interactions.
“Behe has replaced speculation with factual findings. That’s good, isn’t it?”
If he had produced some new findings, you’d have a point. However, all he’s done is cherry-pick and misrepresent the findings of others. If Behe has so much confidence in his hypothesis, why is he writing books aimed at laypeople instead of publishing some new findings?
Christopher Gieschen Says:
“How can past events generate predictions?”
Pretty easily. I’ll add another one: MET predicts precisely where new sequences will be placed in nested hierarchies derived from sequence identities and differences.
“I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form.”
I submit to you that you are moving the goalposts from speciation.
James Collins Says:
“If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.”
We certainly have far more knowledge than you, but cells aren’t simple. Nice straw man, though!
“…chance encounters…”
Natural selection is decidedly nonrandom.
“Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so.”
No, I believe that it is true because of the evidence. I’ve even tested predictions of evolutionary theory as a mere mouse geneticist.
“It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org.”
Lies and false analogies aren’t evidence. Why don’t you do an examination of the evidence published in the primary scientific literature?
“The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.”
We do! We even generate such evidence. What do you do?
“…Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????”
Natural selection is neither random nor accidental. It sounds like you have some reading to do.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
James Collins wrote: “Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????”
First of all, abiogenesis is a separate question from evolution.
Second, you jump from “it’s a tough problem which hasn’t been solved yet” to “God did it.” That’s quite a leap. And how do you know that anyone “rightly” concluded God must have done it, if the problem isn’t solved yet?
Third, you seem to think it’s important to replicate in a lab what happened billions of years ago under conditions that are not well understood and which no longer exist. Very well, give me funding for a laboratory the size of a planet and equipment and personnel to run a few hundred millions years of experiments, and I’ll give it a shot.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Bornagain77 writes: “Gene, That’s the whole point of Behe’s book. You believe in the magical ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce stunning complexity. We Disagree!”
Well, that is certainly putting words in my mouth. They don’t fit. How about this? I understand (not believe) that science has provided us with testable (not magical) predictions for the production of complexity in the living organisms around us. I understand that others prefer magical explanations (the think-poof of genesis) or thinly disguised mathematical fallacies that allow them to try to get their magical beliefs into public schools. I disagree with that latter perspective, because it is not science under any reasonable definition of the term.
Bornagain again: “Behe uses real world demonstrations to prove that evolution is severely limited in its ability to produce complexity. You state that “similarities” between point A and point B prove that point B came from point A “naturally”. We Disagree! ”
More words that I never uttered. Y’know, there could be a lot of “invective” directed against the IDists on this board solely on the basis of behaviors like this. It’s a lie to say that someone else stated something that they did not state. Liars deserve to be called out, don’t you think? at any rate, Behe did not prove the limitations of evolution. He mismanaged the math, proceeded from bad assumptions, and never proved anything about his pet notion, intelligent design. This is all documented in the book reviews cited by others in this thread. Here’s a challenge for you, BA77. Read ERV’s critique of Behe’s blatherings about HIV and point out, specifically and with citations from the primary literature, where she is wrong and he is right. Just saying that Behe proved X does not make it so. And do recall that you are not on your home site, where Dave and Bill can ban naysayers so that you can proclaim victory. Prove it, with citations and logic, rather than quotes and assertions. Please.
Bornagain yet again: “Behe provides concrete evidence that natural processes are insufficient to produce such complexity. What do you do? Instead of providing evidence of natural methods producing complexity you just restate your first statement “point A is similar to point B thus point B came from point A “naturally”.”
More words in my mouth that did not originate there. Where, exactly, did this point A and point B thing get said by me?
Bornginally: “To believe with no concrete proof is called faith the last time I checked. Therefore your belief in evolution to produce stunning complexity is no better than a fanatics blind adherence to a religion!”
And your statement also has a name – projection.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Don’t you love it when someone refers you to the talkorigins site? I find the site wonderful to obtain material for science fiction books.
If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they have a problem? If they have such an airtight argument, why are there debates at all? If Darwinism was packed with facts, they could probably sit home and just relax instead of replying to other ideas outside of their belief, trying to convince ppl that Darwinism evolution is true, has many facts, and blah blah blah.
Darwinism ought to have the nads to say, “go ahead ID’ers, present your case and let the world hear, and let the world decide who presents a better case for the origins of life.”
If Darwinians think ID is unscientific, then step aside, and allow people to come to their own conclusions. Does it have to continually be suppression of minds, thought, and speech? No freedom of inquiry allowed?
The way I see it, if Darwinian evolutionists don’t have a problem with their origins of life facts, then they shouldn’t have a problem with anyone else’s origins of life facts either. You can say ID is not scientific, but neither is Darwinism.
Everyone has a choice of what to wear, what to eat, etc. Everyone should have a choice to what they want to believe on the origins of life as well.
~M
September 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
There isn’t much to say on the lack of science and errors that riddles Behe’s latest book that hasn’t been said better by evolutionary biologists in countless other reviews. One can but note the gems like when Behe claims that the RNA virus HIV contains DNA. Or when he claims flagellar systems must contain the very gene that his flag ship the malaria parasite lacks.
But that is pitiful fuel for the laughs that follows Behe wherever he goes. Here he has managed to compound his mistakes by claiming that most evolutionary variation “either break or degrade genes”. I’m sure that comes as a surprise to biologists who has found by observation that most genomic changes are neutral.
Also witness his inability of defining observational “evidence” and “test”. This is the mark of a man who is straying from earlier work into the empty wasteland of socio-religious movements.
Well, okay, just for kicks some more specific Behe errors:
When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis.
Notice how easily Behe repeat the standard creationist lie. Friedmann’s expanding universe solution of GR and Lemaître’s big bang theory was made before Hubble discovered the cosmological expansion 1929.
If I had 10 c for every lie of a creationist…
I see that a commenter thinks this is a ‘great quote’. The odd thing that it is so easy to check. I mean, it is evident since the Dover trial transcript that Behe by his own words doesn’t get his material from science papers, but probably from random readings of scientists popular books. But what excuse can literate individuals make?
Intelligent design is science because it is based completely on physical data – the molecular machinery of cells – plus ordinary logic.
Right. With that definition atheism is science too.
But I’m sure Behe didn’t want to imply that. He is satisfied with lumping ID creationism with astrology. (See the Dover trial transcript.)
Who knows, as he tries to correct his new definition for science, he might accidentally stumble on the real deal. But we won’t hold our breath. After all, Behe is the one who believes evolutionary processes works without the power of selection…
September 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
An explanation of how an eye could evolve has been given and is well within the parameters of reason. An explanation of how bacteria flagellum could have evolved and most likely did, and is well within the parameters of reason. Both through natural means.
At what point does IC become just another “sciency” sounding bogus term/concept that was concocted by the agenda driven people behind ID?
How about a new one?….mmmmmmm..wait…wait..I got it, “Gazornaplatts”!…Let the Darwinist invalidate the concept of Gazornaplatts!
September 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
A excellent review is here for EOE
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/books/20070819_Pa__scientist_again_attacks_evolution.html
Here Behe defends himself against one of the more, shall I say, “respectable” attempts at refutation:
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206
Here is an excerpt from the Philadelphia Inquirer
Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution, provides some hard numbers, coupled with an ingenious argument. The key to determining the exact powers of Darwinian evolution, says Behe, lies with fast-reproducing microbes. Some, such as malaria, HIV, and E. coli, reproduce so quickly that within a few decades, or at most a few millennia, they generate as many mutations as a larger, slower-breeding animal would in millions of years. By observing how far these creatures have evolved in recent times, we can estimate the creative limits of random mutation.
In the case of malaria, the creative limits appear quite low. Over the last few thousand years, several thousand billion billion malarial cells have been unable to develop an evolutionary response to the sickle-cell mutation, which protects its human bearers from malaria. On the other hand, malaria has proved able to develop Darwinian resistance to the antibiotic chloroquine. This resistance is based upon two simultaneous mutations affecting a malarial protein. Yet this rare double mutation has occurred fewer than 10 times since chloroquine was introduced 50 years ago, during which time a hundred billion billion malarial cells have been born. If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.
Drawing upon parallel mutation studies of HIV and E. coli for confirmation, Behe concludes that random mutations cannot explain the origin of most of the complex structures in living things. He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes. The creative limit, the “edge of evolution,” lies somewhere between the level of species and the level of class. Darwinian processes can account for the difference between a dog and a wolf, maybe even a dog and a bear, but not the difference between a lizard and a bird. Something other than random mutation must have produced such differences; for Behe, the “something” is intelligent design.
The response to Behe has been predictable. The editors of the major print media have assigned known enemies of ID to trash the book – Richard Dawkins for the New York Times; Coyne for the New Republic; Miller for Nature; Ruse for Toronto’s Globe & Mail. A large part of each review is ad hominem, concerned with Behe’s alleged religious agenda, his minority status among biologists, and other irrelevant matters. In Dawkins’ review, the science is barely touched, and it’s not clear from Ruse’s review that he has even opened the cover of the book. Behe deserves better. The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.
Whereas the student’s (ERV’s) attempt at refutation included “literature bluffing”…i.e. When put on the spot for evidence, by scordova at UD, she admitted that the VPU gene originated prior to infecting humans and in fact could not specify the exact time when it originated since it was beyond the hard observed data of empirical science…
September 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Another review that deals explicitly with Behe’s book, and shows how evolution in a multicellular eukaryote refutes Behe in no uncertain terms. It’s a subject that the ID vanguard has been confusing and ducking for more than 5 years. And it’s one that Behe is astute to avoid, because it lays waste his claims.
Enjoy.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/reality-1-behe.html
September 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Most everyone against ID seems to assume that the “Intelligent Agent” is God. And, since “God” is “all powerful, wise and good” he/she/it would not “botch the job”. Seems to me that using theology against ID “is not science”. Who says that the Intelligent Agent(s) is “God”?
Can’t there exist any intelligent agent smarter than man or less than the “omnipotent God”?
September 25th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Mar says “Everyone has a choice of what to wear, what to eat, etc. Everyone should have a choice to what they want to believe on the origins of life as well.”
Mar, You believe in whatever you want to believe in. From Flat Earth Society, to invisible pink rubber bands theory to explain gravity, to Flying Spaghetti Monster to whatever.
Just promise you will not claim your belief is science.
Don’t demand your private beliefs to be taught as science in my child’s school. Don’t run stealth candidates to school boards.
OK peace on earth.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Art;
In the case of T-urf-13, aren’t we dealing with: (a) mitochondrial plant DNA which, in the case of cms, is known to produce chimeric proteins (thus novelty is questionable), and (b) whose genetic mechanisms aren’t fully understood, and (c), in the case of ‘maize’, had to at some time been subjected to artificial selection, and therefore not a relevant comparison to what RM/NS will do “in the wild”?
It seems an act of desperation when you have to hide behind some very questionable evidence to make your case against what Behe so clearly illustrates to be the limits of evolution.
I mean really and truly Art, can you not come up with countless examples that are not so vague as this one example you quote, Evolution is such a overriding principle of life is it not?…In reality we should not be having this discussion, because the evidence you would have should be so overwhelming that it would be clear that you could point to countless examples of proteins originating…What do we get after years of PT pundits vainly searching for conclusive proof in which to slay ID with…A SINGLE very questionable example in T-urf-13!!! Excuse me for being underwhelmed by your example Art!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
That review is written by Cameron Wybrow, which dissertation is on theology.
That IDC needs a religious scholar to find a positive review isn’t surprising. The expert biologists are negative.
Jerry Coyne ends his review of Behe’s creationism:
He finds the book so bad and repetitive from Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box that he can’t be bothered to repeat his standing criticism. (Which Behe still hasn’t answered.)
Nick Matzke pulls down Behe’s creationist pants on a technical detail that again shows Behe’s inability to study literature:
And of course even a biological graduate student, a working expert on HIV, can reveal some of Behe’s mistakes.
Bornagain77:
It is an outright lie that there was any bluffing. ERV noted from the beginning that the HIV gene Vpu that Behe bluffed hadn’t acquired new functions originated in the SIV.
The point that scordova hammered was predicted by ERV from the beginning when she noted that ID creationists would hammer on that the gene wasn’t new, while the acquired function she discussed was. Read
the article to get to the truth. When it concerns creationists you can’t rely on what they claim.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Behe says there seem to be limits to what evolution can accomplish, based on the currently accepted mechanisms. Critics say there are not. But it seems that the main objection is because of the implications of the science, not the science itself.
Now, any dog breeder will tell you there are limits to what selection can do. It’s the mechanism for making the big leaps that has problems. As for myself, I never judged the explanations for the large jumps to be very compelling (much less the evidence for them). And the theory that large jumps were made gradually makes no sense to me at all.
But, if your religion requires a belief that there is no God, then I suppose you have to accept it on faith.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Bornagain77‘s memory apparently needs some work. He writes:
Yet in ERV’s original post she writes:
see: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
So it was not “when pressured” that ERV admitted some sinister mistake that was covered up with “literature bluffing”. And it wasn’t a mistake. And evidently bornagain77 can’t be bothered to read the articles people write before critiquing them.
Perhaps bornagain77 would like to apologize to ERV, but I doubt it.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Whereas the student’s (ERV’s) attempt at refutation included “literature bluffing”…i.e. When put on the spot for evidence, by scordova at UD, she admitted that the VPU gene originated prior to infecting humans and in fact could not specify the exact time when it originated since it was beyond the hard observed data of empirical science…”
So Sally owns a time machine? Sweet!
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
September 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Someone above wrote:
Why does anything associated with ID always seem to elicit a vitriolic response, mainly bitter name-calling, rather than much in the way of respectful reasoning? The vitriol seems to me to be motivated by more than a desire to protect science from pseudoscience. When is the last time you went after anything else you considered pseudoscience with anywhere near this kind of passion? You are reacting exactly as if your religion were being attacked, and it reflects poorly on your intelligence and self control.
Because snake oil can kill.
I think all you folks who think there is something to this ID thing should all go and post at Richarddawkins.net/forum/ or iidb.org or pandasthumb.org etc and actually try to use your understanding of gods whatever to sustain a rational conversation or investigation using that knowledge.
My guess? you will end up failing miserably. But, that’s just a guess.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“Joe G Says:
Also one must consider the alternative to ID- which would be sheer dumb luck- is completely void of scientific merit.”
Joe G,
Well, let’s just see. Sheer Dumb Luck (SDL) as a theory:
Observation: Evolution of species over time has occurred and follows the phylogenetic classification system. (speciation).
Hypothesis 1: SDL accounts for the diversity of species.
Hypothesis 2: Various genetic mutations plus natural selection account for the diversity of species.
Hypothesis 3: Intelligent Design accounts for the diversity of species.
Not sure why we should be considering H1 as the alternative to H3. I mean all (100%) of the observed evidence supports H2.
Just sayin. You go ahead and keep up the good fight though, don’t let me stop you.
Oh yeah, “support your argument” you might say. Well, I did say all. Refuting me should be easy…
September 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I do apologize for misquoting you ERV…by the way how is that whole atheist thing working for you? Can get pretty hopeless at times I bet! Hope that all changes for you…I really do!!!
Now to the evidence…The point being in your refutation of Behe is that you claimed novelty…Yet you went beyond the bounds of observable data and made an inference…Whereas Behe stays within observable data and makes his inference…Thus your conclusion although very suggestive does not carry as much weight scientifically as Behe does..You must refute hard observable science with hard observable science!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
bornagain77 sez:
“When put on the spot for evidence, by scordova at UD, she admitted that the VPU gene originated prior to infecting humans and in fact could not specify the exact time when it originated since it was beyond the hard observed data of empirical science.”
Bzzt! Try again.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I am currently writing a book on the neglected companion of Intelligent Design, Malevolent Design. The main thesis is that if there be a creator deity then he/she/it would be evil and delight in our torture. The biological aspect can be summarized with two questions. Why did the creator design the mosquito, the world’s number one deadliest insect? Why did the creator design pathogens to be carried along inside it? Mosquitoes are a highly sucessful vector of diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, west nile virus, etc. The environmental aspect can be summarized by asking, Why did the creator design deadly weather systems and various other producers of natural disasters? Why invent tornadoes? Why invent hurricanes? Why invent volcanoes, avalanches, hail, lightning, tsunamis and earthquakes? The cosmological aspect: Why did the creator make our sun so deadly? It causes millions of new cases of skin cancer every year! And no wonder, it’s a nuclear reactor blasting our planet with potentially deadly radiation! Why invent comets and asteroids that slam into our planet? Why make the universe so incredibly hostile to our existence? The mythological: Within the fictional tome known as the Bible, said deity shows his evil in various ways: the design, creation and implementation of Hell, the creation of Satan, the massive death and destruction of The Flood, etc. Chronological: All of time would’ve been designed by the creator deity. In Christianity it’s known as the Divine Plan. Every thought and every action would be preordained and free will would be nothing but an illusion. We would have been born, unknowingly, into a play where all the props and lines were created by a god. All good and all evil would be his doing. This is actually admitted in Isaiah 45: 6-7. Every rape, every molestation, every murder would all just be part of the script! Through a detailed examination of these five points we can clearly see that if there be a god, he/she/it is evil. This, of course, leaves the believer with a dilemma. Should I continue to worship such a being?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Bornagain77
Let’s try again. You accuse ERV of “literature bluffing”, so you should be able to handle my precious request for some literature citations to back up your assertions. We might need to refresh you memory about the facts, since you seem caught up in some mythological mist about the realities.
Behe said “Like malaria, HIV is a microbe that occurs in astronomical numbers. What’s more, its mutation rate is 10,000 times greater than that of most other organisms. So in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world. Yet all those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery. If we see that Darwin’s mechanism can only do so little even when given its best opportunities, we can decisively conclude that random mutation did not build the machinery of life.”
ERV noted that the Vpu gene in HIV has two different functions, involving new protein-protein interaction, that do not seem to be present in ancestral Vpu genes in ancestral viruses. This has occurred within the last 80-90 years or so. This is a direct contradiction to Behe’s specific assertion above, but also to his generic assertion that evolution of novel protein-protein interactions is damn near impossible in time frames that matter.
You say that ERV is wrong, but provide nothing other than your opinion and an irrelevant posturing from Sal Cordova, another known liar.
I will ignore the fact that you have not addressed several other criticisms in my previous post, but I will continue to ask you the question posed there. Accusing others of literature bluffing is downright hypocritical if you can’t “point out, specifically and with citations from the primary literature, where she is wrong and he is right.” I do have access to that primary literature, so please don’t be tempted to bluff. You will end up where Sal ended up, and besides, I do recall that there is some commandment in your book that proscribes lying, even to heathens.
Thanks in advance.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?
By using the tried and true design detection techniques scientists have been using for decades.
“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.”- Dr Behe
“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
Also abiogenesis is NOT a separate question for the very logical reason that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes there would be no reason those types of processes are solely responsible for any subsequent evolution.
And Art, your nonsense has been refuted. Artificial selection is not natural selection. Duh.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Ooops – Behe has been a bit too generous in granting even the slightest concession to Darwinian processes as accounting for minor changes in biological systems.
Biological systems consistantly coming up with what is “necessary” for surival (and this may encompass anything from curtailing its populations to increasing them)has no relation to the idea of beneficially fortuitous mutations.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I don’t think many borderline supporters of ID or creationism have any idea of how it is regarded by biologists. Go to any biology department in any university that does not require you to sign a statement of religious belief and ask if ID has anything to support it. You will quickly discover that most biologists find the idea so ludicrous that they feel there is no point in bothering with it, rather as if you asked them whether there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
The remainder also find the idea ludicrous, but are alarmed by the political and public relations drive by non-biologists to have their particular version of pseudoscience imposed in schools.
As others have pointed out, there is no theory of intelligent design. Moreover, the ‘evidence’ for it is in fact long-refuted criticisms of the theory of evolution. There is not one jot of positive evidence to support ID. It is merely an empty shell to push a fundamentalist version of religion.
A previous commentator asked how it is possible to make predictions about events in the past. A group of researchers wanted to study fossils transitional between fish and amphibians. Their knowledge of the theory of evolution enabled them to predict the type, age and place of deposition of rocks where such a fossil might be found. Their knowledge of the theory of plate tectonics allowed them to predict where these rocks would have moved to by now. So off they went and found Tiktaalik, just what they were looking for in the place where they expected to find it.
ID, on the other hand, only seems to make predictions after they are known to be true.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“Art;
In the case of T-urf-13, aren’t we dealing with: (a) mitochondrial plant DNA which, in the case of cms, is known to produce chimeric proteins”
Not in this case.
…” (b) whose genetic mechanisms aren’t fully understood,”
Not in this case.
…” and (c), in the case of ‘maize’, had to at some time been subjected to artificial selection, and therefore not a relevant comparison to what RM/NS will do “in the wild”?”
Just plain wrong. Random variation and natural selection is random variation and natural selection. It doesn’t matter, especially for Behe’s arguments, what the source of selective pressure is.
(Of course, bornagain77 and JoeG conveniently forget the fact that Behe’s whole book is built around a case of “artificial” selection, of resistant Plasmodium parasites exposed to a man-made pharmaceutical in entirely contrived conditions. Do you really wish to diss Behe in this way, bornagain77 and JoeG?)
“It seems an act of desperation when you have to hide behind some very questionable evidence to make your case against what Behe so clearly illustrates to be the limits of evolution.”
LOL. The evidence is clear and unequivocal – three “CCC”‘s in a period of time Behe insists cannot accommodate such changes.
“I mean really and truly Art, can you not come up with countless examples that are not so vague as this one example you quote,”
LOL.
There’s nothing vague about Turf13. Its a plain-as-day example of something Behe insists cannot happen.
“…In reality we should not be having this discussion, because the evidence you would have should be so overwhelming that it would be clear that you could point to countless examples of proteins originating…”
Well, bornagain77, we are having this discussion because you cannot deal with facts. You’re not alone. Mike Behe is also ducking the facts, as he should. It won’t help sales for him to admit the obvious.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Gene:
The whole point of Behe’s book, whether or not the VPU generation of a few protein binding sites were truly a “unobserved” random event within the 80 or 90 years or not, is that the “mutational powerhouses” of HIV and Malaria are producing exceedingly trivial results in much longer generation times for total populations than all the other populations of higher complex lifeforms that have ever existed on the face of earth!!!!… So what!!!! A few controversial protein binding sites that out of observed range! …The Neo-Darwinism (fairy tale) tells us that in less amount of generation times, for all higher life forms on earth, the entire diversity of higher life-forms sprang up and spread throughout the earth into the stunning diversity we now see…from a single common ancestor no less!!!!… Can’t you see the problem?!? Is it that hard for you to see that there may be something more behind the complexity of life on earth than your simplistic materialistic view!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
We discussed excerpts from Behe’s latest book in my religion and science class today. Rather than repeat them in detail here, I’ll just share a link to a blog entry I posted today, reflecting on one particular point in Behe’s argument and today’s class more generally.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/monkeys-and-typewriters-on-edge-of.html
September 25th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
It’s just hilarious. I think the current evolutionary paradigm as promulgated by our atheist betters is as dead as can be as a reasonable intellectual position. The corpse reeks more with each passing discovery in molecular biology. And I think their dead philosophy has a stranglehold on our civilization as it attempts to pull it down into the grave with it.
In summary, I see atheistic Darwinism as very bad science, unsupported by the evidence, unfalsifiable as currently practiced, and a mortal long term threat to society.
But do you know something? I’m not in a panic spending all my time scouring the internet and posting rebuttals to any argument their side might make. I don’t really think I need to. The truth will out. And time and scientific evidence is on my side. They can say whatever they want in their forums. It doesn’t bother me at all. Their foolish “reasonings” are of no interest to me (except for sampling them occasionally on the off chance that someone is making sense). I have no desire to crash their party. If I want to know more about what the ID guys have to say for themselves, I read their books. If I want to know more about what the Darwinists have to say, I read those books. At no point do I demand that anyone “prove” anything to me in a comment box, because, let’s face it, such a thing is the height of asininity.
The only time I respond to the Darwinists online is when they come barging in on what is otherwise a pro-ID forum. And even then, I don’t waste my time hammering away at my pet debating points. I leave that to Darwinist guys like “Dimensio”, whose posts seem to take up half the space on Ben Stein’s “Expelled: The Movie” blog (the first thread already has 1500 total comments).
I wonder why it doesn’t seem to work that way for Darwinists? They can’t stand to see any favorable treatment of ID go uncommented upon, uninsulted, or untagged with statements that amount to “THIS IS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP!!!! IGNORE IT!!! YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS!!!!!”
There is a distinct asymmetry here. One of the sides seems to exhibit the symptoms of a decided lack of confidence. It’s pretty clear to me which side that is. But I don’t feel the need to trumpet this in their forums. Let the babies have their bottles. That’s my overall policy. Why isn’t it theirs?
September 25th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
No, BA, you didnt ‘misquote’ me. You mindlessly copy/pasted what Sally wrote, and what Sally wrote was a desperate attempt to save face after I responded appropriately to his harassment.
Had you read my original post before you started attacking me on UD, you wouldnt have ‘misquoted’ me.
Prime example of the ‘science’ of Intelligent Design Creationism– harass and threaten behind the safety of internet pseudonyms.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Joe G:
Behe likes to argue (and Dembski likes to parrot) that the flagellum is irreducibly complex because if you take away a piece, it doesn’t work. He claims this as evidence of design.
A few questions for you:
Is there only one type of flagellum?
If there is more than one type, is there one that uses fewer components than the one Behe harps on?
If there is one that uses fewer components than Behe’s, is his example really irreducibly complex?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Reverend AtheiStar helpfully points out that conclusions about the existence/nature of God can be made from scientific observation. Because he points out that disharmony implies malevolence, it would seem that the even greater harmony required for life and ecosystems to exist at all must imply an even greater benevolence.
Or so AtheiStar would have to conclude if he were actually serious about anything he is saying.
But really, what I think AtheiStar is meaning to show us is that it’s actually theological reasoning (“what kind of God would do this?”) that leads to his scientific commitments. He offers the argument from theological incredulity: “I can’t imagine a benevolent creator making such a world, therefore there is no design”. He can’t really believe in a malevolent creator, since his post does not display the appropriate fear levels should such a thing be true.
In short, AtheiStar clearly illustrates that, for many, belief in Darwinism is based on theological arguments, not scientific.
Thank you for the sermon, Reverend!
September 26th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Matteo wrote: “It’s just hilarious. I think the current evolutionary paradigm as promulgated by our atheist betters is as dead as can be as a reasonable intellectual position. The corpse reeks more with each passing discovery in molecular biology.”
No, what is hilarious is the continued and unsubstantiated claim that evolution is dead. To paraphrase Samuel Clements, “news of the death are greatly exaggerated.” However, in this case it’s even worse because it’s also a deliberate lie prompted by much wishful thinking. A form of thought process creationists are very good at. They’ve wished for and predicted it since the theory was first introduced, but like the record of biblical prophecies all their predictions have failed, dismally.
Glen Morton, a former Young Earth Creationist, has compiled a list of the many times creationists, like Matteo here, have boldly made the claim of the imminent demise of evolution. It is has Mr. Morton states: “The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism” see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm for the hilarious details.
What Matteo fails to realize is that the theory of evolution is stronger than ever supported by an ever growing mountain of evidence. The theory of evolution has and continues to produce real benefits and tangible benefits to humanity. Spend some time looking in to the biotechnical fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics for example. These fields have real applications to biomedical research, agriculture, forestry, and conservation biology.
see http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html
As the aforementioned references show, the record of contributions by application of evolutionary theory to humanity is strong and admirable. This is in stark contrast to the utter dearth of benefits contributed by Creationism. It has produced nothing of merit.
Which brings me to your concluding point about the theory of evolution and ID: Matteo wrote, “There is a distinct asymmetry here.”
Yes Matteo there certainly is an asymmetry. The theory of evolution is a science, whereas ID is nothing but a dressed-up version of creationism offering only pseudo-science. A conclusion supported by a court of law presided by a religious and conservative, Bush appointed judge who put aside his religious convictions for truth and honesty.
If anything is dead as a science it is Intelligent Design. A most unintelligent, vacuous program that has not or can not produced any falsifiable hypotheses, research, or useful products.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:32 am
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved?
By using the tried and true evolution detection techniques scientists have been using for decades.
If living organisms did arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes there would be no reason those types of processes are not solely responsible for any subsequent evolution.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Bornagain77 moves the goalposts back to 66
“The whole point of Behe’s book, whether or not the VPU generation of a few protein binding sites were truly a “unobserved” random event within the 80 or 90 years or not, is that the “mutational powerhouses” of HIV and Malaria are producing exceedingly trivial results in much longer generation times for total populations than all the other populations of higher complex lifeforms that have ever existed on the face of earth!!!!… So what!!!! A few controversial protein binding sites that out of observed range!”
1) Apparently your reading comprehension skills, or mine, must be deficient. I asked you to provide evidence, using citations from the primary scientific literature, that Behe is right and ERV is wrong. Please point me to the place in this post where you have done that. If you can’t do it, and we know that Behe can’t do it since he hasn’t bothered to address ERV’s withering scientific criticism, then you should stop pretending that you are talking about science.
2) The “controversial” binding sites are controversial only in your head. They exist, they have been documented in numerous independent studies, and they arose in just a few dozens of years. If you characterize them as controversial, again, please cite some scientific data to support that assertion. Your opinion doesn’t count, and again, Behe remains silent about this.
3) None of this alleged evidence against evolutionary theory brings you one step closer to providing evidence FOR your pet theory, ID. Why are you wasting your time flailing at this theory, when the real work lies in providing positive evidence for the think-poof theory that is ID?
September 26th, 2007 at 7:34 am
ERV & Gene…If you want to believe that a few trivial (and very controversial) protein/protein binding sites generated over billions of trillions of generations of HIV adds up to anything of significance as far as proving that hippopotamuses can turn into the whales go for it… Behe makes his point loud and clear in EOE. RM/NS scenarios are vastly insufficient to explain the complexity we find!!!! You can believe in any fairy tale you want…This is America… Just do not teach my children such rubbish and get your fairy tales out of taxpayer funded education!!
Furthermore, to clearly demonstrate the bankruptcy of Darwinism!
Neo_Darwinism is needlessly tying hard science up in a quagmire of useless pursuit!!!!
Most all Neo-Darwinist predicted the genome was full of “Junk DNA” because #1 Their theory requires a large amount of “mutated Junk” in the genome and #2 Their theory requires that the genome be viewed as “a multiple independent collection of selectable genes” that can be chosen or discarded as natural selection sees fit..
Whereas ID predicted that most of the Genome will be found to have purpose…And the Theistic prediction for ID says the genome of man will be found to be “Super-complex”
What have scientists found?
Check out this article from the Boston Globe!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/?page=1
Excerpted from same:
Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome – the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell – they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.
But few had predicted the complex orchestration of genes and nongenetic DNA suggested by the Encode research. Even more sunning was the Encode finding that most “junk DNA” is transcribed, or copied, into more RNA molecules than can be accounted for by most prevailing theories.
Hey Guys, How about the all the ID proponents that have been predicting this development all along. I guess you mean us when you say few for we are the “only” few that predicted it!!!!
And for more insight into how Darwinists will try to mislead science yet again in deciphering RNA role in the genome check out this site!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/will_darwinists_make_the_same.html#more
September 26th, 2007 at 7:38 am
bornagain77
I do apologize for misquoting you ERV…by the way how is that whole atheist thing working for you? Can get pretty hopeless at times I bet! Hope that all changes for you…I really do!!!
You really are pathetic. How is that inability to critically think, working for you?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Matteo,
Why do you crave the label “scientific” so much? What kind of insecurity you must feel to argue, kick, scream and throw a tantrum to get your belief in Allah labeled scientific?
I think you realize all the God men have lost their credibility completely. Science has delivered consistent performance over the last 400 years while the God men presided over an ever dwindling pool of “believers”. So you must do everything possible to usurp the label “scientific” and stick to your Maha Vishnu.
You can keep repeating the mantra “evolution is a religion” but what it really shows is the utter lack of faith you show to Buddha. If you are really faithful and religious, you should have the confidence to say, “Thor will take care of it. I will just stick to what I know”. But you don’t. You seek incontrovertible evidence that the Ahura Mazda is real and exists.
Do you really think Ra is going to be happy when he decides your fate?
[Extra point: Find the odd man out]
September 26th, 2007 at 10:07 am
To Art,
Dr Behe argues against random mutation and NATURAL selection only. And anyone with any sense at all knows that artificial selection is not natural selection. Most people understand that artificial selection can do things that natural selection could not.
Dochocson:
Is there only one type of flagellum?
No.
If there is more than one type, is there one that uses fewer components than the one Behe harps on?
Not sure but it is likely.
If there is one that uses fewer components than Behe’s, is his example really irreducibly complex?
His example is really IC. Ya see you still have to account for the flagellum with fewer parts. That means you have to first demonstrate how culled genetic accidents could produce such a structure and then show how culled genetic accidents led from that to Behe’s example.
To anti Joe G:
Thanks for the flattery but too bad that ID does not mean the structure could not have evolved. And it is also too bad that there isn’t any tried and true blind watchmaker detection techniques.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:22 am
If dog is selected, natural selection wins. If cat is selected, natural selection wins. If mouse selected , natural selection wins. If dog and cat and mouse are not selected, natural selection also wins. Darwinism explains everything, and explains nothing. Darwinism is religion disguised as science.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:24 am
“Reverend AtheiStar helpfully points out that conclusions about the existence/nature of God can be made from scientific observation.”
Although I understand your use of just one god in your argument, you’re a monotheist, I must still correct you. It is *all* creator deities, male or female, that we’re speaking of here, not just *your* god.
I believe that the universe actually shows that there are no creator deities, not just because of the illusory malevolent design we can point to (that only rules out loving deities), but because science offers a much more plausible explanation for the origin of everything and offers hard, falsifiable evidence. Religion only offers us thousands of silly mythological creation tales which must be taken on faith (imagination) — most of which you have as much belief in as I do. That is a major point that I always bring up. You’re nearly as Atheist as I am, 99.9%, in fact! How many gods, goddesses, creation stories and afterlives do you lack belief in?
“Because he points out that disharmony implies malevolence, it would seem that the even greater harmony required for life and ecosystems to exist at all must imply an even greater benevolence.”
When you posit a creator then all of creation becomes a moral issue. You must ask yourself, why did my god create the mosquito? Why did my god create malaria? Why did my god create HIV? Why did my god create ebola? Why did my god invent abortion? Why did my god invent rape?
Actually, it is the coordinated effort it would take make such a malevolent universe that paints an even darker picture. The cycle of life is barbaric. Why did your god make babies food for other animals? This extends to humans you know. Why must there be so much death and suffering? Why did your god invent infanticide? Humans practice this, too, as do many other species. Why make an Earth that is so deadly ion so many ways? Do you realize that only 3% of the earth’s water is drinkable? How is that fine tuning? We are a tiny blue dot in a cold, dark universe who’s expansion is actually accelerating! Why did your god create dark energy? Why did he create black holes? If there is a god, then the obvious conclusion is that he is evil.
“Or so AtheiStar would have to conclude if he were actually serious about anything he is saying.”
That depends on what you mean by ‘serious’. I don’t believe that there is actually an angry bearded man in the sky, no. But serious I am about the Malevolent Design Hypothesis. I wouldn’t be writing a book about it if it were so casually dismissed, as you imply.
“But really, what I think AtheiStar is meaning to show us is that it’s actually theological reasoning (”what kind of God would do this?”) that leads to his scientific commitments.”
I can’t speak for everyone but for me, you actually have it backwards. It was science that led to my dismissal of theology. Science shows us how *and* why in many cases and proves what it posits. Religion, being imaginary, does no such thing and offers strict threats of punishment for anyone who dare question what they *say* is true. Science never works that way. Science is all about asking questions.
“He offers the argument from theological incredulity: ‘I can’t imagine a benevolent creator making such a world, therefore there is no design’. He can’t really believe in a malevolent creator, since his post does not display the appropriate fear levels should such a thing be true.”
True, I have no fear of any gods and goddesses. Do you fear the wrath of Odin or Allah or Zeus? I sure don’t. They make me laugh. What I fear are *real* people who have it in their heads that killing for their god is a good thing. I’ve met plenty of those people and they, being real, do scare me. But nothing will ever be accomplished by hiding in a closet. We must stand up and face these theistic bullies or things will only get worse.
“In short, AtheiStar clearly illustrates that, for many, belief in Darwinism is based on theological arguments, not scientific.”
Actually, that’s not true. My belief in evolution is based on the evidence for it, which is just incredible. There’s no doubt in my mind that evolution is true. And again, I must point out that you have it backwards. My lack of belief in theology is based on scientific arguments against it. Contrary to popular belief, you *can* prove a negative! It’s rather easy, actually! Can I prove that I don’t have my keys? Yes, they’re hanging on the rack! The same technique can be used to dismiss all creator deities. By showing that the scientific explanations are exponentially more probable, we can rule out all creation myths. Also, by noticing that there are just so many different creation myths and deities we can ascertain that there must be an underlying psychological phenomenon at work here. And there is: anthropomorphism. This is the tendency to attribute human characteristics to inanimate things. We, in short, have projected our humanity onto a godless universe. We have, to reverse and modify the popular quote, created gods and goddesses in our image!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Bornagain77 flails away
“ERV & Gene…If you want to believe that a few trivial (and very controversial) protein/protein binding sites generated over billions of trillions of generations of HIV adds up to anything of significance as far as proving that hippopotamuses can turn into the whales go for it… Behe makes his point loud and clear in EOE. RM/NS scenarios are vastly insufficient to explain the complexity we find!!!! You can believe in any fairy tale you want…This is America… Just do not teach my children such rubbish and get your fairy tales out of taxpayer funded education!!”
Note that there is no support for any of these rantings. Note that the original request, to provide evidence from the scientific literature that proves BA77s bald-faced assertions, goes unanswered yet again. Note that the second request, to provide evidence that scientists think that the changes in Vpu are “controversial”, goes unanswered.
Note that folks like BA77, and their extensive use of exclamation points, patriotic hand-waving, and projection, constitute the single best reason why rational people around the globe reject the think-poof notion that is ID.
BA77, you can still redeem yourself and your notions. Please provide evidence from the scientific peer-reviewed literature that ERV is wrong and Behe is right. Please provide evidence from the scientific peer-reviewed literature that you are correct about this “controversy”. if ID is science, you should be able to do that. Of course, you might also discover that scientific discussions usually occur without all those exclamation points…
September 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Okay evoluionists, let’s try this -
Go here for Tiktaalik discussion : http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/tiktaalik-fishy-fish
and here for retile/mammal ear : http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/reptiles.asp
What is key is that both sides use the exact same evidence, so the issue has never been the evidence. The issue is how one interprets the evidence. Publishing in professional journals is a straw man as if you even hint that you are touching the sacred cow of evolution, then you get the boot.
So the true question that evolutionists always dodge is what is the big hairy deal? One does not need to accept evolution to do or be anything accept an evolutionist. There are creationist paleontologists, astronomers, etc. who have earned doctorates from secular universities.
So evolutionists, let’s hear what you have to say about this question.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
P. S. Sorry for the spelling mistakes!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
too bad that Darwinism does mean the structure could have evolved. And it is also too bad that there isn’t any tried and true intelligent designer detection techniques.
And anyone with any sense at all knows that artificial selection is not intelligent design. Most people understand that artificial selection can do things that intelligent design could not.
Ya see you still have to account for the flagellum with fewer parts. That means you have to first demonstrate how the intelligent designer could produce such a structure and then show how the intelligent designer led from that to Behe’s example.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
News Flash! For all who say we can use the fossil record to predict…read here!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolution-of-feathers-watch-the-time-line/#comments
It will end up that evolutionists will again contort their plastic theory and dating scheme and crow how science is not the search for absolute truth and is self correcting.
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!
September 26th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Christoper Gieschen – You should open up the PDF linked to and note the part of the paragraph that was not quoted.
Furthermore, different levels of integument
complexity probably co-existed, reflecting inhabitance
of different niches. Such diversity still exists today.
This completely invalidates the point the “article” at uncommondescent is making.
The point is that they’re only protofeathers in retrospect.
To read more about why it’s a fake strawman of a point go here
September 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Gene,
As well as siting peer reviewed papers from evolutionists to prove HIV’s limit in humans, which Dr. Behe has already done in his book by the way, Should I also site all the hundreds if not thousands of “peer reviewed papers” that labeled huge portions of the Genome as “Junk”…
As you well know, all those peer reviewed papers labeling huge portions of the genome junk can all be thoroughly trashed now thanks to ENCODE’s startling revelation of stunning complexity and a “extensive overlapping network” in the genome” …
Argument from authority will get you nowhere Gene when you have only suggestive evidence to work with. I will state it again,,,Behe stays within observable evidence to make his inference to intelligent design..Whereas you and ERV go outside of observable evidence to make your inference to evolution….Last time I checked observed evidence carried greater weight in science!!!!!!! Was that enough exclamation points for you!!!!!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Christopher Gieschen wrote:
“What is key is that both sides use the exact same evidence, so the issue has never been the evidence.”
You are completely wrong. Your side ignores most of the evidence, and produces zero new evidence from testing predictions of its hypothesis. My side considers all the evidence, and constantly generates new evidence from testing the predictions of both theories and hypotheses.
Your side are frauds, while my side does science.
“The issue is how one interprets the evidence.”
That’s only part of the issue. The issue is whether one produces new evidence that supports or does not support a particular hypothesis.
“Publishing in professional journals is a straw man as if you even hint that you are touching the sacred cow of evolution, then you get the boot.”
This is ridiculous, as ID has its own journal. It hasn’t published an issue in years.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Christoper Gieschen, you are invited to discuss your thoughts on the fossil record at ATBC here
On your very own thread!
September 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Christopher Gieschen obfuscates: “Publishing in professional journals is a straw man as if you even hint that you are touching the sacred cow of evolution, then you get the boot.”
Tell that to the folks who published the first hints of plate tectonics, an idea which was certainly not accepted by the consensus geological community at first. Ditto for chemiosmosis, prions, viruses which cause cancer, and any of a hundred other ideas which bumped off various sacred cows in their time. Peer review may be harsh, and science is certainly full of conservatives, but eventually good ideas triumph over lesser ones. If you have the data, people will listen and decide. If you don’t have the data, go do the experiments. And quit whining.
If ID wants to make headway in science, then IDists have no choice. Put their ideas and their evidence into manuscripts and submit them. If they get rejected, keep submitting them. Moaning about your imagined persecution at the hands of some evil science conspiracy makes you look even sillier than you are. And that is quite a feat, given that the high point of Dembski’s publishing career was a flatulence animation…
September 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I blame the liberals and the ACLU. Next they’ll be stopping marines preying!
September 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Christopher Gieschen wrote “… Sorry for the spelling mistakes!”
Yes, but will you apologize for all the other mistakes and factual errors?
September 26th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
What in the world does the fossil record have to do with Dr. Behe’s book?
But since we are there, What does the fossil record really look like? Is it a slam dunk for evolutionists as they have brainwashed many people into believing for a few generations now? Not by any stretch is it a slam dunk!
The fossil record itself is one of the most crushing things for naturalists (evolutionists). What is termed the “Cambrian explosion” is a total departure from the naturalistic theory of evolution. It is in the Cambrian explosion, some 540 million years ago, that we find the sudden appearance of the many diverse and complex forms of life. These complex life-forms appear with no evidence of transition from the bacteria and few other “simple” life-forms that immediately preceded them in the fossil record. This following quote clearly illustrates this point.
“Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution. All the known phyla (large categories of biological classification), except one, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years…. Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. If that wasn’t bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was shortened to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian. This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould stated, “Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting.” What an understatement! “Extraordinarily impossible” might be a better phrase! …. The differences between the creatures that suddenly appear in the Cambrian are enormous. In fact these differences are so large many of these animals are one of a kind. Nothing like them existed before and nothing like them has ever appeared again.” Evolution’s Big Bang; Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology).
The “real work” of the beginning of the Cambrian explosion may in actuality be as short as a two to three million year time frame (Ross: Creation as Science 2006). If this blatant, out of nowhere, appearance of all the different phyla was not bad enough for naturalists, the fossil record shows that there was actually more variety of phyla at the end of the Cambrian explosion than there is today due to extinction.
“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, Dr. Chien also possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America.
The evolutionary theory would have us believe we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. The hard facts of science betray the naturalists once again. The naturalist stamps his feet and says the evidence for the fossils transmutation into radically new forms is out there somewhere; we just have not found it yet. To justify this belief, naturalists will often say that soft bodied fossils were not preserved in the Cambrian fossil record, so transitional fossils were just not recorded in the fossil record in the first place. Yet, the Chinese Cambrian fossil record is excellent in its preservation of delicate – ied fossils that clearly show much of the detail of the body structures of these first creatures. So the problem for naturalists has not been alleviated. In fact the problem has become much worse. As Dr. Ray Bohlin stated, some of these recently discovered fossils are extremely unique and defy any sort of transitional scenario to any other fossils found during the Cambrian explosion. In spite of this crushing evidence found in the Cambrian explosion, our naturalistic friend continues to imagine that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery that makes newspaper headlines. Yet, the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, that is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in naturalistic newspaper accounts. Where the story of life, since the Cambrian explosion, is extremely clear to read is in the sea creatures who fossilize quickly in ocean sediments. We find fossils in the fossil record that appear suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, fully-formed. They have no apparent immediate evolutionary predecessor. They, just, appear suddenly in the fossil record unique and fully-formed. This is exactly what one would expect from an infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator continually introducing new life-forms on earth. Even more problematic for the naturalists is the fact once a fossil suddenly appears in the fossil record it remains surprisingly stable in its basic structure for as long as it is found in the fossil record. The fossil record can offer not even one clear example of transition from one fossil form to another fossil form out of millions of collected fossils. Some sea creatures, such as certain sharks which are still alive today, have unchanging fossil records going back hundreds of millions of years to when they first suddenly appeared in the fossil record without a predecessor.
“Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.” Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9
“The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”. Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
“… Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” – Niles Eldredge , “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate,” 1996, p.95
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory in America prior to his recent .
As you can see, the fossil record is overwhelmingly characterized by suddenness and stability. For creatures who have lived in the ocean this fact is extremely clear, because their bones are fossilized in the ocean sediments very quickly. Unfortunately for land creatures, the fossil record is much harder to properly discern due to the rapid disintegration of animals who die on land. The large variety of hominid (man or ape-like) fossils that we do have piece-meal records of are characterized by overlapping histories of “distinctively different and stable” hominid species during the entire time, and the entire geography, each hominid species is found in the fossil record. There is never a transition between ANY of the different hominid species no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found.
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
As Richard Leakey, the leading hominid fossil expert in the world admits, if he were pressed, he would have to admit the hard evidence suggests the abrupt arrival of man in the fossil record. Yet if you were to ask an average person if we have evolved from apes he will tell you of course we have and wonder why you would ask such a stupid question, since “everyone knows” this is proven in the fossil record. One hard fact in the fossil record that is not disputed by most naturalists is the fact that man is the youngest distinct species of all species to suddenly appear in the fossil record. I find the fact that man has the scientifically accepted youngest history of any fossil in the fossil record to be extremely interesting and compelling to the position held by the anthropic hypothesis.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Bornagain waffles:
“Gene,
As well as siting peer reviewed papers from evolutionists to prove HIV’s limit in humans, which Dr. Behe has already done in his book by the way, Should I also site all the hundreds if not thousands of “peer reviewed papers” that labeled huge portions of the Genome as “Junk”…”
BA – the correct verb is “cite”. And no, I’m not interested in your junk DNA red herring; let’s deal with this one before you get fisked on that one.
Behe, as far as I know, did not CITE any papers dealing with the novel functions of Vpu. He never heard about that, I suspect, until he read ERV’s critique. Since he has not responded to her critique, I am assuming he has exactly as much support for his position as you do. Zip, nada, zilch, squat. But if you got ‘em, let’s see the evidence. Maybe you and Behe can go to the library together. Please CITE peer-reviewed papers that say that Behe’s specific statement (quoted in my post above) is right, and ERV is wrong. This ball is in your court.
And if you want to do the same for YOUR claim that the novel protein-protein interactions in Vpu are “controversial”, the same thing is required. Peer-reviewed papers.
Thanks in advance. And thanks for those extra exclamation points; you made my day.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
The ID crowd is asking the wrong questions. Why, does HIV exist, at all? Why would a *loving* god create such a terrible pathogen that strips a person of their defnse against an entire army of other pathogens? The late, hate-filled Jerry Falwell had the answer long ago:
Herpes, AIDS, venereal diseases … are a definite form of the judgment of God upon a society,” Falwell said. “If the Reagan administration does not put its full weight against this, what is now a gay plague in this country, I feel that a year from now, President Ronald Reagan personally will be blamed for allowing this awful disease to break out among the innocent American public.
July 5, 1983
Associated Press
If there be a god, then he is evil and delights in our torture. Yet, directly because of Battered Believers Syndrome, theists just can’t see it:
http://www.myspace.com/batteredbelieverssyndrome
Just like the spousal syndrome it’s named after, this disorder is characterized by the inability to see anything but love in the actions of the abuser. Every hit is the victim’s fault as this is the only rationalization to keep the image of someone who is loving alive.
And so it is with the believer. No matter what terrible event happens in their life they can’t see their god as anything but a loving father. He never gets any of the blame. It’s either a lack of faith, too much sin or perhaps not enough praise that day.
Suppose a believer’s child was murdered. Can she conceptualize her god idly watching as the event took place, doing absolutely nothing? Yes, but it was for a reason. Her god still loves her, of course — that’s what she been programmed to believe. She’ll probably come up with the standard answer designed to preserve the love like “god works in mysterious ways,” “it was for the greater good,” or “god wanted him in heaven.”
All these answers skirt the real issue, though. To see how one need only exchange the deity in the equation with a person. What if a police officer sat and watched silently as a child was murdered even though he had the power to stop it? Oh, the rules are different now, aren’t they? Why, though? Different programming, basically.
People are programmed to see police officers as people who have to help and should even risk their lives saving people. If one of them doesn’t help, they’re not doing their job and they become just as bad as a criminal. They are neglecting their duties to the people.
Gods and goddesses, on the other hand, whose “actions” are based on the hit and miss randomness of chance events, are expected to not do anything in many situations. These beings are also endowed by their creators, us, with great magical powers and control our destiny in the afterlives we made up. Add to this equation the endless stream of loving propaganda that is shot into the believer’s brain and the resulting mix of expectation of inaction, fear and love combine to make a powerful formula able to transform an abuser into an angel.
Atheism frees a person from this madness. Instead of wondering why some invisible cloud father would allow or cause something to happen, we take it as it is: reality. Why did it happen? We look to real causes. Why was her son murdered? Look at the the murderer himself. Look at the events in his life that led up to the event. Where were the police? Could a stronger police presence have thwarted this? Look at the safety precautions the mother in this story could have taken in order to prevent this tragedy. Look at what the boy himself could have done to avoid such a situation in the first place.
By thinking critically, instead of superstitiously, we affect the real world in a positive way. We can come up with real solutions instead of asking for divine intervention that never arrives. It is only us who can save ourselves.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Bornagain77 exclaimed: “You can believe in any fairy tale you want…This is America… Just do not teach my children such rubbish and get your fairy tales out of taxpayer funded education!!”
I don’t doubt BA77 knows about fairy tales; afterall, he is a Christian. Someone who, to put it succinctly, believes:
“a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father [and could magically walk on water] wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree.” (from iidb.org)
Now that’s a fairy tale! Complete with magical, talking animals. Perhaps my favorite being the talking donkey (as described in Numbers 22). BTW BA77, do you know if the talking donkey sounded like Eddie Murphy or did the cartoon movie Shrek base their character on another donkey?
Bornagain77 also stated incorrectly concerning “Junk” DNA: “Hey Guys, How about the all the ID proponents that have been predicting this development all along. I guess you mean us when you say few for we are the “only” few that predicted it!!!!
That is a falsehood. ID proponents have predicted nothing except to throw their hands in the air and exclaim “GODdidIt”
Your characterization of “Junk” DNA clearly shows a lack of understanding. The term was first coined by Susumu Ohno in 1972. It’s a term that means non-coding DNA. From the time it was introduced biologists have proposed functions for some of it. It’s not a term that describes uselessness. Please see http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/function-non-function-some-function.html
for further documentation. That article states (with support of peer-reviewed references):
“Since the first discussions about DNA amount there have been scientists who argued that most non-coding DNA is functional, others who focused on mechanisms that could lead to more DNA in the absence of function, and yet others who took a position somewhere in the middle. This is still the situation now.”
BA77 typed: “ID predicted that most of the Genome will be found to have purpose”
Hm, really? How much exactly is “most”? I’ve heard them say ALL. In any event, if ID suggests that ALL or even most of the non-coding DNA must be functional, why is it that the lowly onion needs 5x more of it than the supposed pinnacle of creation, i.e., us humans? Onions have a haploid genome of about 17 pg, while for humans it is only 3.5 pg. Heck, even broccoli has a bigger genome than us.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Bornagains waffles appear to me to be showing in detail the development of those people who stand on the street and hand out leaflets proclaiming darwin was wrong, full of quotemines from actual scientists.
How long will it be before bornagain is standing on street corners handing out pathetic pamphlets like his “12 things theism predicts” ?
Whatever point you are trying to make Bornagain is getting lost in the waffle of your “theism predicts” waffle. Nobody bothers to read it anymore, it’s just scrolls on by.
Still, that’s not really the point is is? As long as you are convinced you are achieving something you’ll carry on doing it. And you’ll never be convinced otherwise because you’ll not stop to listen to anybody else.
Ask Gene asks can you CITE any papers to support your position, or is that all waffle too?
I doubt you can as we all know you are behind a “adult” filter where you cannot type particular words. Go on, prove me wrong. Write “adult” without “ad^ult”.
Why should we listen to somebody who does not have enough personal responsibly to be trusted to use a computer unsupervised?
September 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
DaveScot exclaimed, “I blame the liberals and the ACLU. Next they’ll be stopping marines preying!”
Hm, “preying” Dave? Given Dave’s well known beliefs, I’m not sure that was a typo.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Now lets look closely Gene, ERV goes outside of “observed evidence” and even admits the fact that VPU originated before it came into humans, She points to the fact that VPU acts differently in chimps than in humans and thus this is her “suggestive” proof of evolution,,,Yet Dr. Behe’s study stays inside actual observed evidence on what has occurred to/in HIV “SINCE” it has infected humans. Thus Dr. Behe states from actual observed evidence “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN HIV” since HIV infected humans as far as protein/protein binding sites are concerned…To use your words “Zip, nada, zilch, squat” are the protein binding sites, that are found to be generated by this “mutational powerhouse” of HIV. You and ERV go outside of observed evidence and say evolution must have occurred because of different functions in chimps… Well excuse me,,, are we not debating the very point of origination in the first place?
Thus to refute Dr. Behe you will have to refute his observed evidence for intelligent design with your own observed evidence for evolution!!! Appealing to similarity across species is simply not good enough when origination of novelty is the subject being debated in the first place and actual observed evidence of stasis is trying to be overturned!!!!!!!! (I added one more exclamation point for you dude)!!!!!!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Christopher, here’s the web page for the ID journal:
Here is the list of issues:
Volume 4.2, November 2005
Volume 4.1, July 2005
Volume 3.1, November 2004
Philosophy of Mind Issue,
Volume 2.3, October 2003
Double Issue, Volumes 2.1 and 2.2
January – June 2003
Volume 1.4, October – December 2002
Double Issue, Volumes 1.2 and 1.3
April – September 2002
Volume 1.1, January – March 2002
If ID is so sciencey, why hasn’t ID’s very own journal managed to publish an issue in OVER TWO YEARS? Bias can’t be an excuse, as everybody on its editorial board is an IDer.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Sorry, the web page is:
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
September 26th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“To use your words “Zip, nada, zilch, squat” are the protein binding sites”
So you still havent read my essay.
Fantastic.
JD, follow the link ;) As Dembski would say, P-A-R-O-D-Y hehe!
September 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
bornagain77 wrote:
“Yet Dr. Behe’s study…”
Behe didn’t do a study, bornagain. He wrote a book. A study would involve generating new data to test his hypothesis, and he lacks sufficient faith in his hypothesis to do that. He’s doing far better by fooling people like you.
“… stays inside actual observed evidence on what has occurred to/in HIV “SINCE” it has infected humans.”
Vpu acquired a new function, involving new protein-protein binding sites, since HIV entered human hosts. Therefore, Behe was completely wrong. It’s really that simple.
If you want to get more complex, HIV, despite its high mutation rate because its RNA genome (another sophomoric mistake by Behe) is synthesized by error-prone reverse transcriptase, is not the “mutational powerhouse” Behe claims it is, because its genome size is highly constrained by packaging requirements. It can’t do gene duplications, for example, which are the major source of new proteins. Instead, it packs an amazing* number of functions into a tiny genome.
*If you and Behe don’t find HIV to be amazingly complex, why aren’t both of you working to eradicate it?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“If you and Behe don’t find HIV to be amazingly complex, why aren’t both of you working to eradicate it?”
Why would they try? HIV, if there be a god, would be a precious creation of their loving god. I wonder if there exists a sect of Christianity that believes HIV has a soul? lol… At at what point is ‘ensoulment’? lol…
September 26th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Jam you stated:
Vpu acquired a new function, involving new protein-protein binding sites, since HIV entered human hosts.
OK I’ll bite, Why haven’t the major rebuttals in major print pointed this pertinent fact out?
I’m sure you can readily cite the paper so let’s take a gander at it!
What was Behe’s “Edge for Evolution” anyway… 2 or 3 protein/protein binding sites for how many generations??? When something like 10,000 is required for a novel cell…
If you don’t remember the exact numbers, I’ll look them up so we can get to the bottom of this!!! I’m sure you want to show how much overwhelming proof evolution has backing it up!!!
Then you stated:
It (HIV) can’t do gene duplications, for example, which are the major source of new proteins. Instead, it packs an amazing* number of functions into a tiny genome.
Of course this begs the question; WHY NOT? Since evolution is such a obvious plastic phenomena that is able to turn even a single cell predecessor into the amazing diversity of life we see today,,Why can’t evolution allow a simple “duplication” mutation to a virus which would allow it to increase in complexity???
And of course if you don’t want to talk about the HIV anymore we can always go up in complexity, in Behe’s book, to a protozoan parasite if you want,,,and there we find, When we actually had an opportunity to examine what happened at the nucleotide level in billions of trillions of generations where random mutation and natural selection was working, thanks to the prolific and de^adly parasite p.falciparum, we found that the prediction made by ID held true – no significant novel complexity was generated. ID offers an explanation – no intelligent agency was involved so there were no complex structures generated. What explanation for this does neo-darwinian theory offer?
Did evolution all the sudden decide to turn off its magic???
Dang picky evolution phenomena you got their buddy!!! It seems kinda bashful to me with its awesome power of transmutation there don’t you think,,I guess it just doesn’t want to show off its awesome powers of magical transmutation into other forms!!!! Mighty humble of it I must admit!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
ERV you stated in your paper:
It turns out that one of the biochemical differences is that Subtype B Vps have a Golgi retention signal in the second alpha-helix of the cytoplasmic domain 13. This means that Subtypes B Vpu prefers (if you will excuse me personifying a virus) to be in the Golgi, helping degrade CD4, while Subtype C Vpu prefers to be in the plasma membrane, assisting with the release of new viruses.
From my limited education on HIV, this is what I guess is your proof for a novel protein/protein binding site?!? Am I correct?
Yet Wiki states:
The final step of the viral cycle, assembly of new HIV-1 virons, begins at the plasma membrane of the host cell. The Env polyprotein (gp160) goes through the endoplasmic reticulum and is transported to the Golgi complex where it is cleaved by protease and processed into the two HIV envelope glycoproteins gp41 and gp120. These are transported to the plasma membrane of the host cell where gp41 anchors the gp120 to the membrane of the infected cell.
Thus, I presume, both the golgi complex and the plasma membrane already have existing protien/protein binding sites in all types of HIV-1!!
Your main point seems to be that VPU is hanging out at a new location…IS this your proof of a novel protein/protein binding site?? If so it is not from what I can see. Both the plasma membrane and the golgi complex are utilized in the original life cycles (excuse that term for such a dea^dly virus) of all types of HIV!
I truly am not familiar with HIV,, so if I’m misinterpreting you evidence wrong please show me the novel protein/protein binding site..
September 26th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
BA77
We grow tired of your pathetic attempts to avoid the eating of the crow.
Can you put the word “adult” in a message without throwing your net nanny into a tizzy?
Can you post a message with some peer-reviewed CITATIONS to back up Behe’s pusillanimous statements or your ignorant parroting of same?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Please grow up, even though you apparently find it more pleasing to be “bornagain” on a daily basis.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Here’s an obvious question:
If so-called ‘irreducible complexity’ automatically means something must have an intelligent designer, then who or what designed your god? Who designed the intelligent designer? Is he not supposed to be complex of the highest order? Everything needs a cause, I’m told. Well what caused him? And what caused what caused him? Shouldn’t your god have parents like the other deities in the world’s pantheon? Shouldn’t there be an infinite regress? Perhaps he evolved through the process of cosmic evolution? Or maybe he was the bastard child of some unknown god and goddess, was abandoned in this universe and left alone to think he was the only one? Then, in the cycle of abuse, he did the same thing with Mary and then had his own son executed just for the fun of it — even after he begged to be let out of it. Hmm, this’d make an excellent movie, but I digress.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:59 am
ba77 wrote:
“OK I’ll bite, Why haven’t the major rebuttals in major print pointed this pertinent fact out?”
ERV pointed this out very clearly.
“I’m sure you can readily cite the paper so let’s take a gander at it!”
ERV already cited them. Can’t you read?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv-hiv-versus.html
“If you don’t remember the exact numbers, I’ll look them up so we can get to the bottom of this!!!”
Behe’s numbers are pure hooey.
“I’m sure you want to show how much overwhelming proof evolution has backing it up!!!”
ERV already showed you, but your brain seems to be less evolved than ours are, because you can’t wrap it around the fact that Behe was wrong. Behe, at least, was smart enough not to challenge ERV.
“Of course this begs the question; WHY NOT?”
Of course, it doesn’t beg the question, because I answered it. Here’s a helpful hint: when reading English, the reason why usually follows the word “because,” as in, “because its genome size is highly constrained by packaging requirements.”
Are you really that deficient in reading comprehension?
“Since evolution is such a obvious plastic phenomena that is able to turn even a single cell predecessor into the amazing diversity of life we see today,”
In billions of years…
“Why can’t evolution allow a simple “duplication” mutation to a virus which would allow it to increase in complexity???”
Because of packaging constraints. They’re not going to be overcome in a few decades. Do you not see the orders of magnitude difference between billions and tens?
“And of course if you don’t want to talk about the HIV anymore we can always go up in complexity, in Behe’s book, to a protozoan parasite if you want,,,”
But Behe fudges the numbers there, too.
“…and there we find, When we actually had an opportunity to examine what happened at the nucleotide level in billions of trillions of generations where random mutation and natural selection was working, thanks to the prolific and de^adly parasite p.falciparum, we found that the prediction made by ID held true – no significant novel complexity was generated.”
No, we don’t. Behe quote-mined a review.
“…It seems kinda bashful to me with its awesome power of transmutation there don’t you think,,”
No, no one has claimed that it does much in the way of transmutation. How does ID explain your inability to read simple English sentences that the rest of us have no trouble understanding?
“Thus, I presume, both the golgi complex and the plasma membrane already have existing protien/protein binding sites in all types of HIV-1!!”
No, you flunk junior-high biology. A plasma membrane can’t possibly have protein-protein binding sites, as membranes are lipids, not proteins. Don’t you understand that basic difference?
“Your main point seems to be that VPU is hanging out at a new location…IS this your proof of a novel protein/protein binding site??”
No, proof of a novel protein/protein binding site would necessarily involve evidence relating to binding, not location. ERV has made that evidence very clear as well.
“If so it is not from what I can see. Both the plasma membrane and the golgi complex are utilized in the original life cycles (excuse that term for such a dea^dly virus) of all types of HIV!”
Well, that’s not surprising, since the Golgi (it’s someone’s name, so it is capitalized) and PM are integral components EVERY replication cycle of EVERY eukaryotic virus that exists. I suggest that you take a junior-high biology course to understand why.
You’ve completely missed ERV’s point, but that’s not surprising.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Dang Gene so Mean!!!
I was just trying to help you guys find what this awesome power of evolution can really do…Come on now, since we got the keys now,technology -wise, Let’s take this puppy of evolution out and see what she can really do. Man I really want to see me some radical transmutation buddy!!!!!
Man we ought to really see some awesome stuff!!!Just look at all the stunning diversity this evolution puppy has done so far….Man, maybe we can even get some new phyla out of the deal and earn us a Nobel prize!!!!
Surely you guys really want to know what evolution can really do!!! Don’t you?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
BA77
Once again a post from you (albeit thankfully short) that avoids the questions asked. And is completely pointless as well.
Are you capable of answering a question? Are you capable of staying on point?
Try again. What peer-reviewed evidence can you cite that supports Behe’s contention (quoted in my comment above) and contradicts ERV’s list of novel protein-protein interactions and functions for Vpu? What peer-reviewed evidence can you cite for your contention that these novel protein-protein interactions and functions are ‘controversial”?
If you can’t do one or both of those things, you should hustle back to UD, where commenters who are “mean” (aka “capable of asking and answering pointed questions”) are summarily banned by the trolls who run that site. You will always feel at home there.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Ok Jam,
Please help me out, you know your slow half-witted brother, or sub-species, or whatever else you want to slander me with, since I have not “evolved” as much as you have.
I went to your site;
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
I went to the “time-line” graph and, I see the last “suggestive” origination of binding sites in 1959. Is this not prior to infecting humans? Particularly of interest it states ” In 1959, C subtype; gains CKII binding site and plasma membrane binding site (LRLL Motiff) Gains RVDYR sequence (binding motif)…Is this your proof?!? Did not Dr. Behe use actual observed data for what HIV has actually done since it has infected humans?!? Whereas your data for novel binding sites is ONLY a presumed inference from sequence similarities!!! Excuse me, Are we not debating what caused the binding sites to originate in the first place?!? Oh yeah that’s right, evolution is already “overwhelmingly confirmed” (LOL) so for me to question presumed evidence just because I can see no actual observed evidence of evolution is not to be heard of!!!
I don’t buy it at all buddy!!! SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!! To refute Dr. Behe you will have to refute his observed evidence for intelligent design with your own observed evidence for evolution!!! Appealing to “suggestive” similarity is simply not good enough when origination of novelty is the very subject being debated in the first place, and actual observed evidence of stasis for HIV in humans is trying to be overturned!!!!!!!!! (I added one more exclamation point for you dude)!!!!!!!!! I know how you intellectual types like them things!!!!!!!!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
BA77 swerves around the questions again:
“I went to the “time-line” graph and, I see the last “suggestive” origination of binding sites in 1959. Is this not prior to infecting humans? Particularly of interest it states ” In 1959, C subtype; gains CKII binding site and plasma membrane binding site (LRLL Motiff) Gains RVDYR sequence (binding motif)…Is this your proof?!? Did not Dr. Behe use actual observed data for what HIV has actually done since it has infected humans?!? Whereas your data for novel binding sites is ONLY a presumed inference from sequence similarities!!!”
This is clear proof of the old aphorism about horses and water and teaching them to drink.
BA, did you happen to notice those little superscripts at the end of some of those statements? Those are called CITATIONS; their purpose is to direct you to the list of peer-reviewed papers at the end of ERV’s critique. Did you notice those?
Why don’t you go back to that link and read it again, paying special attention to the little numbers at the end of the sentences? Why don’t you read those papers that she CITED? You will find support, well beyond sequence similarities, for new binding sites and functions. Maybe then you can understand that the level of proof required here (citations of peer-reviewed papers) is a lot different than what you experience at your church or at UD (quoting somebody).
I am certainly not presumptuous enough to think that there is any chance at all that you will understand the data presented in those papers if you ever do manage to find and read them. But here’s another clue – the data are the important things there. The figures and the tables are a lot more important than any statement you might want to quote. And very few of those will have exclamation points…
But please, before you head back to do all that hard work, answer the other questions you are ignoring. Remember those? Peer-reviewed papers that prove that Behe is right and ERV is wrong about the appearance of new binding sites and functions for Vpu in the last dew decades? Peer-reviewed papers that support your assertion that these new sites and functions are “controversial”?
Either do that, or quit using your mom’s computer to play here.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Hmmm,
Well Geno my more evolved condescending buddy, Since I’m by no means an expert on HIV, I guess I just have to take Dr. Behe’s and ERV’s teacher’s word for the time line that she produced indicating the novel protein/protein binding sites generated by HIV are (prior?) to the year 1959!!!! And thus, that is prior to HIV entry in Humans is it not???
ERV’s sentence right before the graph:
So here’s a quick time-line for the evolution of impossible genes and impossible protein-protein interactions, courtesy of Ian Musgrave (one of those dreadful PhDs/Professors that has something to teach this pre-grad student):
Go Here to see the graph (its the second graph on the page)
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
You would think that something as important as a novel protein/protein binding site would have at least made honorable mention on her trumpeted refutation of Behe!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean since the time of origination of a novel binding site is very important and central to the whole refutation thing, Don’t you think???????
Is her teacher’s graph missing them? Maybe they forgot to include them! Hey Geno why don’t you see if they can update the graph, I’m sure, It’s just got to be a oversight on their part since there is so much overwhelming evidence for observed evolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I still can’t believe that all the other refutations of Behe, in major print journals no less, have all missed this obvious piece of evidence…Since all the other refutations of Behe have fallen flat, maybe, after you get the time line on the graph updated, you can notify the major journals of your crushing proof, so we may stop the dam^able heresy of Behe’s!!!!!!!!!
Hope I was of help to you, my more evolved condescending ole buddy…
September 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
BA blathers; “Hope I was of help to you, my more evolved condescending ole buddy…”
Sorry to disappoint, but yes, you are a great help to me. You repeated inability to answer a question, or even read a graph, is quite helpful in my quest to convince lurkers here that ID is a crock, and that ID advocates don’t have a scientific toenail to stand on.
Just for giggles, I’ll ask lurkers to read this sentence by BA – “You would think that something as important as a novel protein/protein binding site would have at least made honorable mention on her trumpeted refutation of Behe!!!!!!!!!!!!”
and then look at the figure in question here
and see that there are, in fact, multiple novel binding sites (protein-protein interactions) referenced on this figure. Furthermore, if you read the references at the end of the article, you will find the primary literature papers which support this timeline and the appearance of these novel sites.
Perfect!
September 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
what was that Born^again? dam^able? dam^able you say? Indeed, if we can be ad^ult here for a second we’d agree that ad^ults can discuss dam^able things without degenerating into simple insults.
Born^again, you don’t have to take any body’s word for anything. The work you link to contains links to the original source material. the CITES. Why don’t you spend some time foll^owning the links and per^haps you’ll understand why the graph was as it was (hint, there might be other graphs in existen^ce)
September 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they have a problem? If they have such an airtight argument, why are there debates at all?”
Good questions. Personally, I think the blame lies on backward churches which brainwash children to deny science from the time they are able to speak.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Please do be patient with me Geno,,seeing as I’m trying really hard to catch up with you evolution-wise….But this graph you site here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/images/hiv/HIV_Vpu_timeline.jpg
Mentions novel protein/protein binding site generation in 1959….I’ll ask this following question real slow so maybe you can understand my idiotic gibberish coming from my inferior brain…..
Is… not… a…. 1959…. origination…. for…. the….novel….protein/….protein….. binding…..site prior…. to…. the…. HIV’s…..infection…..of……humans..?
If the answer is yes to this question, which I believe it is, then you are postulating the very question of the debate between us with…. “unobserved…. data”. Whereas Dr. Behe in drawing his inference to …..Intelligent…Design….. with…..”observed….data”. How did the protein/protein binding sights originate? Math and observed data of what HIV has done since in humans tells us protein/protein binding sites “very” rarely happen ally… I believe that Dr. Behe states in his book “Edge Of Evolution” that no protein/protein bindings sites have ever been generated despite the “mutational powerhouse’ of HIV trying every? possible configuration in 10^20 tries since in humans….
Now Geno, just pull up some data showing more than 2 or 3 protein/protein binding sites generating in HIV …..after…..1959…….,,when…it…was…in…humans…then you will soundly refute Dr. Behe’s edge of evolution limit of 2 or 3 binding sites….
I know you got scores of examples after the 1959 date so please do keep me updated on your search….Shoot,,,,I’ll even be proud to post your results all over the web….You see Geno..I have absolutely no problem with evolution if it is true…..But you have to actually show me evolution occurring with observed data before I will believe….I will NEVER take suggestive evidence for evolution over observed evidence for Intelligent Design….cause, unlike you and your intellectual buddies,,,,my science is big enough not to rule out God prior to investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
BA
So let me get this straight.
You and Behe apparently believe that evolution that occurs in a virus is not evolution unless it occurs in a human virus. Frankly I would not have thought it was possible that you could be that ignorant about evolutionary theory, but you creationists are always surprising me! (definitely worth an exclamation point here)
Get back to me with the answer when your mom is done with the computer.
Oh, and please get back to me with the answers to my previous questions about peer-reviewed citations contradicting ERV, and also those supporting your notion that novel protein-protein interactions are “controversial”.
Thanks again for evading these questions.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Here’s a simple thought.
Our immune system uses antibodies to recognize the invading bacteria/viruses/fungi, and to destroy them. These antibodies are just proteins, made from genes that recombine to produce a random sequence.
This random sequence will in practically 100% of the cases form a tight protein-protein binding interface. Our body tests each produced antibody, and if the antibody binds to one of our proteins, it destroys the cell that produces it (along with its genes); if it didn’t the antibody would start “detecting” our own proteins as “invaders”, causing damage (think autoimmune disease). If it doesn’t, it allows the cell to float off into the body, where it will stay until it runs into a bacterium, or a virus, or any other alien thing, to which the antibody will bind. This binding, this highly specific protein-protein interaction, is what initiates the activity of our adaptive immune system.
Therefore, our main line of defense against infection depends on a proces of creating novel, extremely specific protein-protein binding sites from *random* sequences, which are formed by *randomizing processes* called V(D)J recombination.
Just so we are clear: the errors inherent in V(D)J create what is effectively a random protein sequence. This random sequence will often form utterly specific (as in “binds to one protein and one protein only out of trillions possible”) and tight (as in “this isn’t just some weak attachment, this thing binds and won’t let go”) protein-protein interface.
Plus, many catalytic antibodies have been identified. Therefore, again, a random process creates a random sequence that catalyzes a highly specific chemical reaction (one reaction and no others).
Perhaps Mr. Behe should inform immunologists that human immune system is impossible. Explain catalytic antibodies may just be a little bit more difficult.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
M,
Well M,,just suppose the immune system was designed that way out of necessity? Of course to refute an evolutionary scenario for that supposition you would have to prove the immune system was “irreducibly complex”,,,well lo and beho, to the frustrated disbelief, and vain attempts at refutation from the “just so” “peer reviewed” stories of evolutionists, Behe has already addressed this issue in his first book!
This is a review of Behe’s first book “Darwin’s Black Box’
http://www.msu.edu/~mahajer2/LBS492.html
This is an excerpt from the chapter on the Irreducibly Complexity (IC) of the “Immune System”.
Chapter 6: A Dangerous World
The immune system has an array of defensive systems to deal with microscopic attacks. The skin is the first line of defense and has components that can attack a virus or bacterium. However, the heaviest defense is under the skin. Antibodies, composed of four amino acid chains, allow the immune system to distinguish a foreign invader by attaching the invader to a binding site.
The shape of the binding site has to be exactly complementary to the shape of the invading molecule. There are countless invading molecules so the body has billions to trillions of antibodies available. Each type of antibody is made in a separate B cell. Once a B cell commits to making its antibody, the cell anchors the antibody on its surface so when a foreign molecule invades, the antibody (with attached B cell) will bind it. Upon binding, the cell ingests the whole foreign molecule. Intracellular mechanisms degrade the foreign molecule and takes a piece of it, called a peptide, and attaches it to a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) protein. The MHC protein + peptide are returned to the B cell surface to “present” the foreign peptide to a helper T cell. If the fit is exact, the helper T cell will bind to the foreign peptide and secrete a substance called interleukin which signals the B cell to reproduce at a rapid rate. The B cell proliferates into “plasma cells” which secrete antibody to travel in the extracellular fluid. This switch is critical, secreted antibody is much more effective at finding and binding other foreign invaders.
Other issues of complexity arise. How does the body make all of the differently shaped antibodies? There are interruptions in the segment of DNA that codes for the antibody. Splicing and rearrangement of DNA, in addition to other factors, play a large role in generating antibody diversity. A primitive system with only a few antibodies would not make a difference against all types of foreign invaders. Behe believes the immune system would need to generate large numbers of antibodies from the start rather than evolve a system. Another complex issue is the complement pathway, a series of proteins that do most of the actual “killing” of foreign cells. The pathway is a cascade with numerous control points along the way that are sensitive to internal signals. Needless to say, the pathway is very complex.
Behe explains there is a lack of scientific literature to account for the gradual evolution of the immune system and identifies their function. He then deems all components are necessary and dubs the immune system an irreducibly complex system.
The example of the immune system shows how complex biological processes can be. I would recommend an immunology text for further explanation of the immune system.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
gene wrote:
“No disagreement here. I might have missed it, but did anyone claim to have the entire explanation, or is that a straw man that you can conveniently set aflame? As I recall, the assertion was that Dawkins explained how the eye “could have evolved”, using data from paleontology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, and phylogenetic analysis. This approach generates testable predictions, some of which will turn out to be true, and some which will be false. And all of them are getting us closer to the explanation, even though it may never be enough detail for many.”
We actually agree! If you recall I did comment that the word “could” was used rather than “did”. So I was reacting to the fact the a complete explanation was not available yet.
Then I offered my opinion regarding what I thought an explanation of the evolution of the eye should involve.
Yes, the question of detail is problematic. I am probably guilty of expecting much more detail than can be supplied. I really find the concept of random processes building complex systems counter-intuitive. There is nothing in our everyday experiences that would suggest such a thing is possible, but there are lots of things that are counter-intuitive so I am left in a quandary.
Nevertheless, I think an explanation of an evolutionary event should include a list the biological features that need to be changed to support the evolution of a new function and an analysis of the probabilites involved. If Dawkins provided this kind of analysis in his book, I will get the book and read it.
By the way, I am not interested in what Genesis says. I am coming from my own skepticism of the theory of evolution, which developed some years ago, when I asked myself the questions, “What is this random mutation and natural selection thing all about? Doesn’t a random mutation have to create information?”
September 28th, 2007 at 7:07 am
BA
Before we can proceed with your education, I need to know if I am correct in my assumption that you think evolution of HIV only occurred once it became a human pathogen. Please let me know about that.
And if that is true, your education should proceed by looking at the primary literature to see if there is any consensus on when that event (human pathogenicity of the virus) occurred. You’ll get a clue from the timeline that you previously misinterpreted (look for the word “origin”). You’ll get closer to the source of the data on that timeline if you can manage to find a copy of Korber, et al, Science, 2000, 288:1789-1796. In case you don’t recognize that, it is a CITATION of a peer-reviewed paper.
Which reminds me. Any idea when you will give me the citations for those peer-reviewed papers detailing how Behe is right and ERV is wrong? Or those peer-reviewed papers supporting your assertion that these novel protein-protein interactions are “controversial”?
The questions are beginning to really pile up here, BA. Maybe your mom will let you have your own computer soon, so you can do some real research.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Neil J.
SOme of what you ask for can be found in Sean Carroll’s book “The Making of the Fittest”. Eye evolution is covered in pp 192-203 in the paperback version that I have here. The whole book is good, however, and I highly recommend it.
Asking for an “analysis of the probabilities”, however, is asking for the impossible. That analysis requires us to know the size of the populations involved, as well as a lot of other information that is not available. And even if we had all that information, somebody like Behe would screw up the math and quotemine a review article to say it was impossible.
Get the book. If you really are seeking answers about this stuff, it will go a long way toward that goal.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Geno,
OLE condescending more evolved buddy, thanks for being so patient with poor ole ignorant me!!!!!!!
Could you please help me though,,,,I’m having trouble with all your higher intellectual thinking!!!!!!!
You stated:
You and Behe apparently believe that evolution that occurs in a virus is not evolution unless it occurs in a human virus.
Well it seems that you are saying that no new protein/protein binding sites have been “…OBSERVED”…. since the virus entered humans…
Then you state…
Oh, and please get back to me with the answers to my previous questions about peer-reviewed citations contradicting ERV, and also those supporting your notion that novel protein-protein interactions are “controversial”.
OK now I know you will probably think this question beneath contempt, seeing as you are so intellectual and all, but I”LL ask it, real slow, anyway,
WHY…DID…THE…VIRUS…ALL…THE….SUDDEN….DECIDE
….TO….STOP…..EVOLVING…. BINDING….SITES…IN…. HUMANS???
I mean come on man…I want to see me some of this awesome evolutionary stuff in action…Seeing as how it is suppose to be happening all the time in every living thing and Seeing as how it is responsible for all this amazingly complex life we see in the world today….Geeze Geno, I thought you would be excited too!!!!!!!!! I mean seeing or….”OBSERVING”….. evolution in action and actually happening somewhere in real life would be like actually seeing God Almighty at work wouldn’t you think???
Man come on Geno,,, we are so close!!!!! just dig through all those piles of peer reviewed papers you are so proud of and find some ….”OBSERVED”….binding sites occurring and thus proving evolution ….”CONCLUSIVELY”….true! Then we can put this dam^able heresy of Behe to rest once and for all…
September 28th, 2007 at 7:57 am
A response to the esveral of you who have replied to previous posts.
1. IDers don’t do research/publish in journals/etc.
Thanks fot the opportunity to point out creationist scientitsts who do active resesarch/journal writing/etc. We have our own science conferences, heated debates, and blogging just as the evos do. Go to answersingenesis.org to read and learn. I don’t expect you to accept the conclusions of the research, but to see that it is indeed research.
2. No research done by IDers.
Okay, take away the funding of the evos and see how much they do. Read about Dr. Robert Gentry’s work on polonium radio halos, (I already know there is the other side’s take on this – but how can one know that they are right?)and how his funding was dropped simply as his conclusion was pointing to a recent creation event for the planet.
3. It is very revealing as to my always unanswered question such as “What does it matter what one believes to be true about origins as to the ability to do science in the present?” or “What relevence does evolution have to fields of science like chemistry, meteorology, electrical engineering, landing men on the moon, etc.?” the typical response is to dodge the issue and accuse me of not answering a specific detail.
4. IDers/creationists ignore evidence.
No we don’t. We just ignore conclusions and interpretations not found in our worldview. And how can you say that our worldview is wrong?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:45 am
ba77 wrote:
“I went to the “time-line” graph and, I see the last “suggestive” origination of binding sites in 1959. Is this not prior to infecting humans?”
No, 1959 is after.
“Particularly of interest it states ” In 1959, C subtype; gains CKII binding site and plasma membrane binding site (LRLL Motiff) Gains RVDYR sequence (binding motif)…Is this your proof?!?”
The quote? No. The evidence (the stuff you avoid) is the “proof.”
“Did not Dr. Behe use actual observed data for what HIV has actually done since it has infected humans?!?”
No, just as he did not use actual observed data when he falsely claimed that the HIV genome is DNA.
“Whereas your data for novel binding sites is ONLY a presumed inference from sequence similarities!!!”
No, if you read the primary literature cited, the evidence for novel binding sites comes from observing actual binding.
“Well M,,just suppose the immune system was designed that way out of necessity?”
Good! Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that God designed the human immune system. Your reading comprehension has failed you again, because the subject was the way in which the immune system works, not how it evolved. IOW, even if God designed your immune system, Behe is still wrong, because your immune system evolves new, specific, strong protein-protein binding sites in only TWO WEEKS, by random variation and selection. That’s how easy it is to come up with a new interaction.
“Of course to refute an evolutionary scenario for that supposition…”
M wasn’t talking about an evolutionary scenario for the evolution of the immune system, he/she was talking about what it does in real time–it produces new protein-protein binding sites in two weeks using two mechanisms–random genetic variation and selection.
Do you realize that if God designed the immune system, Behe and you are claiming that God used a mechanism you are claiming doesn’t work?
Neil Johnson wrote:
“I really find the concept of random processes building complex systems counter-intuitive.”
That’s an evasion, because selection isn’t random at all, Neil. How long will it take for you to admit the simple truth?
September 28th, 2007 at 9:54 am
ATBC
Christopher Gieschen, if you are prepared to defend your statements, then please follow the link above to a forum where we’ll be happy to discuss at length your claims and you can present the evidence you think is being ignored.
If you are right, we’ll admit it.
I doubt you will as usually Creationists hide behind moderated forums and are not interested in free-speech.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:55 am
BA
This is pathetic: My request – “please get back to me with the answers to my previous questions about peer-reviewed citations contradicting ERV, and also those supporting your notion that novel protein-protein interactions are “controversial”.
and your reply – “OK now I know you will probably think this question beneath contempt, seeing as you are so intellectual and all, but I”LL ask it, real slow, anyway,
WHY…DID…THE…VIRUS…ALL…THE….SUDDEN….DECIDE
….TO….STOP…..EVOLVING…. BINDING….SITES…IN…. HUMANS??? ”
1) This is not an answer; please try again.
2) As for the answer to your insipid question – It didn’t. Please manage to find that paper in Science, or please look at that timeline again and discover, to your amazement, that HIV originated sometime prior to 1920 or thereabouts. CLUE – That “H” in HIV stands for “Human”.
Please pass that along to Sal as well. He seems to have quit embarrassing himself on UD now that he wants to have a modicum of respect in his new gig as a graduate student. You, on the other hand, continue to embarrass yourself here.
If you can’t answer my questions in the next message you post, please go away and get an education that involves analysis of real data and not quotes. CLUE – that would necessitate not hanging out with creationists any more.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Bornagain is arguing that HIV virus was created/designed as it exists today and it has not mutated or gained any additional ability to harm since it was created by the Designer(s).
And the Kind Gentle Just Fair God^H^H^HDesigner(s) created this virus of infinite malice as a gift to humanity? Is it His fair retribution for sins? Why does it kill both the sinners and their (most of the time) innocent spouses too? Why does the Kind Designer God^H^H^HDesigner infect new born babies with this virus?
As someone pointed out there is as much evidence to support Evil Designers Theory, or Malicious Designers Theory or Insane Designers Theory as there is to support Intelligent Designer Theory.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Dang Jam ,,,,
You stated:
“I went to the “time-line” graph and, I see the last “suggestive” origination of binding sites in 1959. Is this not prior to infecting humans?”
No, 1959 is after.
Well JAM it Looks like your privy to some breakthrough knowledge dude,,,On anti ID wikipedia no less…The time line indicates that the first confirmed case of HIV was actually in 1959.
Excerpted passage:
1959
Unidentified Kinshasa man: The earliest confirmed from AIDS. Although the name of the victim is not known, plasma from him was tested in 1999 at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center by David Ho and tested positive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_AIDS_cases#1959
Better go edit wikipedia to reflect the earlier date you got bud and keep them from handing Ammo to ID!!!!!
So seeing as you are so much in the same intellectual stratosphere as your elite buddy GENO, I’ll ask this question real slowly again so that you might understand my idiotic ramblings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY…DID…THE…VIRUS…ALL…THE….SUDDEN….DECIDE
….TO….STOP…..EVOLVING…. BINDING….SITES…IN…. HUMANS???
Please help idiotic me with this, seeing as you guys are insisting that they are happening all the time in HIV and that you know (for sure) where all these “peer reviewed” papers are confirming the binding sites originating…
How is poor ole ignorant me going to learn anything if you guys don’t help me find the papers??????
You really should to help out your less evolved brethren in this matter…please give me the papers showing the evolution showing the generation of novel protein/protein binding sites after the 1959 date!!!!
I’ll say it again,,, Man…I really want to see me some of this awesome evolutionary stuff in action…Seeing as how it is suppose to be happening all the time in every living thing and Seeing as how it is responsible for all this amazingly complex life we see all around us in the world today….Geeze Geno and Jam, I thought you guys would be excited too!!!!!!!!! I mean seeing or….”OBSERVING”….. evolution in action and actually happening somewhere in real life would be like actually seeing God Almighty at work wouldn’t you think???
Man come on Geno and Jam,,, we are so close!!!!! just dig through all those piles of peer reviewed papers you are so proud of and find some ….”OBSERVED”….binding sites occurring in HIV and thus proving evolution ….”CONCLUSIVELY”….true! Then we can put this dam^able heresy of Behe to rest once and for all… And all go back to trying to out evolve each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am
BA
Please read that Science article. Try to understand that there is a difference between the first reported case of AIDS and the evolution of the virus that causes it. Try to understand that the virus had to appear BEFORE 1959, and then maybe you can comprehend that you are sinking faster than usual here.
Or, if your mom’s computer won’t let you get past the wikipedia-level of doing research, see this website, where you can presumably read this
—
Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:
1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.
A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 has suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s; much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period – perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.
In January 2000 however, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa . The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complicated computer model of HIV’s evolution.
—
And then answer my questions, if you can recover from this embarrassment before your mom comes home again.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
A few thoughts on the immune system,,
Using the immune system to try to refute the lack of binding sites in HIV or Malaria is besides the point…. For obviously it is a necessity for the immune system to do as such and could have very well been….caution scare word coming up….. Intelligently Designed……. to do as much all along. (note..immunity to diseases is known to be temporary in humans with no long lasting evolutionary effect on the species) Of course for you to try to use the immune system dodges the main point of this debate…..Which is “Why did malaria and HIV all of the sudden decide to stop generating binding sites?”…. Evolution just can’t pick and choose when it wants HIV and malaria to evolve and when it doesn’t especially when extreme stress is being placed on them from man…Yet you guys, though being so smart…can’t seem to see any problem with the lack of binding site generation in HIV and malaria….
You guys,,Geno, Jam and M,,,let me put it this way,,,you guys see evolution where you want to see it, in the suggestive evidence that is presented,,, and then you automatically dismiss the observed evidence presented by Dr. Behe for intelligent design because you are already philosophically committed to the answer being a materialistic or evolutionary one…Having a preconceived philosophical bias prior to investigation is the surest way to blind yourself to the truth that is revealed by empirical science…I for one have no problem with the fact that evolution might be true… In fact, Like Dr. Behe,, I question exactly when the information was implanted into life on earth…I just want to see the conclusive proof for evolution first..i.e Where is it actually happening and Where is not actually happening…How much is evolution actually capable of for life???? etc…etc……I wish you well on overcoming your philosophical biases and then actually practicing science as it was meant to be practiced in its full power..
September 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Well Geno,,,
You seem to think you got some good evidence there…BUT i think you better come back with a little more somethin,,somethin,, on your plate…Your plate looks a little sparse to me science wise…. Hey I know what would fill me up!!!!!!!!!! How bout some fresh ….”OBSERVED” ………
binding sites in the last 10 are 20 years or so!!!!!!!!….Man these binding site things ought to be a dime a dozen!!!!!!! I mean since evolution is so pervasive ,don’t ya think,,, surely you can come up with 5,10, 15 or, shoot, even 100″s of them since 1959!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
No No No. Bornagain is using ID Think/Poof spontaneous generation theory. He is correct.
We might need a 747 and a Junkyard, though…
September 28th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Ravilyn Sanders:
“If a small light sensitive patch helps one amoeba escape predators better than others, that is enough. Very small improvements, over millions of years could accumulate to such impossible to imagine complex structures. A 5% eye is better than a 1% and one percent eye is better than 0.0001% eye and even that is better than zero eyes.”
Merely repeating the concept that I am having trouble comprehending does not help my comprehension.
The point I was trying to make (and to use your example) is that merely describing how the light sensitive patch evolved is not enough. You also need to describe how the mechanism that translates the output of the light sensitive patch into the physical movement that allows the amoeba to better escape its preditors. As I see it, no survival advantage accrues unless there is some overall functional advantage provided to the organism. In other words, the light sensitive patch cannot stand on its own; it is part of a visual system, wherein both parts of the system must be present for the functional advantage to be present.
Secondly, would you please define what 5% of an eye is. Maybe I have misunderstood what this means.
JAM:
“Yes and no. The pineal gland (even ours) signals the entire body using endocrine mechansims, so you are completely, utterly, hopelessly wrong.”
I would prefer that I be accused of being hopelessly uninformed. That is one reason I am participating in this forum. I am hoping to learn something.
I thank you for expanding my knowledge about different kinds of eyes. So there are different signaling systems for different kinds of eyes. My point is not altered by this fact. In order for a functional advantage to accrue to the eye it must have a co-evolved signaling system.
To state my fundamental question in a different form: can the light processing organ in any creature evolve indpendently of the supporting nourishment systems and signal transmission systems?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
gene:
“Asking for an “analysis of the probabilities”, however, is asking for the impossible. That analysis requires us to know the size of the populations involved, as well as a lot of other information that is not available. And even if we had all that information, somebody like Behe would screw up the math and quotemine a review article to say it was impossible.”
Now I am confused. Richard Dawkins writes a book entitled “Climbing Mount Improbable” that suggests that there is a way around the large improbabiltites we find in nature, and yet we don’t know what those probabilties are!
How can we truly know anything about evolutionary processes then? The argument that lots of relatively low probability events can accumulate to achieve an improbable result becomes mere speculation. What if the probablity of the low probability events is not low enough? How are we to know that?
You seem to have a preconceived notion of what the probability data would actually show, because someone would screw up the math and say it’s impossible. So if the data show that the probabilites are insurmountable, someone has screwed up the math, but if the probabilties turn out to be reasonable, evolution has been vindicated.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I wrote:
“No, 1959 is after.”
ba77 wrote:
“Well JAM it Looks like your privy to some breakthrough knowledge dude,,,On anti ID wikipedia no less…The time line indicates that the first confirmed case of HIV was actually in 1959.”
Please explain to me how you determined that the first *confirmed* case represented, in your mind, the first *actual* case.
Gene made this point more formally, but I simply can’t understand how your mind works. Please walk me through the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion.
Are you claiming that serum samples from Congolese patients were universally stored away in freezers? That seems to be the only way that a coherent person could even hypothesize that the first confirmed case represented the first case that ever happened.
“WHY…DID…THE…VIRUS…ALL…THE….SUDDEN….DECIDE
….TO….STOP…..EVOLVING…. BINDING….SITES…IN…. HUMANS???”
It didn’t, as the evidence shows.
“Please help idiotic me with this, seeing as you guys are insisting that they are happening all the time in HIV and that you know (for sure) where all these “peer reviewed” papers are confirming the binding sites originating…”
I think it’s hopeless. I predict that you can’t explain how you think that a rare serum sample from the Congo would have to repesent the first actual case of HIV infection.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
gene:
I continue to find your posts very thought provoking. You said:
“So lets look at what Behe has done.
Observation = perception of a ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’
Hypothesis = this arrangement of parts was designed
Experiment = ??????????????”
So lets look at what evolutionists have done.
Observation = Biology contains complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.
Hypothesis = The appearance of design is an illusion.
Experiment = Intelligent design is not science.
If the fundamental claim of modern Darwinian theory is that all of life’s diversity and the creation of complex biological structures are the result of random, undirected processes, then to rule out by definition any opposing arguments that propose that life’s diversity is the result of non-random, directed processes is to set up modern Darwinian theory as unfalsifiable dogma.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Hey, BA
Long time, no post.
Recall that you wrote somewhere above: “Now Geno, just pull up some data showing more than 2 or 3 protein/protein binding sites generating in HIV …..after…..1959…….,,when…it…was…in…humans…then you will soundly refute Dr. Behe’s edge of evolution limit of 2 or 3 binding sites….
I know you got scores of examples after the 1959 date so please do keep me updated on your search….Shoot,,,,I’ll even be proud to post your results all over the web.”
Since ALL of the novel protein-protein interactions on that timeline appeared AFTER HIV was “in humans” (even though you were confused about that date), I hope that you will agree to two things, as stated above.
1) Behe’s assertions about HIV are “soundly refuted”.
and
2) You will be “proud” to post this information (Behe is wrong, and so are you) on at least one web site, that being Uncommon Descent, where JAM and I are currently banned, but you can post freely.
Of course, after you post this embarrassing apology there, you could be banned as well. They don’t cotton to being embarrassed by facts over there. But that’s a risk I’m willing to take.
I’ll be waiting for that admission. I’m sure you won’t disappoint us.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I posted the very first response to this thread.
And I asked:
It is one thing to vaguely suppose a designer and generally about the inference of design. But it is high time ID starts answering specific questions. Like for example, why human being lack the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. Most of the other mammals can synthesize it. Humans (and primates) have the DNA code to do it too. But the code is turned off. Why would a designer install the entire vitamin C factory in our cells and turn it off? Remember the number of pious Christian sailors who died of scurvy in long sea voyages without fresh fruit/vegetables. And they were on the mission to bring the name of the Lord and Savior to the uncivilized pagan heathens, and God perversely turned the Vitamin C factory in their own bodies off.
Despite all that quote mining Bornagain77 is doing about HIV and its mutation rates etc etc, he is not able to answer simple questions like, “Why did the Loving Just Fair Omnipotent God let all those pious Christian sailors die of scurvy? “
September 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“The example of the immune system shows how complex biological processes can be. I would recommend an immunology text for further explanation of the immune system.”
Evolution of the vertebrate immune system is quite interesting. You may, if you ever decide to read some of the textbooks you recommend to others, look at the intermediary stages in that evolution (the immune system present in lampreys is very enlightening).
But you are (intentionally, I’m guessing) missing the point.
It does not matter if the immune system has evolved (as the evidence shows), or if it was created (as some assert with no evidence).
In either case, the immune system today uses a completely random mechanism to create new antibodies.
If you wish to think that this system was designed by God, that’s fine. It doesn’t change the point: the system creates RANDOM SEQUENCE PROTEINS.
Do you understand this? Let’s forget about all other evidence. Let’s say, for the purposes of this single message, that God Himself created the immune system. We have examined it, and we have found that He created a system that makes proteins with random sequence.
We observe and measure these random-sequence proteins, and we find that most of them have strong, specific protein-protein binding sites.
Behe claims that a random process cannot produce strong, specific protein-protein interactions.
Therefore, Behe is wrong.
Which part of this do you not understand?
Let me clarify it further.
If God created life on Earth. If he did so 6000 years ago. If the story as detailed in the first chapter of King James translation of the Bible is absolutely and to the last word correct.
In that world, as created by God, there exist COMPLETELY RANDOM processes that change proteins. These processes, which are random and unguided, create new protein-protein binding sites, and that create new protein enzymatic activity.
And Behe is wrong.
If Intelligent Design is true, and there is a Designer, Behe is wrong. If Intelligent Design is false, and there is no Designer, Behe is wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. However you turn it.
Which part of “wrong” do you not understand?
September 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“1. IDers don’t do research/publish in journals/etc.”
Those are two separate questions, and laypeople often conflate them, as well as mixing them up with the idea of peer review.
a) IDers don’t to research in the form of testing their own hypotheses and producing new knowledge about the world. This is the norm, but IDers lack sufficient faith to carry out this most fundamental scientific activity.
b) They have occasionally managed to publish in journals, but their papers that bear on ID don’t contain any new data. Several publish papers with new data on subjects other than ID.
c) Papers that don’t contain new data (reviews) are called the secondary literature, and they are rarely peer-reviewed, unlike the papers with new data (primary literature), that are almost always peer-reviewed.
d) IDers have their own journal that never published new data, and hasn’t published an issue at all since November 2005. That fact alone disproves any claims of bias in publishing.
“Thanks fot the opportunity to point out creationist scientitsts who do active resesarch/journal writing/etc.”
I don’t know of a single one who does creationist or ID research in the manner I described above.
“We have our own science conferences,…”
Irrelevant unless people present new data from testing their own hypotheses, which is the case at real scientific conferences.
“… heated debates,…’
Ah, but in the real scientific world, debates are resolved by new data. In your fake scientific world, people write essays and spin data that others work much harder to produce.
“…and blogging just as the evos do.”
While some scientists blog, blogging isn’t science.
“Go to answersingenesis.org to read and learn. I don’t expect you to accept the conclusions of the research, but to see that it is indeed research.”
Show me a single instance in which a creationist made a prediction, tested it, and published the data. I’ve never seen anything of the sort there.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
First A few thoughts on a single proteins complexity: Then we will work on the probability of various types of protein molecules binding together ally as required by Darwinian evolution;
The simplest bacteria ever found on earth is constructed with over a million protein molecules. Protein molecules are made from one dimensional sequences of the 20 different L-amino acids that can be used as building blocks for proteins. It is easily demonstrated mathematically that the entire universe does not even begin to come close to being old enough, nor large enough, to ally generate just one small but precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein (out of the over one million interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences that would be required to match the sequences of their particular protein types) in that very first living bacteria. If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are (20100) =1.3 x 10130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids. This impossibility, of finding even one “required” specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don’t despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at less than 1 in 10125 (Meyer, Evidence for Design, pg. 75)). The staggering impossibility found for the universe ever generating a “required” specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by would still be true even if we allowed that the entire universe, all 1080 sub-atomic particles of it, were nothing but groups of 100 freely bonding amino acids, and we then tried a trillion unique combinations per second for all those 100 amino acid groups for 100 billion years! Even after 100 billion years of trying a trillion unique combinations per second, we still would have made only one billion, trillionth of the entire total combinations possible for a 100 amino acid protein during that 100 billion years of trying! Even a child knows you cannot put any piece of a puzzle anywhere in a puzzle. You must have the required piece in the required place! The simplest forms of life ever found on earth are exceedingly far more complicated jigsaw puzzles than any of the puzzles man has ever made. Yet to believe a naturalistic theory we would have to believe that this tremendously complex puzzle of millions of precisely shaped, and placed, protein molecules “just happened” to overcome the impossible hurdles of chemical bonding and probability and put itself together into the sheer wonder of immense complexity that we find in the cell.
Instead of us just looking at the probability of a single protein molecule occurring (a solar system full of blind men solving the Rubik’s Cube simultaneously), let’s also look at the complexity that goes into crafting the shape of just one protein molecule. Complexity will give us a better indication if a protein molecule is, indeed, the handi-work of an infinitely powerful Creator.
In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, that is 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it is estimated it will take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape. In real life, the protein folds into its final shape in a fraction of a second! The computer would have to operate at least 33 million times faster to accomplish what the protein does in a fraction of a second. That is the complexity found for JUST ONE “simple” protein. It is estimated, on the total number of known life forms on earth, that there are some 50 billion different types of unique proteins today. It is very possible the domain of the protein world may hold many trillions more completely distinct and different types of proteins. The simplest bacterium known to man has millions of protein molecules divided into, at bare minimum, several hundred distinct proteins types. These millions of precisely shaped protein molecules are interwoven into the final structure of the bacterium. Numerous times specific proteins in a distinct protein type will have very specific modifications to a few of the amino acids, in their sequence, in order for them to more precisely accomplish their specific function or functions in the overall parent structure of their protein type. To think naturalists can account for such complexity by saying it “happened by chance” should be the very definition of “absurd” we find in dictionaries. Naturalists have absolutely no answers for how this complexity arose in the first living cell unless, of course, you can take their imagination as hard evidence. Yet the “real” evidence scientists have found overwhelmingly supports the anthropic hypothesis once again. It should be remembered that naturalism postulated a very simple “first cell”. Yet the simplest cell scientists have been able to find, or to even realistically theorize about, is vastly more complex than any machine man has ever made through concerted effort !! What makes matters much worse for naturalists is that naturalists try to assert that proteins of one function can easily mutate into other proteins of completely different functions by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence we now have betrays the naturalists. Individual proteins have been experimentally proven to quickly lose their function in the cell with random point mutations. What are the odds of any functional protein in a cell mutating into any other functional folded protein, of very questionable value, by pure chance?
“From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny ‘X’, somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny ‘X’. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an ‘X’. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other
“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)
September 29th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Sadly, I doubt that bornagain77 can admit being wrong any more than he can make a concise, coherent post.
His posts at UD are legendary for their length.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I said:
“I really find the concept of random processes building complex systems counter-intuitive.”
JAM responded:
“That’s an evasion, because selection isn’t random at all, Neil. How long will it take for you to admit the simple truth?”
Please clarify your comment since I agree that natural selection is not random. But, is not the mutation upon which natural selection acts, random? It seems to me that the mutation is where all the “design work” of evolution has to be done, and this is where I have trouble envisioning a random process building a complex, co-ordinated biological system.
Once a “new design” is constucted, natural selection then decides whether or not the design is successful. This is much like the project manager on an engineering project who has contributed nothing to the design of the project, but has the final say-so on whether or not the design goes into production. (No offense intended to project managers.)
September 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
If one disputes evolution, one has to posit that God keeps creating new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria to keep us from staying too healthy. An interesting theology, that.
If you are going to oppose biology in the name of religion, one shouldn’t stop there. Chemistry and meteorology should be targets too. But the sciences opposed by fundamentalists and promoters of pseudoscience are just like their literalism: selective, even though they will rarely admit it.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/group-of-intellectuals-negating-godless.html
September 30th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Bornagain77
Please stop posting long irrelevant “thoughts” that lead nowhere.
Please keep your promises.
Please admit, as noted above, that you now understand that
1) Behe’s assertions about HIV are “soundly refuted”.
and
2) You will be “proud” to post this information (Behe is wrong, and so are you) on at least one web site, that being Uncommon Descent, where JAM and I are currently banned, but you can post freely.
I’ve given up, after multiple requests, any attempt to get you to justify what you believe using peer-reviewed scientific literature. But I do hope that you can keep your promises and show us that you are not a liar. There is, as I recall, a Commandment that forbids such behavior.
I expect this admission to appear in your next post here, and at Uncommon Descent. I’ll keep reminding you here every time you post. Face the music, Bornagain77. You and Behe are wrong. If you are an ethical human being, you will admit it now. If you post another irrelevant screed, all the lurkers on this thread will be forced to make another conclusion about your ethics.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
HMMM James McGrath,
Your refutation of the existence of God reminds me of this “urban legend”.
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists?
A student bravely replied yes, he did!”
“God created everything?” The professor asked.
“Yes, sir,” the student replied.
The professor answered, “If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil.”
The student became quiet before such an answer.
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, “Can I ask you a question professor?” “Of course”, replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, “Professor, does cold exist?”
“What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?” The students snickered at the young man’s question.
The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.
The student continued. “Professor, does darkness exist?”
The professor responded, “Of course it does”.
The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.”
Finally the young man asked the professor. “Sir, does evil exist?”
Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and everywhere in the world. “These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
The young mans name — Albert Einstein
By the way Geno,,,
Find any of those post 1959 binding sites yet????
September 30th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
BA wistfully asks
“Find any of those post 1959 binding sites yet????”
When anyone else reading this thread has satisfied themselves that BA misread the graph, ignored the literature, and lost the argument.
Let’s look at the evidence, moron.
BA and Behe apparently think that HIV was not a human pathogen prior to 1959, when the first case of AIDS was reported. This ignores both common sense (did the virus magically poof into existence in 1959?) and science. Peer-reviewed scientific consensus holds that the first infection in humans occurred probably sometime in the 1920′s. Many protein-protein interactions evolved after that first infection, including several in Vpu. All of this is previous proven and discussed here, without any peer-reviewed evidence to the contray.
BA said that they didn’t occur after the virus was in humans; the scientific literature says that they did. BA can’t read a simple graph, and certainly can’t read the peer-reviewed literature, so he can’t comprehend that he and Behe are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Either that (illiteracy and ignorance) is the explanation, or he can read and does understand that he lost this argument decisively, and so prefers to post irrelevant obfuscatory nonsense.
So which is it, BA? Are you an illiterate ignoramus, or a dedicated liar?
When you figure it out, please admit that you are wrong, and admit the same on Uncommon Descent, like you promised.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
In the interest of keeping this discussion interesting, I found this article on finding a complementary protein binding site…Thus scientists may be able to “Intelligently Design” the proper binding site for an Anti HIV by deciphering the complementary protein sequence that would be needed….Maybe like making a key from the information you get from the lock. Of course this is probably already in the works….
A method for determining the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide complementary to at least a portion of an original peptide or protein. In one aspect the method involves: (a) determining a first nucleotide sequence of a first nucleic acid coding for the biosynthesis of at least a portion of the original peptide or protein; (b) ascertaining a second nucleotide sequence of a second nucleic acid which base-pairs with the first nucleotide sequence of the first nucleic acid, the first and second nucleic acids pairing in antiparallel directions; and (c) determining the amino acid sequence of the complementary polypeptide by the second nucleotide sequence when read in the same reading frame as the first nucleotide sequence. The complementary polypeptide whose amino acid sequence is thus determined may be obtained by diverse means such as, for example, chemical synthesis, derivation from a protein or larger polypeptide containing said amino acid sequence, or, when the second nucleic acid is DNA, inserting the second nucleotide sequence into a plasmid to form a recombinant DNA plasmid vector and transforming a unicellular organism therewith to produce a transformant unicellular organism biosynthesizing said complementary polypeptide. The ascertainment of particular nucleotide sequences may be circumvented, in one aspect, by utilizing the relationships of amino acids having complementary hydropathies for substitutions as generally dictated by base-pairing nucleotide complementarity.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5077195.html
Depending on total information length compatibility required to match complimentary binding sites it will be possible to accurately predict protein-protein binding by random processes further narrowing Behe’s preliminary work on the absurdity of Darwinian processes generating binding sites by pure chance!!!
September 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Bornagain77,
So you admit God is not omnipresent. Thank you, that is a good start. Now start working on understanding that God could not be omniscient and then you can work your way to He could not be omnipotent. At that point you have nothing but evolution to explain life on Earth.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
James McGrath said:
“If one disputes evolution, one has to posit that God keeps creating new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria to keep us from staying too healthy. An interesting theology, that.”
I submit two responses to your statement.
1) Since evolution has many different meanings, to say ‘if one disputes evolution’ is ambiguous. I doubt that anyone disputes the fact that bacteria can evolve new strains that are resistant to antibiotics by natural means. The evolution that is disputed is the evolution of new body plans and complex structures by random, undirected processes.
It seems that critics will always go beyond what the evidence for intelligent design can logically show. There is nothing in the evidence of nature to point to God as the designer. This is not an evasion. This is rigorous application of logic. I recall reading some years ago that someone would believe that God is the designer only if he found “Made by Yahweh” encoded in the DNA.
2) “An interesting theology, that”, indeed. I just started reading on this subject, but it seems (much to my surprise)that the fact that science is restricted to only natural causes is the work of theologians. They wanted to disassociate God from the natural world so that they could explain natural evil as the work of nature, (i.e. secondary causes) and not as the work of God.
For me, I prefer to leave the tough theological questions to the theologians and philosphers. The intelligent design argument stands on its own, albeit with profound implications for theology and philosphy.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
BA
Thanks again for posting irrelevant stuff that you find on the web. But that smokescreen is really not helping you much.
Re your inability to admit that you and Behe are wrong about HIV, are you an illiterate ignoramus, or a dedicated liar?
No amount of verbage can disguise your losses here, BA. You are making lots of good arguments that will ensure that ID is never taken seriously again. But you can redeem yourself in the eyes of your creator by keeping your promises and admitting that Behe is “soundly refuted”. You can do it, but it will take more effort and ethics than you have exhibited to date.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Ravilyn,
Whatever your problem is with God please do not put your lies into my mouth and claim that I said them.
Furthermore, the evolutionists in their rebuttals on this thread have failed to provide conclusive, observed, proof of binding site generation in HIV or Malaria,,,They insist the binding site-s that were generated, prior to observed evidence in 1959, to allow the transfer from SIV to HIV, was a totally natural process…They totally ignore any Theistic possibility because for them it is totally inconceivable that anything but a materialistic answer is possible (read Big Bang denial here)…They cannot seem to fathom that an Intelligence very well may be required to generate and explain a highly specific, thus highly improbable, binding sight.
I am optimistic and confident that Dr. Behe has brought the battle for ID to the evolutionists home court of molecular biology,,and further work in this area will completely separate the suggestive evidence, that has given evolutionists such false faith in materialism, from the actual observed evidence that is supporting intelligent design.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:03 am
Bornagain you said
“They cannot seem to fathom that an Intelligence very well may be required to generate and explain a highly specific, thus highly improbable, binding sight.”
WHY WOULD the designer (god) alter HIV to make it able to infect humans? Many christians have been felled by HIV through no fault of their own (blood transfusions etc).
Born again, why do you defend such an evil maleolvent god that goes around tweaking viri to make them infect humans?
Bornagain, what tweak can we expect next from the designer? Will your god make HIV airboune?
Have you seen “28 days later”? Is that the sort of world your god wants for us?
BORNAGAIN, WHY IS YOUR GOD TWEAKING HIV TO MAKE IT WORSE? Of all the prayers to god why is he answering The Westboro Baptist Church’s
October 1st, 2007 at 4:06 am
Bornagain you say
“They totally ignore any Theistic possibility because for them it is totally inconceivable that anything but a materialistic answer is possible (read Big Bang denial here)…”
What, from a theistic point of view would gods motivation be to tweak HIV so it can infect humans better? What’s your view on that?
The materialistic view is: It’s evolution. HIV itself bears no malice to those it infects.
The theistic view is: God so hated humans he sent down infection after infection to try and wipe them out.
Right? Wrong? What should be there instead? What’s your take on why your loving god is tweaking viri to make them worse for unlucky humans?
October 1st, 2007 at 7:00 am
BA lied: “Furthermore, the evolutionists in their rebuttals on this thread have failed to provide conclusive, observed, proof of binding site generation in HIV or Malaria,,,They insist the binding site-s that were generated, prior to observed evidence in 1959, to allow the transfer from SIV to HIV, was a totally natural process…”
Isn’t there a commandment in your book that proscribes this sort of behavior, BA?
And if you don’t think that those novel binding sites were generated IN HIV, NOT SIV, where’s the evidence? I look forward to having you ignore this question again.
Finally, if you think that evolution of ever more lethal HIV, via those changes in protein structure and function, did not occur via “natural processes”, what is your explanation? IF your supernatural explanation invokes a deity, that deity clearly hates humans. Why would your god make a lethal virus ever more lethal via the generation of these novel binding sites and novel functions? What kind of god are you defending? Why are you lying for him?
October 1st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Ravilyn,
Whatever your problem is with God please do not put your lies into my mouth and claim that I said them.
Well Bornagain77 you just said:
To this the student replied, “… Evil is simply the absence of God. …”
So you admit God could be absent. If God is absent somewhere then He is not omnipresent. QED. Now are you man enough to apologize for calling me a liar?
BTW
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
Gives a pretty unbiased history of your little anecdote.
Essentially Good Old Albert did not say it. Also the same
anecdote is circulating in the Indian mailing lists, but
there Einstein’s role is played by Dr Abdul Kalam, (ex President of India, nuclear scientist, rocket scientist, Muslim scholar well versed in Hindu scriptures) And he did
not say it either.
Further the atheistic professor humiliating a student in
front of the whole class using his authority is a figment
of imagination by mostly rural priests who have never
attended colleges sermonizing to congregations which have not attended colleges. The tactic described by you in that
episode is most commonly seen in Sunday schools.
I have been personally humiliated by a fundie Christian teacher in a high school class just like in your fictional episode for saying that any evidence for Noah’s Flood could also be used to corroborate Hindu Flood legends.
But when I showed my prof had solved a problem in hypersonic
flow wrong, and my answer was correct and his solution key
was wrong, he gave me double points for that problem. That
is how college profs behave.
Parting shot to Bornagain77:
Why are you not quote mining Vitamin C buddy? None in your
fundie websites yet?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:28 am
Gene asks Bornagain77, “IF your supernatural explanation invokes a deity, that deity clearly hates humans. Why would your god make a lethal virus ever more lethal via the generation of these novel binding sites and novel functions? What kind of god are you defending? Why are you lying for him?”.
Isn’t that obvious Gene? Anyone worshiping such an evil supernatural force will lie without compunction.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Neil Johnson wrote:
“I would prefer that I be accused of being hopelessly uninformed. That is one reason I am participating in this forum. I am hoping to learn something.”
Your newfound humility is phony. Here’s what you wrote:
1) “The eye must have a signaling system to transmit the image to the brain: nerves.”
2) “The eye must have a brain to interpret the image so that the organism can respond according to the image presented.”
Both of these are completely false, yet you dishonestly stated your assumptions as facts.
“My point is not altered by this fact. In order for a functional advantage to accrue to the eye it must have a co-evolved signaling system.”
Your point was completely altered, because the facts reduce the complexity involved by several orders of magnitude. Since your main “argument” consists of misrepresenting all of MET as “all of life’s diversity and the creation of complex biological structures are the result of random, undirected processes,” this ruins your misrepresentation. Remember, natural selection is nonrandom, so your straw man is a bald-faced lie.
“To state my fundamental question in a different form: can the light processing organ in any creature evolve indpendently of the supporting nourishment systems and signal transmission systems?”
To answer your revised question, no, but that’s not a problem, because you vastly misrepresented the complexity of the signal transmission systems involved at early stages, representatives of which are found in many modern organisms, including yourself.
“But, is not the mutation upon which natural selection acts, random?”
Only in one, very limited, sense–wrt fitness. By the way, attributing “random mutation” to Darwin is idiotic, because Darwin said nothing about mutations. He merely noted variation, and that at least some of it was heritable.
“It seems to me that the mutation is where all the “design work” of evolution has to be done, and this is where I have trouble envisioning a random process building a complex, co-ordinated biological system.”
Your assumption is wrong.
“Once a “new design” is constucted, natural selection then decides whether or not the design is successful.”
Baloney. Natural selection is involved at every step, not just after construction. If you had the integrity to look at evidence instead of regurgitating dishonest apologetics, you’d see the the complexity of life fits that theory in every way.
“This is much like the project manager on an engineering project who has contributed nothing to the design of the project, but has the final say-so on whether or not the design goes into production.”
Your analogy is completely wrong. A far better analogy would be with a project manager who decides whether random changes in the project are better or worse than the unchanged project, but makes no changes himself. That process will produce the partially-redundant complexities that those of us who actually study biology see every day.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Neil Johnson asks:
“Please clarify your comment since I agree that natural selection is not random. But, is not the mutation upon which natural selection acts, random? It seems to me that the mutation is where all the “design work” of evolution has to be done, and this is where I have trouble envisioning a random process building a complex, co-ordinated biological system.”
Mr Johnson, just look at artificial selection. Look at all the various colors of tulips created by horticulturalists. Look at the variety of dog/pig/horse/cattle breeds that have been created by the fanciers. They too cross different varieties and select the best offspring. Who does the design work here? The random litter of some better, some worse and mostly the same as parent? or the breeder who picks who gets to breed and produce the next generation? To understand the Theory of Evolution, you just have to remove the Intelligent Selector from the picture and allow natural process of surviving and adapting to changing environment to “select” who gets to breed for the next generation. That is all. It is not a hard theory to understand.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
ba77 wrote:
“In the interest of keeping this discussion interesting, I found this article on finding a complementary protein binding site…Thus scientists may be able to “Intelligently Design” the proper binding site for an Anti HIV by deciphering the complementary protein sequence that would be needed…”
An anti-HIV what, ba? Random genetic variation + selection produces proteins that specifically bind HIV proteins in two weeks.
“.Maybe like making a key from the information you get from the lock.”
That’s how random genetic variation + selection does it in just two weeks.
“Of course this is probably already in the works….”
It’s in the works of everyone infected with HIV, but HIV has evolved mechanisms to get around this.
If God designed our immune system and you and Neil Johnson are claiming that because you can’t understand how random (wrt fitness) genetic variation and selection can evolve a new protein-protein binding site in only two weeks (or 40 years in the case of HIV), aren’t both of you therefore necessarily claiming to be smarter than God?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
JAM:
“Your newfound humility is phony.”
I am sorry you missed my feeble attempt at humor. Plus I did learn something. In case you missed it, I said I am not a biologist. (JAM says to himself, “Oh that is so painfully obvious!”) I did learn that the pineal gland signals the entire body using endocrine mechanisms. Is this related to vision, or is this an example of a different kind of signaling system? (JAM: “Maybe he’s not faking his ignorance after all.”)
“Both of these are completely false, yet you dishonestly stated your assumptions as facts.”
I am guilty of poor wording, not dishonesty. I can be accused of being dishoset only if I knowingly make a false statement. How can you know that? I should have asked, rather than state, “Must not an eye have a signaling system to transmit the image to the brain, which is nerves?” And when I wrote this, I was thinking of the mammalian eye.
Later, you did answer no to my reworded question with qualifications,(‘…can the light processing organ in any creature evolve independently of the supporting nourishment systems and signal transmission systems?’) so would you please clarify why the above statement is false?
“…you vastly misrepresented the complexity of the signal transmission systems involved at early stages, representatives of which are found in many modern organisms, including yourself.”
In what direction did I misrepresent the complexity? Did you think that I was assuming things are more complex than they really are? You are probably right. Unfortunately neither of us has defined complexity. Well, I think a protein is extremely complex, and a biological structure, then has to be more complex still.
For me the question of complexity is the crucial question. How complex is complex? This takes me back to an exchange
I had with gene, who said
“Asking for an “analysis of the probabilities”, however, is asking for the impossible. That analysis requires us to know the size of the populations involved, as well as a lot of other information that is not available. And even if we had all that information, somebody like Behe would screw up the math and quotemine a review article to say it was impossible.”
And I responded:
‘How can we truly know anything about evolutionary processes then? The argument that lots of relatively low probability events can accumulate to achieve an improbable result becomes mere speculation. What if the probability of the low probability events is not low enough? How are we to know that?’
Some scientists are actually trying to find out what evolution can really do.
Dr. Michael Behe has attempted to put numbers on the probabilities of certain evolutionary transitions by analyzing real world data.
Dr. Ralph Seelke, Department of Biology and Earth Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Superior is trying to find out what evolution can really do. His short answer: not much.
Dr. Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University in Waco, Texas is one of the founders of Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab. His research and teaching focuses on computational intelligence.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Neil Johonson,
You admit you are not a biologist. And you “trust” the three researchers. On the other hand there are thousands of PhDs in biology who endorse evolution. ID proponents repeatedly claim “more than XX percent of Americans don’t believe in evolution”, XX would be anywhere from 66% to 80%. And somehow that bolsters their case. Then why do they and you attach so little importance to all those scientists and over weight the opinion of these three that you quote?
All the rest are dumb idiots? They are all part of a conspiracy? They are subjugated by the tyranny of a small
minority of atheists and anti-Christians?
Why is there such a big asymmetry in the credulousness of
ID proponents? Look at Bornagain77. In the question of HIV and binding sites, he drills deep, repeatedly scans the net, finds something to question about and repeats it without
realizing what he is really saying. Eventually painted himself into a corner. Either evolution is true or his God is vile, evil, malevolent and misanthrope to have created such a virus.
On the other hand, that apocryphal anecdote about Albert Einstein snubbing an atheist professor is so dear to him, he takes it as gospel. It takes two seconds to find the snopes.com report on that story. But he would not even imagine questioning the veracity of that much circulated email.
There is evidence staring at you, that ID proponents are being taken for a ride by these three angling for the Templeton prize.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Neil J wrote: “Some scientists are actually trying to find out what evolution can really do.
Dr. Michael Behe has attempted to put numbers on the probabilities of certain evolutionary transitions by analyzing real world data.”
Unfortunately for that perspective, it is clear from the comments on this thread that his attempts are failures, due to his inability to consider ALL of the data (none of which he generated on his own, by the way). His cherry-picking of data to support his conclusions is not limited to HIV, either. His estimates of mutation rates in Plasmodium are based on faulty assumptions, and the published rate from a review paper that he quotes is a quotemine. ALL of the relevant literature on Plasmodium disagrees with Behe’s conclusions.
If you are truly interested, ask JAM for a brief synopsis of that Plasmodium garbage; he posted a good short take-down of it somewhere, but I can’t locate it at the moment.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
I am sure Bornagain77 and Neil Jhonson would appreciate the
scientific proofs listed in this web site.
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/hundreda.html
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
BA77
Can you come out of your basement and answer these questions, left dangling in your absence?
—
If you don’t think that those novel binding sites were generated IN HIV, NOT SIV, where’s the evidence?
Finally, if you think that evolution of ever more lethal HIV, via those changes in protein structure and function, did not occur via “natural processes”, what is your explanation? IF your supernatural explanation invokes a deity, that deity clearly hates humans. Why would your god make a lethal virus ever more lethal via the generation of these novel binding sites and novel functions? What kind of god are you defending? Why are you lying for him?
—
Of course, we all know that you will not address even one phrase of these questions. And we also know that you will not keep your promises about announcing that you lost this argument on various websites.
But I just thought I should leave this reminder here for the lurkers, who may have forgotten that you even existed here once.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 am
“Extra point: Find the odd man out”
The one that rhymes with “duh”.
For the intelligent folk: All creationists/IDists are both immensely stupid and immensely intellectually dishonest, as demonstrated yet again in this thread. Debating them is a waste of your energy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 am
“It seems to me that the mutation is where all the “design work” of evolution has to be done”
And you’re an engineer? How bizarre. Put random noise through a filter — what shapes the output, the data or the filter?
“Some scientists are actually trying to find out what evolution can really do.”
Three Christian ideologues, only one of whom is a biologist, against thousands upon thousands of biologists.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
I would like to point out that Intelligent Design (ID), in and of itself, makes no judgment about the exact nature or character of the Designer..ID only makes a strict inference that intelligence is the best possible explanation for the overwhelming complexity we find at many levels of molecular biology…Just Because someone, in their personal judgment, may find that a particular design is “evil” does absolutely nothing to address the scientific assertion that the design does indeed require an intelligence to explain its origination!!!
In other words, to say a system wasn’t designed just because a “Good Designer” would not have done it that way, is to leave the realm of empirical science and impose personal preferences for a designer where evidence clearly has primary authority..
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Bornagain77,
Why do you use singular form, as in “The Designer”? By your strict “interpretation” of “evidence”, can you rule out multiple Designers?
Don’t beat around the bush with constructions like, “just because someone, in their personal judgment,…” etc. How would you characterize the action of the Designer(s) who created and unleashed such a lethal virus on the humanity? The victims include new born babies and innocent spouses of (alleged) sinners. Forget me, Gene, or ERV or others. You never were short of words or exclamation signs judging the actions and beliefs of others in this thread. Now think about how would you describe the Designers of HIV virus?
Do you realize that if ID is true, abortion is not a sin?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Hey, BA
Good to hear from you again. Did you go away and ask Sal to help you answer the questions here?
Unfortunately you neglected (again) to answer some questions that appear several times in the above comments. So rather than debate you on the new blather in your latest comment, I’ll just keep asking until you answer them. I’d particularly be interested in an answer to question #1, which you have ignored since practically the beginning of our conversations here.
—
1) If you don’t think that those novel binding sites were generated IN HIV, NOT SIV, where’s the evidence?
2) If you think that evolution of ever more lethal HIV, via those changes in protein structure and function, did not occur via “natural processes”, what is your explanation? It must be supernatural. IF your supernatural explanation invokes a deity, that deity clearly hates humans. Why would your god make a lethal virus ever more lethal via the generation of these novel binding sites and novel functions? What kind of god are you defending? Why are you lying for him?
—
Note that nowhere in this set of questions does the word “evil” appear. I don’t necessarily find it “evil”, I just want you to EXPLAIN how a supernatural intelligence did this.
Thanks in advance for not answering these questions in your next comment.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
truth machine said:
“And you’re an engineer? How bizarre. Put random noise through a filter — what shapes the output, the data or the filter?”
How really bizarre! Of course the filter shapes the data, and it is DESIGNED to do so according to the requirements of the system in which it is found.
truth machine also said:
“Three Christian ideologues, only one of whom is a biologist, against thousands upon thousands of biologists.”
It is realy sad when a defender of evolution resorts to referring to the skeptics’ religion, as if this somehow refutes their ideas or the work that they are doing. Are you saying that scientists who are Christians are biased and that scientists who are atheists are not?
I listed the three scientists as examples of scientists who are asking a very telling question: “Can evolution really do what is claimed for it?” Your numbers game of 3 against thousands is irrelevant to this point.
Apparently there are those who don’t want this question to be asked, or at least they don’t want the answers made public. Witness the treatment of Dr. Robert Marks at Baylor University, whose website was banned by the administration. Censorship is the tool of those who want to repress ideas they don’t like.
What puzzles me is that truly unbiased, rigorous research into the answer to this question could confirm that evolution really can do what is claimed for it. Do evolutionary scientists already know the answer to this question and that is the reasons research should be stifled? I would think that evolutionary scientists would want to vigorously pursue this kind of research and forever put the ID folks out of business.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Neil wrote: “What puzzles me is that truly unbiased, rigorous research into the answer to this question could confirm that evolution really can do what is claimed for it.”
Agreed. Now you have to show me how Behe, whose work has been severely criticized both here and elsewhere on scientific grounds, is doing “truly unbiased, rigorous research”. In reality, he is doing no research at all on these topics. He is reading a few papers, misquoting them, and writing a book rather than submitting his work for peer-review. Indeed, rigorous research can get us closer to the answers. It’s just that Behe is not the one doing that.
Next, Neil wrote: “Do evolutionary scientists already know the answer to this question and that is the reasons research should be stifled? I would think that evolutionary scientists would want to vigorously pursue this kind of research and forever put the ID folks out of business.”
Nice straw man. Here are two points you need to remember.
1) Yes, evolutionary scientists do know the answers to the questions that Behe poses in both DBB and his latest opus. In fact, some of those answers regarding mutation rates and the limits of evolution were generated 70-80 years ago by Haldane, Fisher, Wright and Dobzhansky. The answers were fine-tuned by Kimura, and are still being fine-tuned by many competent evolutionary biologists who are both doing research and subjecting it to rigorous peer-review. Behe ignores this history, which is not surprising, since he is a biochemist and was probably not properly schooled in population genetics. And, as pointed out above, he ignores the necessity of subjecting his work to peer review, where that oversight would be pointed out to him by any competent reviewer.
As for putting the ID folks out of business, that has been accomplished on the scientific front. Actually, they never were in the business of science, so it wasn’t so hard to get them out of it. But the fight is not about science. It is a culture war. It will be difficult for science alone to win that one. There is a lot of ignorance about science in this country (as evidenced by the comments on this thread), and there are also lots of folks who profit from promoting this ignorance (Behe, Dembski et al.) It will be difficult to put them out of the culture war business, since it has proven profitable for so many of them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Wasn’t ID the theory in vogue and then overthrown by Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis? What is the history behind the current scientific pardigm?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Neil Johnson wrote:
“I did learn that the pineal gland signals the entire body using endocrine mechanisms. Is this related to vision, or is this an example of a different kind of signaling system?”
Pineal glands sense light in more primitive vertebrates. They are the 5% eye that creationists claim does not exist. Their photoreceptive cells resemble the ones in your retina. Despite the fact that you don’t have a foramen in your skull and your pineal gland is signaled through ocular afferents, its signaling functions haven’t changed much. Please explain all those facts using your own hypothesis.
“I am guilty of poor wording, not dishonesty. I can be accused of being dishoset only if I knowingly make a false statement.”
Not true. If I claim, “Neil Johnson is a pedophile,” not knowing is neither an ethical nor a legal defense against a charge of lying or slander.
“And when I wrote this, I was thinking of the mammalian eye.”
But if you are asking about evolution, you can’t limit your consideration to the mammalian eye. I’ll ask you again: if the human eye is 100%, what percentage do you assign to an eagle’s eye, with its second fovea and far better resolution?
“…would you please clarify why the above statement is false?”
Because nerves aren’t required to sense light. Nerves evolved long after photoreceptive cells did.
“In what direction did I misrepresent the complexity?”
Over, by several orders of magnitude.
“Did you think that I was assuming things are more complex than they really are?”
You were assuming that signaling of light and dark had to have been mediated by a nervous system.
“You are probably right.”
Your rhetorical moves are very predictable.
“Unfortunately neither of us has defined complexity. Well, I think a protein is extremely complex, and a biological structure, then has to be more complex still.”
We don’t need a definition to know that a photoreceptive cell that signals via endocrine mechanisms is less complex than the photoreceptors in your retina.
“For me the question of complexity is the crucial question. How complex is complex?”
Duuuuude, that’s deep. Complexity is a red herring, which is why it is a favorite of creationists.
“How can we truly know anything about evolutionary processes then? The argument that lots of relatively low probability events can accumulate to achieve an improbable result becomes mere speculation.”
No, it doesn’t, because it can be observed in real time. How long does your own body require to evolve a new, unique protein-protein binding site using random genetic variation and selection?
“Some scientists are actually trying to find out what evolution can really do.
Dr. Michael Behe has attempted to put numbers on the probabilities of certain evolutionary transitions by analyzing real world data.”
False. Behe isn’t trying to find out anything. He’s trying to justify a political stance. In fact, the centerpiece of his bogus argument, his claim about Plasmodium, was not derived from “analyzing real world data,” but from quote-mining a review article. Behe stated under oath that he doesn’t read the primary literature, which is where real-world scientists publish, analyze, and find real-world data.
“Dr. Ralph Seelke, Department of Biology and Earth Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Superior is trying to find out what evolution can really do. His short answer: not much.”
That’s the answer to what Seelke is doing, Neil.
“Dr. Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University in Waco, Texas is one of the founders of Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab. His research and teaching focuses on computational intelligence.”
Why wouldn’t he study evolution itself?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Neil Johnson wrote:
“Witness the treatment of Dr. Robert Marks at Baylor University, whose website was banned by the administration.”
How would refusing to host his web site stifle their research, Neil?
“Censorship is the tool of those who want to repress ideas they don’t like.”
As is intimidation. Would you mind commenting on Dembski’s publication of the addresses and phone numbers of the Baylor Board of Regents?
“What puzzles me is that truly unbiased, rigorous research into the answer to this question could confirm that evolution really can do what is claimed for it. Do evolutionary scientists already know the answer to this question and that is the reasons research should be stifled?”
Uh, Neil, I’m not an evolutionary scientist, and in the process of doing other things, produced data that constitute a test of modern evolutionary theory’s predictions.
In addition, in the process of doing other things, I’ve also produced data that test one of Dembski’s major assumptions, which, of course, he claims as fact. It’s wrong.
“I would think that evolutionary scientists would want to vigorously pursue this kind of research and forever put the ID folks out of business.”
They do and they are. That’s why you’re frantically trying to conflate a web site with research.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
JAM:
I am going to take one topic at a time as I have time.
One of the first questions I had was that I did not understand what 5% of an eye meant. You have now provided information which suggests a definition.
When I used the phrase 100% of an eye, I was implicity using the following definiton.
I was treating the eye as a discrete organ apart from any connecting structures, and apart from comparison to any other type of eye. So 100% of an eye consists of all those components that are required to make that particular type of eye functional. 5% of that particular eye could not be functional according to my definition.
It was in this context that I asked, “What good is 100% of an eye?”, and argued that 100% of eye is no good without co-evolved structures and/or mechanisms that nourish the eye and process the visual signal from the eye. I think we agree in principal with this point. Our disagreement lies with definitions of complexity, and the actual evolutionary pathways involved in the transition from simple to more complex eyes.
I now see that the definition is a relative definition that compares one type of eye to another. So if the human eye is the reference eye, then a lesser eye obviously can be termed 5% of an eye, and an eye with more parts, such as the eagle’s eye can be termed 175% of an eye.
One additional question: Do scientists actually arrive at a true mathematical per centage when comparing two types of eyes?
By the way, I have ordered Sean Carroll’s, “The Making of the Fittest…” It’s supposed to ship today and arrive by the 11th. I hope gene gets a commission for recommending it.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Neil,
Do you get it at least now? If a 5% eye can exist and provide some useful function to its owner, the eye is not irreducibly complex. That is the whole point. According to Behe and the creationists, even if a small part of human eye is missing, it loses all its function and so it could not evolve. Abundant examples exist that eyes with fewer parts and lower functionality exist in nature. Eyes with more parts (than human eye) and more functionality exist too. So the eye is not irreducibly complex. The compound eyes, eyes without the lens, eyes without nervous systems are all counter examples to disprove the Theory of Irreducible Complexity of the Eye.
Before you ask additional questions, please do demonstrate that you do read the answers here and make some sincere effort to understand them.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Neil wrote:
“One additional question: Do scientists actually arrive at a true mathematical per centage when comparing two types of eyes?”
Never. I was using it because you did. As Ravilyn noted, do you now understand that the eye is in no way “irreducibly complex”?
Do you also realize that Behe’s hypothesis is that if something fits his ever-changing definition of IC, it could not have evolved? Do you realize that this is a hypothesis, not a fact? Do you realize that Behe is afraid to test his hypothesis?
Most importantly, do you realize that everything that Behe claimed fit his definition has been shown not to be IC, and that modern evolutionary theory predicts the evolution of IC mechanisms?
October 8th, 2007 at 9:15 am
OK Neil is gone. Once he realized eyes with fewer parts exist, they are not Irreducibly Complex. At this point, a honest scientist would admit that the theory has been proved wrong. Or at least that eye is not a good example of irreducible complexity. But I don’t expect such an open admission.
[Aside: Dawkins mentions an incident where a senior professor disavowed a position he held for decades, publicly and openly in a seminar (in the God Delusion). He got a standing ovation and lasting admiration from colleagues. Wonder if any theologian has ever disavowed a long held position and was admired for it.]
Bornagain77 painted himself into a corner. Either the God he believes in is evil, malicious and misanthropic, Or HIV just evolved. He threw in an irrelevant made up story about Einstein and ended up proving that either God was not omnipresent Or God is present in evil too.
But I expect them to just pack their bags, find another location, pitch the tents and start all over again, repeating the same old tired well debunked stories. And the search for the Last of Gullible will go on.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
JAM and Ravilyn:
(Yes, I was gone, but now I’m back. I probably will leave soon, because as interesting as this is, I do need to do other things. As a layman, I am very interested in this most controversial subject of origins. I have read many popular books on the subject and have forgotton most of what I have read. As I have read, I have wanted to ask the author questions. Would you please expand on what you just said, so that I may understand it better? This is how I understand what you just said. Is my understanding correct? There are also the unasked questions. I may have uncritically accepted something, when a question should have been prompted. So I asked myself, why don’t I join a discussion group and ask some of those questions and explore some of the conclusions I have reached? In most cases you have been tolerant of my questions and some cases not. So be it and on with the current post.)
(Another aside: I also hazily remember the story of an astronomer who had thought he had discovered a new planet. Apparently, he was already firmly scheduled to present his results before a group of his peers. In the meantime, he had discovered that the wobble he thought he had discovered in the sun he was observing was actually an artifact of perturbations in the earth’s rotation, and he had not discovered a new planet after all. When he got up and presented his contrary findings, he also was applauded.)
********
I was using the phrase “5% of an eye” because I was recalling (not very well as it turns out) the “excellent question” that Stephen Jay Gould asked himself, “What good is 5 per cent of an eye?” and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight.
Richard Dawkins responded, “An ancient animal with 5 per cent of eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision… Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series.”
(My reference for the above is “Darwin on Trial”, 2nd edition, page 34)
It is now apparent that Dawkins was talking about quality of vision, whereas I had assumed that 5% was referring to a parts count.
Now to address some of your comments.
Unless Behe has changed his views — and you imply that he has — from when he wrote Darwin’s Black Box, he does not say either of these two things:
1) If something fits the definition of IC, it could not have evolved.
2) If a small part of the human eye is missing, it loses all its function and so it could not evolve.
This is what he does say on pages 40 and 41 of DBB.
“Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously.”
And, on page 41 (leaving out references to the bombardier beetle)
“…To go back to …the human eye, the question is whether the numerous anatomical changes can be accounted for by many small mutations. The frustrating answer is that we can’t tell. …The vertebrate eye contain[s] so many molecular components (on the order of tens of thousands of different types of molecules) that listing them – and speculating on the mutations that might have produced them — is currently impossible.”
To answer your questions:
I now understand that the human eye is not irreducibly complex, or at least we can’t determine if it is.
I see that if something is IC its evolution is highly unlikely, not impossible.
I agree that IC is a hypothesis, just as positing random, undirected mechanisms as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life is a hypothesis. Neither rises to the level of “theory”, which is defined as an explanation and not a guess.
I cannot agree or disagree with a statement that says “everything” Behe claims to be IC has been shown not to be IC, since I have not seen everything so claimed. It would be interesting to see a paper that contains a list of “refuted” IC systems and Behe’s rebuttals of the arguments. I have seen a couple of such claims and Behe’s rebuttals. In some instances Behe has pointed out that the claimed IC systems are not IC.
And no, I did not know that modern evolutionary theory predicts the evolution of IC mechanisms. Was this prediction made before or after Behe wrote DBB?
Getting back to the evolution of the eye, I still have difficulties that are impeding my understanding so far.
1) I do not see that recounting a series of eye types ranging from the simple to the more complex as an explanation for the evolution of an eye apart from the organism in which a particular eye type resides is an explanation. At best, such a series suggests that such an explanation might exist. As I recall, eyes have evolved independently 40 times.
2) Has the evolution of the light sensitive spot even been explained? It seems to me that if the evolution of the light sensitive spot and its associated connection to the amoeba’s response mechanisms hasn’t been explained, and upon which the explanation of the evolution of more complex eyes depends, the evolution of more complex eyes has not really been explained either. How many molecular components must simultaneously exist before we have a functioning eye spot? What is the probability of all these components coming into existence at one time? Or is the number of components so large that even the eye spot defies analysis?
All this leads to a more fundamental question: “What really constitutes an explanation of an evolutionary sequence?”
(The follow is taken from http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm)
James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity” (National Review, 16 September 1996)
Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
(End quoted material.)
The charge has been leveled that ID proponents demand that evolutionists provide more detail than they themselves are willing to provide. Whether this is true or not still leaves us with the question, “What level of detail is required before we can say that we have demonstrated that Darwin’s theory is the best explanation for the diversity and complexity of life?” The answer to that question would make a most interesting paper for someone to write, if one like it has not already been written. A discussion of what in principle we need to know, and what in principle can we know (i.e. learn from empirical research), and what are valid inferences from what we do learn would be most illuminating.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Neil repeatedly claims theory of evolution relies on pure chance, as in, ” just as positing random, undirected mechanisms as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life is a hypothesis.” But the most important central tenet of the Theory of Evolution is Natural Selection.
You take a deck of cards, RANDOMLY pick a card from the middle. If it is a high card put it on top, if it is a low card put it at the bottom. Repeat a million times. Now your deck will be sorted with all high cards on top and low cards at the bottom. How much the randomness of the card you picked contributed to the sorting? How much your intelligent conscious decision, “high cards to the top, low cards to the bottom” contributed to the sorting?
You admit IDers demand a level of detail that they themselves are not able to provide for their theory. Then you get side tracked into “what level of detail is needed to prove Darwin’s theory?”. The answer is, it does not matter. Because it provides better detail and better explanations than ID! No matter how big the gaps are in the theory of evolution, the gaps are even bigger in ID. So even if you disprove Darwin today, it would not mean ID has won. Right from the very first post I have been harping on this point. To earn the right to question the evolution, ID has to provide a few plausible answers. Merely picking on a gap in evolution does not prove anything about ID.
BTW, are you the Neil from Australia posting in the The Herald (UK)here: http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1744834.0.intelligent_design_is_a_religious_belief_dressed_up_to_masquerade_as_a_science.php
October 9th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
First of all, even though I am not as knowledgeable as Neal
(and no, that is not an insult to myself), I will try to be
just as honest.
1. speaking of honesty, let’s start with this:
Neal said:
“The charge has been leveled that ID proponents demand that evolutionists provide more detail than they themselves are willing to provide. Whether this is true or not. . .”
Ravilyn Sanders replied:
“You admit IDers demand a level of detail that they themselves are not able to provide for their theory.”
Do you not understand the difference between “The charge has been leveled” and “You admit”?
The reason I must stick with my charge of dishonesty is that
I refuse to dishonestly, in the interests of my agenda, attack others’ intelligence as you have, dishonestly, in the
interest of your agenda.
Ravelyn, your posts are 98% rhetoric and 2% facts (or your
take on them).
If you regard the charge of dishonesty contained in this post to be itself dishonest (or anything else lacking justification) re-read the original statement and reply on which my charge is based (either in the original posts or as
copied into this one), and you will see the blatant dishonesty.
A rational, productive discussion is impossible where honesty is lacking.
Not to mention anything about the basic logical fallacy contained in examples such as, “by the way, are you the same one that. . .?”
Ravelyn, resorting to such basic dishonesty and logical fallacies focusing on things so distantly removed from the
issue does not speak well for your side of the discussion
(and yes, even if it is wishful thinking, I am still hoping that you are somewhere somehow capable of rational productive discussion minus the dishonest charges and comments containing logical fallacies).
October 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Neil
You might want to read all of Shapiro’s review of DBB, rather than the Dembski sanitized version. Here is a salient quote:
“Is this book a serious critique of orthodox evolutionary theory? Or is it a misguided attempt to bring religion back into biology? Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is yes. Darwin’s Black Box starts with the promise of taking us in useful new directions, but it ultimately disappoints the serious student of evolution by rehashing sterile disputes.”
and here is a link to the entire review.
Is quote-mining a sin?
October 10th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Dave,
I admit, I was wrong to claim Neil has admitted that “IDers demand a level detail that they themselves are not willing to provide”. You are correct in claiming that he only repeated the charge. That was a long post, I read it quickly and only remembered that he mentioned the charge and did not answer it. I took it as an admission.
Neil repeated the charge and claimed whether it is true or not, there are gaps in theory of evolution. But the gaps are even larger in ID. The charge is very valid. ID must answer the charge. It must explain everything evolution explains better than evolution. Otherwise it can not be called science.
As for my postings being mostly rhetoric, well, the postings speak for themselves. Starting with the example of human body is not able to synthesize vitamin C, all the way to explaining the roles of mutation and selection using a pack of cards, I must have posted more than a dozen times. It is all in the open, and the discerning reader will know how much is rhetoric and how much is factual.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Ravelyn,
I had a point, and yes, you have a point- my comment about
the 98% rhetoric: it’s true I have not read all of your postings, although much more than one. So I will be more
careful in that regard.
Now to another thing- I will take your word that the human body is not able to make its own vitamin C, since I have not
read up on it. The issue I want to address however is one I think you connected with that- flaws (or perceived flaws) in the design pointing to flaws (again, or perceived flaws) in the designer. And this argument leads to what- there could not have been a design/ designer transcending the natural realm? Doesn’t look like a good argument to me. Looks rather like an attack against the God of western theism, a rather different thing. I realize that often the detractors of ID like to ask questions like, “who is the designer”?, the answer to which I don’t think is actually required for a theory (or hypothesis if you prefer- a standing for ID, lower than which I will not admit unless I see more and better reasons/arguments than I have seen in the many posts I have read here). The main players for ID have said plainly (and I believe in full honesty, as the reasoning makes sense) that the precise nature of the designer cannot
be identified by scientific methods. Of course, many play the game using the genetic fallacy, playing up the presumed fact (which is false) that all these people are motivated religiously to promote their ID agenda. It makes for great stuff to rile up many who are engrossed in an ideology that includes hatred for everything that smacks of religion of any kind, and sees the political and legal process as the savior from this oppressive monster, as they perceive it.
This entire mentality is wrong, lacking rational justification. I will list just a few points to start with:
1. It is entirely legitimate to say that science cannot identify the precise nature of the designer, for much the same reason that often a crime may be identified as a crime long before the identity of the criminal has been pinpointed. In fact, unfortunate as it is many times the perpetrator is never identified. Of course, the parallel connection here is one of plan, purpose and design, not of ill intent and behavior. Of course if that is the charge I’m willing to discuss that as well.
2. There is also, behind much of the mentality I have seen in this thread, what seems to me a heavy dose of a philosophical ideology regarding science, which I do not believe can be scientifically justified. To say that science cannot answer ultimate questions is not a God-of- the-gaps approach at all (“there are still some things science has not explained, therefore let’s throw our hands in the air, admit “God did it”, and give up on the scientific method/approach”). This is an entirely false understanding of the matter. The fact is, it is only the unjustified exaltation of science (and, by the way, I do not conflate science with either modern evolutionary theory or ID regardless of whether either one is properly classed as science or not) to a sacred cow status that leads people to believe that any and every question pertaining to reality is in principle answerable by science (in their mind identified with the evolutionary paradigm).
3. Maybe you think that the idea that there may be questions (like the ultimate questions relating to purpose, ultimate origins, etc.) science cannot answer reflects lack of due respect for science and a “giving up” on science. If so, I am more than willing to discuss that issue as well.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Dave,
You say:
“It is entirely legitimate to say that science cannot identify the precise nature of the designer”
And also:
“…there could not have been a design/ designer transcending the natural realm? Doesn’t look like a good argument to me.”
I take it to mean you suggest the Designer/Design could transcend natural realm.
Well Sir,
At this point, you can’t call ID science. By very definition science seeks natural explanations to natural observations. So believe in God, Designer, ID I have no problem. Please do not insist the supernatural theories are science. Please do not demand equal time in science classes for this. Please do not impose these views on my children using my tax dollars. Please do not run stealth candidates to school boards, make decisions of breathtaking inanity and incur enormous legal costs to our school boards.
Leave politics out, we will live in peace. Is that too much to ask?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Ravilyn:
No, I am not the Neil from Australia.
I appreciate your acknowledging that you read my previous post a bit too quickly. I was beginning to wonder if I needed to hire a professional wordsmith to make sure I was using precise wording.
Then you said:
“Neil repeated the charge and claimed whether it is true or not, there are gaps in theory of evolution.”
What I actually said was, “What level of detail is required before we can say that we have demonstrated that Darwin’s theory is the best explanation for the diversity and complexity of life?”
I may be quibbling about semantics here, but I did not say there are gaps in the theory of evolution. If I grant that there are no gaps in the theory of evolution (I understand a gap to be something completely unexplained), there can still be aspects of the theory that are not fully explained. As a case in point I talked about using the series of eyes from the simple eye spot to the complex vertebrate eye as an explanation for the evolution of the eye. I didn’t think that was an adequate explanation. Grant for the moment that it is not a fully developed explanation. Does that constitute a gap? Maybe, maybe not.
Then you said:
“Then you get side tracked into ‘what level of detail is needed to prove Darwin’s theory?’
I don’t feel that I got sidetracked. In a number of my posts I have been pursuing the question of the level of detail question in one way or another. In the hopes of closing out that line of questioning, I offered that I recognized that a controversy exists regarding the level of detail in evolutionary and ID explanations. I was asking, in effect, if there was a way to solve the issue, with something other than “he said, she said” arguments, i.e., can the opposing sides of the argument get together and agree upon what constitutes a valid explanation and what level of detail is required?
And I did not use the word “prove”. I used the phrase “best explanation”. I recognize that nothing is truly proved in science. We can only know what the evidence currently tells us. Future discoveries may alter or overturn our current understandings.
I agree, with qualifications, that ID must explain everything evolution explains better than evolution does for ID to be called science.
(Your statement raises some interesting questions. What is ID before it explains “everything” better than evolution does? Have any other hypotheses started out as non-science and eventually become recognized as science after the fact?)
I put quotes around everything, because I suspect there might be many points where the evidence is or will be found out to be ambiguous.
Then there’s the word “explain”. I also have asked what constitutes a valid explanation. I don’t know the answer to these questions. That’s why I am asking them.
I commend you for allowing for the possibility that ID could become science. At least, you do not rule it out by virtue of the definition of science. The definition of science is a major part of the current controversy. Appealing to a definition of science does not help solve the problem of the extreme complexity found in biology.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
gene asked:
“Is quote-mining a sin?”
That is a question you should ask your clergyman.
As for me, I used the quotes from Shapiro and Harold as a way of showing that I am aware that there are biologists who recognize that there is a lack of detail in explanations for evolution. It is lack of detail that I have been questioning.
I feel that the quotes can stand on their own. I notice that you did not claim that the quotes were false.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Ravelyn,
When I mentioned a “design/ designer transcending the natural realm” I mistakenly include the word “design”, which I should
have left out. Now, true I think that the designer transcends
the natural realm, however the design itself bears many clues and traces, found in the natural realm, to itself and therefore the designer (I consider it a safe assumption, from
universal human experience, that where there is a design there is a designer). That is, the contention is that while the design itself is found in the natural realm, and thus subject to scientific investigation, the ultimate source of that design may not necessarily be limited to the natural realm, and if not, may not be subject to such investigation.
Now, to say that the Designer may not be subject to scientific investigation (as I believe He is not) does not logically remove design itself from the scope of science.
In fact I would agree, along with (all?) ID proponents that
all legitimate scientific investigation (which means the great majority of what we all understand as science) throughout history is research of the Design, regardless of whether or not an individual researcher explicitly acknowledges such, or for that matter personally believes the same.
Now it should be clear that I am not conceding the point that “ID is not science”. However, I will simply let you stick with that position, and yet ask you to consider the possibility that there may be a more fundamental issue.
First, one other thing: your statement, “By very definition science seeks natural explanations to natural observations” is in general true. However, what about ultimate causes? Ultimate explanations? Ultimate origins, all of which are in principle unobservable and untestable? In your understanding of science, should it be willing to remain silent and admit ignorance in areas which are properly beyond its bounds, or are there no such areas? And is science truly justified in assuming that there are no limits to its capabilities (by the way, do not read into this an opposition by myself to science pursuing knowledge and discovery to the full extent of its capability- my statements do not entail such opposition)?
Finally, I want to address the “it’s not science” charge from a slightly different perspective. As mentioned earlier, I feel no need here to challenge that contention of yours. But let me ask, is that the ultimate issue? I think it’s entirely possible (and maybe, ultimately, even more productive and informative), to simply carry on a rational discussion of the general form, “This is why I think that “X” is true”, “This is why I disagree”, etc. This is not at all to urge that science be taken completely out of the discussion. Only to say that science, which I think along with the evolutionary paradigm has been elevated to sacred cow status, has been artificially equated with the paradigm, as well as had conferred upon itself the unwarranted distinction of being ultimately the sole arbiter of all things true or false. This is one of the major points I am trying to emphasize, as I think this view of science I am addressing cannot be supported by rational argument.
I think a large part of the real issue here is, what is real knowledge? Is it only what is verifiable/falsifiable/observable/testable according to some artificially narrow idea of what “science” is? No, real knowledge is simply true, justified belief. Of course people could argue forever on what constitutes true, justified belief just as they could argue forever on the far higher level of discussion occurring in this thread (“higher level” meaning arguments/statements entailing many more basic assumptions that remain unstated). However if that remained the basic framework of the discussion, it would allow ample room for appeals to science (even though the significant disagreements as to the definition of science and the interpretation of scientific discoveries would remain), but also would allow for sound rational arguments that do not fit within anyone’s definition of “science”. I understand that many of the points offered on both sides do not fit into anyone’s definition of “science”, however simply because of that fact alone, some seem to regard them as having only infinitesimal import as compared to what are viewed as legitimate appeals to science. I don’t think that is warranted.
Consider something else, and this contains no attempt at “scientific” reasoning, though it might have potential for development as such:
What if there was a research project involving the voluntary traveling of a total stranger, from a different part of the world, who had never been there or heard or learned about it, along the highway that goes past Mt. Rushmore? Is it not a legitimate, and interesting question, whether the person would recognize “design”- that is, that the faces are not a mere natural feature of the mountain? And if the stranger does indeed recognize the faces are designed, how?
Notice that, even though the scenario just presented does not really fall into the category of what anyone would call “science” it does pose a very interesting question that could involve a worthwhile research project. Maybe most important of all with respect to a question lying close to the root of this whole discussion, it could add some useful data to the whole general category of “what is true”, and “what is not true”.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Neil wrote – “As for me, I used the quotes from Shapiro and Harold as a way of showing that I am aware that there are biologists who recognize that there is a lack of detail in explanations for evolution. It is lack of detail that I have been questioning.
I feel that the quotes can stand on their own. I notice that you did not claim that the quotes were false.”
Dembski, in the article you cited, used this quote as support for this statement – “The Darwinian mechanism, despite its widespread acclaim, is increasingly recognized as not being able to resolve the problems with whose solution it has in the past been credited.” That interpretation is demonstrably false; exactly the opposite is occurring. I did not claim that the quote was false; I too can read a book review and quote it accurately. Unlike Dembski, however, I do my best to avoid misinterpreting the quote, or twisting it to fit my preconceived notions. My clergyman, and yours, and probably even Dembski’s, would recognise this sort of deception as being contrary to one of the 10 commandments.
And why, exactly, is it a surprise that “there are biologists who recognize that there is a lack of detail in explanations for evolution”? That’s simply a straw man. These scientists, like scientists everywhere do not recognize a “lack of detail” as a fatal flaw. In almost all sciences the details are missing. Do we know everything about chemistry, or physics, or geology, or ???? When all the details are filled in, the field is essentially dead; there is no more work to do for those scientists.
Why do IDists and creationists think that science should fill in ALL the details before they will accept a broad and widely supported theory? Or, put another way, how many details have been filled in by ID or creationist notions? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to demand full and unequivocal details for evolution of the eye, while at the same time demurring when asked for ANY details about the nature of the designer, the mechanisms used by the designer, or the time that the designs were allegedly implemented?
October 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Ravilyn:
I am obvioulsy having trouble with the concept of natural selection. So far I have been presented with two analogies, both of which use intelligent agency.
Natural selection is like a filter in an electronic circuit. The filter is a passive element that shapes the input signal according to the design parameters imposed upon it by the engineer. I was asked what shapes the output, the data or the filter. Of course, the filter shapes the data. I do not know enough filter theory to know what the output of a filter presented with random noise would like. The output obviously depends upon the design of the particular filter. Does the output of natural selection depend upon the design of natural selection?
Natural selection is like a person randomly picking cards from the middle of a deck. The person has been told the rules — high card on top, low card on the bottom — much like the design imposed on the filter by the engineer. Eventually, all the cards will end up in order.
In the case of the second analogy, the deck will end up sorted 100% of the time. The only question is how many times a card must be drawn. No surprise here. A specific, predetermined result was achieved. This is what the demonstration was designed to do. This is not all that different from Dawkins’s “ME THINKS ITS LIKE A WEASEL”
demonstration. His demonstration would end up with that phrase 100% of the time. As I recall, he did conclude his demonstartion by saying, “Of course evolution doesn’t work that way”. Of course evolution doesn’t work that way unless it can save current useless variations in anticipation of their being used later when the rest of the needed variations have shown up. Will the output of natural selection arrive at the same place 100% of the time?
In my mind these analogies fail in another way as well. Both analogies depend on physical entities to do the “natural selecting”. I see no physical entity or tangible mechanism in nature doing the selecting. To me “natural selection” is merely a label applied collectively to many factors that affect the survival of offspring, such as inherited variations — good, bad, and lethal –, natural catastrophes — big and small — (a rock falls on the entire litter, and happens to kill the offspring with the advantageous variation), predation, availability of the food supply, etc.
I note also that the filter, the person selecting cards, and natural selection can do nothing until first presented with an input. In the case of natural selection, NS is selecting from a random variation is it not? It must make its decision based on the survivability of that variation. It can’t say “Hey, how about that? This is what I need to build an eye. I’ll save this until the other parts I need come along.”
If natural selection is selecting from a set of random inputs, can the result be anything but a subset of those random inputs, and therefore also random? The only restriction placed on that subset is that their memebers have features that allow them to better survive than the members of the previous generation. I guess what I am trying to say is survivability is non-random, morphology is not.
Nevertheless, I know that there are two schools of thought regarding this question. I believe it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that if you could replay the tape of life, you would get an entirely different set of plants and animals.
The other view is that due to the constraints of the laws of nature (physics and chemistry) that we would get pretty much the same kind of plants and animals we see today. (My apologies in advance. I don’t recall who said this or even if I expressed it correctly, but I hope you get the idea.)
So where does this leave us regarding natural selection?
October 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Neil
According to most definitions of intelligence (including Dembski’s), natural selection is an intelligent agent. The process of natural selection chooses the most fit phenotype (and underlying genotype) from the set available. Making a choice based on a consistent parameter is NOT random, and is thus a hallmark of intelligence. The fact that we cannot identify an agent does not disqualify this sort of explicit choice-making as intelligent.
As for whether evolution of life on this planet would give us the same result if we could rerun the tape, it seems unlikely to me. Even if selection were the only evolutionary force, it is likely that the same random mutations would not occur in the same time and place and in a population of the same size if the tape could be rerun. More importantly, natural selection is NOT the only evolutionary force. One has to also consider genetic drift, gene flow, and other mechanisms that Darwin did not envision. For example, if we re-ran the tape, would an asteroid hit Yucatan at the same point in the second iteration? That non-biological and random event certainly changed the evolutionary history of life on this planet, but we really can’t count on it happening again at exactly the same frame of the film.
If you have your copy of “The Making of the Fittest”, check out chapter 2 (The everyday math of evolution: chance, selection and time”) for some more insights on the role of selection and other evolutionary forces.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Neil,
You are almost there.
“Natural selection is like a person randomly picking cards from the middle of a deck. The person has been told the rules — high card on top, low card on the bottom — much like the design imposed on the filter by the engineer. Eventually, all the cards will end up in order.”
The purpose of the example was to show that the “design work” is done by the selection, not randomness of the cards. I keep stressing this because, you keep reverting to “random mutations can’t produce this wonderful organ” again and again. The randomness of the cards you pick has very little to do with why the deck eventually got sorted. The power is
in the selection, and how long the selection process is running. Even in trivial examples of the deck of cards you are able to immediately grasp that fact. It is the selection.
Output of random inputs need not be equally random. The
selection process can make a non-random output from random
input, as shown by the example of the card deck.
The question you have is “Can Natural Selection do it?”.
Think of the terrain and the rain. Rain falls randomly
all over the land. The lay of the land “guides” the water
flowing due to gravity and forms streams and rivers,
and collects the water in pools, lakes and the ocean.
Individual raindrops don’t know whether they will travel
10,000 miles and reach the ocean or get trapped in a
pothole in the street. You started with the random input
(rainfall patterns) and ended up with a well organized
systems of rivers, lakes, ponds and the ocean. This is a
simple example of a natural filter that takes random input
and produces a non-random output.
Survivability is like gravity, exerting a uniform force
on the generations of animals.
At this point you need to be arguing for Intelligent Selector, or some form of Intelligent Designer of Selection Process. That is precisely the direction Dr Francis Collins has gone with his “theistic evolution”. Most hardcore
IDers reject it because it leads to an impersonal deity
who wound up the universe like you wind up a clock, (are
they making wind up clocks now a days?). A deity played
very indirectly with mankind by setting up physical laws
and taking a hand off approach. At this point the postulated
deity is just another name for Nature. So Collins’ Theistic
Selection is just another name for Natural Selection. No
wonder IDers reject it. But they will quote mine Collins’
book when it suits them.
BTW you are giving too much credit and trust Dembski a little too much. He is proving to be a nitwit. Last December he made an animation of a wind up doll reading out the Dover judgment with fart noises added in the background and sent
to Dawkins as Christmas present. Now he is pelting Baylor U with nuisance lawsuits and making an ass of himself. Would
you trust him to present both sides of an argument
dispassionately? He is a lawyer, and he sees his role of
making the best case for his side and it is up to you to
dig and find the other side.
Anyway it is taking too much time, and I getting a little
busy with my projects. Going to take a little time off.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
For those who are atheists and presume to take the “evidence only, no faith (presuppositions and assumptions beyond scientific investigation) required” approach, some questions
that apply to a big part of the issue:
And you are an atheist because of the “evidence?”
You have evidence that the universe burst into existence
due to some natural phenomena?
You have evidence that its delicately tuned laws of physics are a lucky roll of the dice because we are one of infinite universes?
You have evidence that life actually arose from simple chemistry?
You have evidence that a prokaryote has changed into a eukaryote, and you know the chemical pathways?
You have evidence that consciousness, will, emotion, and morality can be produced from complex chemistry?
You have evidence that Jesus didn’t actually say what is claimed and rise from the dead?
October 13th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Dave asked:
You have evidence that the universe burst into existence
due to some natural phenomena?
—
There is more evidence consistent with that unsatisfactory explanation than there is evidence for the think-poof explanation of Genesis.
You have evidence that its delicately tuned laws of physics are a lucky roll of the dice because we are one of infinite universes?
——–
Nope. Do you have evidence beyond just the simple-minded anthropic principle (i.e., if things were different, they would be, errm, different) that there is only one universe that was think-poofed into existence 6000 years ago?
You have evidence that life actually arose from simple chemistry?
——
Yes, there is plenty of evidence consistent with that hypothesis. None of it is satisfactory yet (that’s the nature of science, BTW). But there is a lot more of that evidence than there is evidence that life was think-poofed into existence 6000 years ago.
You have evidence that a prokaryote has changed into a eukaryote, and you know the chemical pathways?
——–
There is abundant evidence that this happened, based not only on biochemical data but on DNA sequence data. Unfortunately this may never be answered in the detail that you demand. Nevertheless there is more evidence for this hypothesis than there is for the notion that prokaryotes and eukaryotes were think-poofed into separate existences 6000 years ago.
You have evidence that consciousness, will, emotion, and morality can be produced from complex chemistry?
——
There is abundant evidence that simple chemical and physical laws, along with the concept of emergent properties, can explain brain function. There is abundant evidence that all of the the things you mention (consciousness, et al.) are absolutely dependent on brain function. If you don’t think so, please remove your brain and tell me about how your consciousness, will, emotion and morality were unaffected by that simple experiment. In short, all evidence to date is consistent with the hypothesis, evidence is constantly being added in support of that hypothesis, and, once more, there is more evidence in support of that hypothesis than there is evidence in support of a “soul”, or whatever you choose to name your hypothesis.
You have evidence that Jesus didn’t actually say what is claimed and rise from the dead?
—-
Who cares? Is this relevant to science? Did Behe mention Jesus in his book?
October 13th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Gene,
I wrote:
You have evidence that the universe burst into existence
due to some natural phenomena?
You responded:
There is more evidence consistent with that unsatisfactory explanation than there is evidence for the think-poof explanation of Genesis.”
This is the straw man of your last response to me. I never mentioned any “think-poof explanation of Genesis.” The point with this question is the fact that the evidence favors the fact (and I would say, if you include both sound philosophical reasoning as well as evidence of astronomy, then overwhelmingly so) that the entire natural realm had a beginning some finite time ago.
I wrote:
You have evidence that its delicately tuned laws of physics are a lucky roll of the dice because we are one of infinite universes?
You responded:
Nope. Do you have evidence beyond just the simple-minded anthropic principle (i.e., if things were different, they would be, errm, different) that there is only one universe that was think-poofed into existence 6000 years ago?
Another straw man charge (at end of response), essentially the same in substance, repeated. I am not personally committed to any particular age for the universe. However, I want to address the substance of your comment. First of all regarding the number of universes, as I understand there is no evidence of any significance that would indicate more than one. Second, regarding the anthropic principle, from what I have read there are a large number of physical constants and parameters, many of which, if they varied by only a very small fraction of their actual value, would have resulted in a life-prohibiting universe rather than the life-permitting one which we now observe.
Consider this comment, along with the response, of the type which I believe has become quite common regarding the whole issue of astonishment based on intelligibility of the universe (substantial correspondence of physical objects to perception of the senses resulting in accessibility to scientific methods, etc.), perceived order of the natural realm, amazing complexity of living things, the fact of consciousness and real existence of intangibles like love, hate, morality, justice and many other intangible, etc. So let me get to the hypothetical comment-response (though of a general form not uncommon from my experience. The comment is the expression of astonishment regarding these things just mentioned. However, what seems to be a common response to this kind of astonishment nowadays goes something like this: “So we are able to observe and learn about a universe. So what? If we were not conscious beings then no one would be around to wonder about it.” This would be an entirely unjustified response, as it is precisely parallel to the story of the individual who one day was hiking through the hills, and all of a sudden, for some unknown reason, found himself in front of a firing squad of fifteen highly trained marksmen, some thirty feet distant. As his hands were tied and a hood pulled over his head, his mind was certainly engaged in activity, though the nature of the mental activity, other that his certainty of his own doom, is irrelevant to the story. Then he heard the shots fire, each one passing within inches of him and ricocheting off the rock outcrop behind him. After a few moments of mental numbness followed by a few moments of astonishment, he immediately brushed it off and said to himself, “oh well, big deal- if I had been hit, I wouldn’t be around to wonder about it.”
Now, if this story were true, it most certainly would require an explanation (whether it was the result of a prank , or the entire firing squad for whatever reason decided to violate the order to kill, or of some other special circumstance). I think the same goes for our universe, as it presents us with even far more to explain than the aforementioned story.
I wrote:
You have evidence that life actually arose from simple chemistry?
You responded:
Yes, there is plenty of evidence consistent with that hypothesis. None of it is satisfactory yet (that’s the nature of science, BTW). But there is a lot more of that evidence than there is evidence that life was think-poofed into existence 6000 years ago.
This time I will not respond to the “think-poofed…6000 years ago” straw man as it is a repetition I have already pointed out.
If there is evidence that is as you say consistent with the hypothesis that life arose from simple chemistry I am willing to carefully consider that evidence (just as I try to carefully consider all evidence to the extent of my ability, whether it appears to confirm or to undermine my position). Just so it is stated, or at least ultimately paraphrased at the popular level. One source that has factored into my understanding of the great overall implausibility of life coming from simple chemistry is The Mystery of Life’s Origin/ Reassessing Current Theories, Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, 1984, Lewis and Stanley.
The book covers the nature of earth’s early atmosphere (most likely including a quantity of oxygen which by itself would have rendered significant progress in the building up of life’s essential complex molecules- proteins, RNA, etc., highly unlikely), the relevance (including factors as “investigator interference”, false assumptions such as a reducing early atmosphere/ neglect of cross-reactions/ neglect of the destructive effect of ultraviolet light on organic molecules, etc. So I think at this time I have been presented with more evidence which would undermine that assertion (although in this response of yours you did not present any evidence for this point, I know you are willing to and as I say I will carefully consider it).
I do not have time right now to finish responding to the comments in the post I am addressing, but I hope I have succeeded in keeping the discussion going.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Dave
Pardon my error, but when you conclude with a statement about Jesus, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that your explanations are of the biblical variety. And since you slyly failed to address my criticism of that Jesus statement, I have to admit I think you are being a bit disingenuous about your explanations.
Nevertheless, I’ll give you some more rope. If you have other explanations for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the ancestry of prokaryotes, etc, let’s hear them.
Now to the specifics. For more recent information about abiogenesis, I recommend the reading list in the opening post here. Your book from 1984 is a bit long in the tooth, don’t you think? I’m not an expert in abiogenesis chemistry, but the folks on that thread are certainly capable of answering your questions.
Re the anthropic principle – There is at least one study which models various universes, using permutations of the various physical constants which are allegedly fine-tuned to permit us to exist. In these models there are many alternate universes which have stars and galaxies lasting billions of years, which is more than enough to generate the elements needed for chemistry and life to evolve. Sorry that I am at home without my library so I can’t give you a proper citation, but if you desire I can provide that citation later. I do know that this is cited in Lurquin and Stone’s recent (2007) book – “Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond” if you have a copy of that.
The point is that such evidence is consistent with (not proof for) the possibility of multiple universes. It is at least as powerful as the evidence for the notion that our universe is the only one, based on a simple-minded proposition that if things were different, they would be different. Talk about your tautologies…
Now let me know why you put that thing about Jesus at the end of your string of questions. Thanks
October 13th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Dave,
You are the one who mentioned Jesus in the last question. So suddenly saying “I never mentioned any “think-poof explanation of Genesis.””. You creationists mix up origin of species with origin or life with origin of universe. And fittingly we too would mix up belief in Jesus with belief in 6000 year old universe and all other myths you guys believe in.
Just because you keep calling something a straw-man, it does not make it so.
Let me take another tack Dave. Let us assume it is true that the Big Bang Theory, the primordial soup theory of origin of life and the natural selection theory of origin of species, all have the same amount of “evidence” as you have for Resurrection of Jesus, 6000 year old earth and the Noah’s tale.
Even then the scientific theories predict more, explain more, and are really more useful for mankind. Till a field
of thought that sought just natural explanations for natural
events came along, you creationists had the run of the land.
You guys explained very little. Could not understand why
there were diseases and how to cure them. Could not figure
out how to grow more food for the growing population.
Religion is a miserable failure when it comes to
these things. Even in the touchy feely moral/ethical side
it lags far behind science. You creationists keep saying
“If evolution is true, there will be no morality, no
basis for ethical behavior” again and again ad nauseum. But that logic the University Biology Departments must be dens
of vice rivaling Sodom and Gomorrah. The profs all must
be selling grades for money, sex or drugs. They would be
plagiarizing each other and be fighting one another like
gladiators in a Roman arena. But in reality, biology
profs are involved in much lower number of scandals than
clergyman. Religion is not even able to make the ALL the
priests moral and ethical. And it has the gall to come talk
down to science and people who believe science with
condescension. Dave, buddy, first clean your house. Before
you point out the mote in the eyes of science, remove the
beams from your eyes.
October 14th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Gene,
In order, as best I can according to the time available to me.
First, my statement about Jesus and the evidence for his resurrection- are you saying you regard theology/ history as out of bounds? Because if you really wanted to keep theology out, you would not repeatedly speak of what you perceive as the incompetence of the designer, as even an incompetent level of design (your framing of the issue) would not necessarily preclude the fact of design, and yet the charge certainly belongs in the category of theology.
The question of design can be discussed where design is apparent, but when one talks of motivations of the designer as both you and Ravilyn frequently have, one immediately moves into the sphere of theology.
You are wrong that it is reasonable to think my explanations are of the biblical variety. You took a single word or two and leaped to a false conclusion which is not justified on the basis of my overall comments. But then if you (or I, or anybody) are honest, we will admit that our most basic assumptions/presuppositions regarding things like theism/atheism certainly do tend to have an impact on how we view matters like materialistic evolution. So an argument certainly could be made that at its root this issue is not completely separable from theology (or, for those who prefer, atheology). You are consistently ascribing religious/ theological motivations to my views, and yet seem to cast yourself as being completely objective in this matter. Yes, I am a Christian, which does tend to inform some of my views. Are you honest enough to admit that maybe you also have some basic beliefs (whatever they are- you haven’t specified them) that influence some of your views? In reality, no one is absolutely objective. But if you fail to recognize or admit that you have some prior assumptioms that influence some of your views, you are less objective than you could be, due to lack of honesty in that regard.
“since you slyly failed to address my criticism of that Jesus statement”
No, actually I am limited in my time due to other activities. However, I am willing to stay away from theological explanations, but then you will have to reciprocate- you are right that statements about Jesus’ resurrection are religious/ theological in nature, but so are attributions of specific motivation and intent on the part of the designer (which have occupied a big chunk of your comments as well as Ravilyn’s).
“I have to admit I think you are being a bit disingenuous about your explanations”.
The comment about Jesus’ resurrection was not an explanation, simply a historically well supported event which points to a theistic world and thus changes the whole equation. But yes, you are right that it is at least partly in the realm of theology due to its implications. And so as of this moment I am more than willing to take part in a two-way treaty- no more mention of the “J” word by myself (with all its theological implications), and no more ascriptions of motive and intent of the designer, or gratuitous references (which are also false characterizations) to Creationists/Creationism, the 6000 year old earth/universe, etc., by yourself. Sounds fair to me.
Ravilyn,
6000 year old earth and Noah’s tale? Where did you get that from? You are very good at putting words in people’s mouths that don’t belong there, but it is gratuitous and dishonest.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Dave
You took an entire post and didn’t answer a single scientific question. Furthermore you put words in my mouth this time when you wrote: “Because if you really wanted to keep theology out, you would not repeatedly speak of what you perceive as the incompetence of the designer, as even an incompetent level of design (your framing of the issue) would not necessarily preclude the fact of design, and yet the charge certainly belongs in the category of theology.”
Please show me where, exactly, I alluded to the incompetence of any designer. As far as I know, all of my posts have been focused on the science as we know it, on showing how Behe botched the science, and on pointing out the pseudo-scientific misunderstandings of some of the posters (e.g. the late lamented Bornagain77).
If you can’t find those words in my comments here, I’d appreciate it immensely if you could stay focused on the science.
October 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hey, Dave
Having trouble backing up your statement that “attributions of specific motivation and intent on the part of the designer… have occupied a big chunk of (my) comments”?
Here, I’ll make it easier for you. Links to all of my comments on this thread can be found here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
Knock yourself out. I think that you will find that a big chunk of my comments consisted of efforts to get BA77 to answer simple questions, and back up his assertions with citations of peer-reviewed literature.
Oh, and if you think that my question to BA77 (repeated several times since he never answered it before he fled back to UD) about why his god would make a virus more lethal to humans is a comment about the intentions of the designer, you might want to check with the ID gurus first. Remember, the designer is not the Christian God.
I’d appreciate an apology when you finally figure out that you didn’t read or remember what I have really written here.
Thanks in advance.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Dave asked:
Ravilyn,
6000 year old earth and Noah’s tale? Where did you get that from? You are very good at putting words in people’s mouths that don’t belong there, but it is gratuitous and dishonest.
From the Bible, I guess? I told you. You (Creationists) don’t
distinguish between the origin of universe, the origin of life
and the origin of species. I don’t distinguish between
belief in resurrection of Jesus, 6000 year old universe,
and Noah’s tale.
Stop feigning this grave injustice of words being put into
your mouth. Do you NOT believe in Noah’s tale? Do you NOT
believe in 6000 year old universe? Anyway I went back and
looked at my post. All I said was even if we assume that
Creationism and theory of evolution have same amount of
evidence, Creationism is useless as a theory. I gave a few
examples for each theory. Strictly speaking I did not claim
you mentioned 6000 year old universe or Noah’s tale. Now
that you are so quick to see dishonesty, and brought up this
topic, answer it. Do you believe in Noah’s tale? Do you
believe in 6000 year old universe?
And why are so silent about my comparison of the
actual moral and ethical standards followed by the
clergymen and the biology professors?
And when you creationists are playing word games and
politics, science is doing real research into your realm,
pal. Science is finding the basis for the evolution of
altruism. It is explaining the evolution of moral behavior.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Ravilyn,
You said (beginning with my previous comment):
“6000 year old earth and Noah’s tale? Where did you get that from? You are very good at putting words in people’s mouths that don’t belong there, but it is gratuitous and dishonest.”
Your response:
From the Bible, I guess? I told you. You (Creationists) don’t
distinguish between the origin of universe, the origin of life
and the origin of species. I don’t distinguish between
belief in resurrection of Jesus, 6000 year old universe,
and Noah’s tale.
First of all, you don’t get the 6000 year old (or +/-) earth and universe from the Bible but rather from a certain literalist interpretation thereof combined with ages of people listed in the genealogies.
Second, your comments have repeatedly mentioned those two things, while my comments have not (at least apart from asking the reason for the gratuitous mention by you).
“From the Bible I guess?”
Fine. I will grant for the purpose of discussion that you got it from the Bible without any interpretive filter. So what? Another gratuitous red herring I never brought up.
“You (Creationists) don’t
distinguish between the origin of universe, the origin of life
and the origin of species”.
“Creationists” looks like another term you repeatedly use to characterize all those who disagree with the evolutionary paradigm. If you are willing to define the term “creationist”, as you are using it, for me, then I would certainly be willing to tell you whether the label fits me or not. I am not trying to hide any agenda. Yes, I do think that the worldview of scientific materialism is false and destructive, but yet for the very reason that it is false, it cannot be as well supported as the worldview involving will, personality and intelligence as ultimate cause.
Back to the term “creationist”. If on the other hand you are not willing to define your use of the term, and continue its use without regard to people’s actual views, then you are simply using it as a political football and tool for whipping up fanatical hysteria.
“Strictly speaking I did not claim
you mentioned 6000 year old universe or Noah’s tale. Now
that you are so quick to see dishonesty, and brought up this
topic, answer it. Do you believe in Noah’s tale? Do you
believe in 6000 year old universe?”
The answer to this has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, and furthermore, contrary to the picture your comments seem to paint, I have never brought them up, either with regard to my position on them, or as a basis of argument, or as a point of dispute.
“All I said was even if we assume that
Creationism and theory of evolution have same amount of
evidence, Creationism is useless as a theory.
I requested you define your much used term “creationist”, and the same goes for your use of “Creationism”. It appears you are not only using these terms very frequently, but also in a very broad brush manner. It is difficult to respond unless you are willing to be honest and define these terms.
Let’s get back to this one again:
“You (Creationists) don’t
distinguish between the origin of universe, the origin of life
and the origin of species”.
If they are not the same event, they still belong in the common category of “ultimate origins”, as we have origin of the natural realm (by the way, what came “prior” to the “natural” realm?), origin of earth (our habitat) and origin of life. If these are separated by billions of years, which in fact is an open question as far as my views are concerned, then nevertheless what is the monumental issue in relation to my comments with which the phrase “ultimate origins” was connected? I think the operative word (at least with the greater stress) in connection with my comments was “ultimate”. Of course, the “ultimate” ultimate would come down to the one origin of the universe (one universe being in my mind a far more reasonable assumption than multiple or infinite universes).
However, if I truly did conflate different origins in my comments in a manner affecting substantive issues, I am willing to be shown.
“And why are so silent about my comparison of the
actual moral and ethical standards followed by the
clergymen and the biology professors?
And when you creationists are playing word games and
politics, science is doing real research into your realm,
pal. Science is finding the basis for the evolution of
altruism. It is explaining the evolution of moral behavior.”
As for “comparison of moral and ethical standards followed by the clergymen and the biology professors”, no reasonable person would justify moral/ethical scandals on the part of clergymen, nor would a reasonable person accuse all atheist biology profs (even though certainly they are not all atheists) of such scandal. Again, however, this is almost completely irrelevant to the issue of the evolutionary paradigm, vs. design (some form of design/intent/intelligence, generally conceived, is the only logical alternative to the evolutionary paradigm).
You said, a couple of posts ago:
“Religion is a miserable failure when it comes to
these things. Even in the touchy feely moral/ethical side
it lags far behind science. You creationists keep saying
“If evolution is true, there will be no morality, no
basis for ethical behavior” again and again ad nauseum. But that logic the University Biology Departments must be dens
of vice rivaling Sodom and Gomorrah. The profs all must
be selling grades for money, sex or drugs. They would be
plagiarizing each other and be fighting one another like
gladiators in a Roman arena. But in reality, biology
profs are involved in much lower number of scandals than
clergyman. Religion is not even able to make the ALL the
priests moral and ethical. And it has the gall to come talk
down to science and people who believe science with
condescension.”
This sounds like another unreasonable and irrelevant rant against all religion, clearly looking like it contains an anti-religious agenda. You seem to view all religion as necessarily opposed to science. It reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ views, which also seem quite unreasonable and unsupported.
“And it [religion] has the gall to come talk
down to science and people who believe science with
condescension.”
Here you use “religion” as a vague generality, making it difficult to address your comments. However if you are associating this with me, first I would say I myself tend to believe science (at least what I understand to be justified findings of science that can be considered separately from either “religion” or “anti-religion”), nor do I have any condescension for those who believe science (or for that matter what they consider to be scientific fact even if there are disagreements).
“Dave, buddy, first clean your house. Before
you point out the mote in the eyes of science, remove the
beams from your eyes”.
First, thank you for your reminder to live according to my beliefs- I will take it seriously (but I don’t think you want to discuss that here- it would remove us even further from the point). Regarding the “mote” in the eyes of science, I think you have been misrepresenting my position as something like, among other things, anti-science. Just because I point out the fact science has limitations (as indeed every human discipline does) by no means entails an anti-science position. Of course it would entail such for someone who is not willing to conceive of any such limitations, but that only begs the question. Rather I think I have as high a respect (recognizing the tremendous progress, discoveries and benefits) for science as a reasonable position would allow.
“And when you creationists are playing word games and
politics, science is doing real research into your realm,
pal. Science is finding the basis for the evolution of
altruism. It is explaining the evolution of moral behavior.”
Evolution of altruism and moral behavior? That should be interesting.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hello all, interesting discussion. I just wanted to weigh in an say that I googled the J. Craig Venter Institute (referenced much earlier in this thread) and this is what I found. Apparently the scientists took a subset of existing DNA (the minimum necessary to have a functional self-replicating organism) and inserted it into a “ghost cell” that had been cleared out of DNA.
No offense, but I HARDLY consider this supportive of abiogenesis or evolution. If anything, this lends evidence to the following two premises:
1) Cells are too complex to be created by man “from scratch”. Both the DNA AND the cell membrance were borrowed from existing organisms.
2) Intelligence is required to create a brand new life form.
Here is a section of the article I read about the work that the institude is doing. Sorry I forgot to copy the link, but it is an easy find if you use google.
————————————————
How was Synthia made?Craig Venter first announced the project to build a synthetic life form in 2002.2His colleagues Clyde Hutchison and Nobel Prize winner Hamilton Smith (who arenamed as inventors on the patent) removed genes from an existing bacteriumfound in the genital tract (Mycoplasma genitalium) in order to determine thesmallest set of genes necessary for a living organism – a basic recipe for life.According to the patent application, these 381 genes are then synthesized andinserted into a “ghost cell” – a bacterial cell whose genetic material has beenremoved. The cell is then cultured in a nutrient-rich broth (known as SP4composed of yeast extract and fetal cows’ blood). It is not clear from the patentapplication whether the applicants have successfully achieved all of these steps.They have nonetheless claimed monopoly ownership of the final organism….
October 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Hey, Dave
Nice long comment you just posted.
But it has no mention of the fact that you put words in my mouth re the large chunks of my comments being devoted to discussion of the incompetence of the designer, and no apology for that false accusation.
Did you forget about that so soon?
Well, I’d love to stay here and discuss religion with you, but I don’t know enough about it. When you want to discuss science, let me know. Then you can tell me all about the scientific advances of ID, or whatever it is you believe in. You seem to be defending ID on this thread, but a lot of your comments deal only with rhetoric and/or religion.
So I’ll ask a question that is aimed at diverting us back to the science.
Do you think that Behe’s claims about HIV evolution (or lack thereof) are correct?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Dave said,
“Evolution of altruism and moral behavior? That should be interesting.”
Come on, Dave, you have not heard of Axelrod’s seminal work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
Much maligned Richard Dawkins, had a whole chapter called
“Nice Guys Finish First” in his book “The Selfish Gene”. (Second edition. Not the first edition.)
Altruism and cooperation are some of the few things that needed sky hooks (to use Daniel Dennett’s metaphors) and looked impossible to explain using simple plain evolution just a few decades ago. Now cranes are being built to explain them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea
The God of the gaps is getting squeezed into pretty tight
corners now a days.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Gene – I’m not a biologist or anything and I don’t know enough about HIV mutations to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.
I do have a question – as an evolutionist, how do you explain the emergence of the first self-replicating cell from non-living matter? Keep in mind that in order for evolution to take off, the first cell had to be SELF-REPLICATING. Without reproduction, any other type of cell that formed out of non-living matter would simply die off after awhile and all the good luck in randomly assembling a cell out of chemicals would be for nothing.
Did a bunch of chemicals just randomly come together and form a self-replicating cell?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Will
I’ll answer your question – then you have to answer mine.
You ask: “As an evolutionist, how do you explain the emergence of the first self-replicating cell from non-living matter?”
Answer: I don’t. Evolution is the process by which that first self-replicating cell diverged to give us the amazing life forms we have today, as well as all the life forms that have gone extinct. The process by which life emerged from non-living matter is called abiogenesis, and it is a topic of intense research in chemistry, geology and biological disciplines. But “as an evolutionist” I don’t need to know much about it; I’d suggest that you ask this question on the abiogenesis thread at AtBC. I’m sure that you will learn a lot there, if learning is what you are after.
In summary, there are no consensus explanations about abiogenesis; it is a knotty problem and will take a lot of hard work. There are some decent hypotheses that can be tested, and that is how science works. Science does not claim to have all the answers.
Now you get to answer my question – What testable hypotheses about abiogenesis have been derived from ID or creationism?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Gene,
Thanks for your response and the link! Abiogenesis would seem to be a fairly significant problem inasmuch that it is the house of cards that evolution is built upon. No abiogenesis, no evolution.
Would it be fair to say that you take that abiogenesis happened “on faith”? Believing that non-living compounds somehow organized themselves into a self-replicating (likely photosynthetic as well) single celled organism, which then multiplied and evolved into the incredibly complex array of lifeforms that we see today even though no good explanation exists for how this occurred is a giant leap of faith.
Your position that 1) matter came from nothing, 2) life came from non-life, 3) simnle life then evolved into incredibly more complex life, and 4) consciousness evolved from non-consciousness requires more faith than the belief that God created everything.
To answer your question I would say that a creationist would say that the origin of life was a historical event, and is therefore not conducive to a testable hypothesis. It would be like asking “what testable hypothesis about Stonehenge have been derived from a belief that intelligence made it”? One intuitively knows from looking at Stonehenge that somebody made it, instead of it being formed by chance, yet that intuition doesn’t yield any testable hypotheses (that I know of).
Thanks for your reply. You are a smart person and I enjoy reading your posts, even though I disagree with you.
Will
October 17th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Will wrote: “Abiogenesis would seem to be a fairly significant problem inasmuch that it is the house of cards that evolution is built upon. No abiogenesis, no evolution.”
Bad analogy, I fear. We KNOW that there is life on earth. The fact that there is life on earth makes evolution possible. It is simply not necessary to KNOW HOW that life originated in order to study evolution. That would be like saying we can’t study auto mechanics if we don’t know HOW a car was made. Do you honestly believe that?
You ask: “Would it be fair to say that you take that abiogenesis happened “on faith”?”
Nope. The only “faith” in this equation is the faith that we can get closer to an explanation by using the tools of science. Science isn’t stopping, but faith is allowed to stop. As noted before, we may NEVER get a satisfactory explanation; it happened a long time ago, the process left few physical traces, and we can’t do the experiment over again. As a scientist, I can accept that. I can live with uncertainty. Can you? Is it really important for you to understand every detail of abiogenesis, or every detail of the history of the evolution of the eye? Why? Do you have to know every detail about every process that you have “faith” in? If so, can you provide me with the details that you have about the four assumptions that you say I have about the world and its genesis? The point is that it is a tad hypocritical to demand of me all of those details, and sweep them away with a wave of the hand in your belief system.
As your your notion that historical events don’t lend themselves to testable hypotheses, I think that is a real science-stopper as well. Take your Stonehenge example, where you can’t imagine any testable hypotheses. I can imaging quite a few.
One testable hypothesis is that it was erected during a certain time period by humans. Testing that hypothesis requires you to ascertain evidence of human habitation of the region at that time period. Easy enough to do with standard archaeological techniques, carbon dating of charcoal from hearths, etc. You can find evidence consistent with that hypothesis. You can look at the stones and see that there is no obvious local source. So a testable hypothesis is that the stones came from some place that was a fair distance from Stonehenge. Easy enough to test, and determine that the “blue stones” came from a quarry in Wales.
If we follow your lead, we can suggest that Stonehenge was built from moon rocks by faeries who rode unicorns, and consider that hypothesis equally probable because “historical events don’t lend themselves to testable hypotheses”. Personally, I don’t want to go back to the days where spirits and faeries and demons were considered to be reasonable explanations for how the world works. If you seriously desire that, I hope that you can find a good witch doctor the next time you get seriously ill.
Enjoy your time on the abiogenesis thread!
October 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Gene,
Thanks for your latest response. You are very articulate and thought provoking. I enjoy reading your posts and think you make good points.
At the end of the day, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I see the problems of the origin of matter, the anthropic principle, abiogenesis, and consciousness as major problems that science cannot explain. The simplest and best explanation for all of these problems to me is the God theory.
I am an open minded person, however, and always willing to look at new research. I look forward to seeing what science discovers as we move into the future. Something tells me that the more we discover the more my faith in God will be affirmed.
Will
October 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Will
There are certainly lots of things that science can’t explain, and probably that will always be true. So what? Do scientists ever say that they know everything, and can explain everything. No, in fact it is exactly the opposite. Science is driven by questions; every answer leads to more questions. When the questions stop, science will stop as well. So science can’t stop just because we currently lack an explanation. If we accept your explanation, science will stop. Why bother to look for new knowledge if God did it?
I honestly don’t mind if you believe that. But I am very happy, and you should be too, that many people around the world are not satisfied with that simple explanation, and are willing to do the hard work that will keep you healthy, feed your family, diagnose and treat your diseases, and make the world a better place by continually questing for knowledge. Enjoy the fruits of science, even if you don’t understand how it works at all.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Gene,
Thanks again for responding. I disagree that a belief in God negates any need for science. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both believed in God and were among the greatest scientists who ever lived. In fact, Newton was an intensely religious individual.
One might even argue that the belief in God has inspired scientic discovery. For example, if Einstein had simply bought into the consensus view that the universe had always existed he might not have discovered that the universe, DOES, in fact, have a beginning!
It would seem to me that many people are convinced that there is NO God and will go to any length to cling to that belief. They are emotionally invested in this and anything that challenges that view is viciously attacked. Science fiction type theories of life originating from outer space and multiple universes are examples of the lengths many will go to in order to avoid having the face the concept of a divine Being that they may be accountable to.
In short, I don’t see belief in God and the advancement of science as incompatible. And I enjoy discussions about the origin of the universe and life. The vitriol and personal attacks I see coming from the atheists are highly inspiring to me as this indicates that they see intelligent design as a serious threat.
W.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Will
I didn’t say that “a belief in God negates any need for science.” That may be your interpretation of what I said, but it is incorrect.
There is a difference between “a belief in God” and the science-stopping notion that God did it, and there is no more necessity for exploring the phenomenon. Lots of scientists believe in God today, lots don’t. All of them do science just fine. Those are facts that point out one thing – a belief in God is not a relevant parameter when you are discussing science.
But if you allow that belief to blind you to reality, or to stop you from doing experiments in abiogenesis because you are convinced that God did it and there is no reason to invoke abiogenesis, then you have trouble. Facts will remain facts even if you shut your eyes to them. Science will continue to ask questions, even if the answers are disturbing to some.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Will,
I am curious about the theists’ attitude towards Einstein and Newton. Einstein very clearly and unambiguously stated that he did not believe in a personal God.
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)”
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)”
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
About Newton, you are correct in saying he believed in God,
Biblical God to be specific. He spent better part of his
life trying to prove the chronology as specified in the
Bible. In fact almost all his scientific achievements were
essentially “done” before he turned 40 and he spent some
thirty years researching the Bible.
The admiration the Church and theists have for Newton is
with a large measure of hindsight. When he was alive the
Church did not consider his religious views to be anything
great. In fact in the last 300 years no significant
religious research has been done to continue his Biblical
research. No theistic or philosophical school has been
founded based on religious principles of Newton. It is
because scientists venerate Newton, and consider him to be
of extraordinary intellect, Church points out that he was
religious and he kowtowed the line drawn by the Church.
All the theists want from scientists is to follow Newton’s
example, and be obedient to the Church.
The Church admires Newton’s obedience. Not his intellect. Science respects Newton, despite all his flaws. By flaws
I don’t mean his religiosity. He picked up quarrels with
many about priority (who invented this or that first), was especially cruel to the penniless pauper Leibnitz, the co
discoverer of Calculus. He was very petty and was quick
to take offense. But science ignores all these character
flaws and respects him. And the Church ignores what he said,
what he achieved, how he behaved in personal life and just
points out his obedience to others.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Ravilyn,
Thanks for your response. I really have no opinion of Einstein’s or Newton’s personal views on God. The only point I was trying to make is that these scientists whom everyone agrees were genius did not think it ridiculous to believe in a God (of one kind or another).
Regarding Einstein, he is also quoted as saying:
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
Again, whatever Einstein’s or Newston’s personal religious beliefs were is neither here nor there. I do not consider them to be any kind of theological authority. Just pointing out that these brilliant scientists did not consider it absurd to be believe in a God.
W.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Will,
I see your point that brilliant scientists did not think
it was absurd to believe in God. The word God meant
something to Einstein and something completely different
to most “God fearing folks”.
In practice most people who believe in God in the abstract
sense as Einstein did, are not the typical bellicose
belligerent types who run stealth candidates to school
boards, work behind the scenes to dilute science
standards and definitions and work in general to impose
their particular version of God and scriptures on to others.
Such people will provoke a strong reaction from those on
whom such views are thrust.
Science is quite neutral about the personal lives of
great scientists. I know the character flaws of Newton
and I still respect him as a scientist. Will you be as
proud of Newton’s religion, once you acknowledge his moral
failures? Despite all his belief in God, he felt no
guilt in hounding poor Leibnitz. He hand picked the
committee to investigate the priority claims of Leibnitz,
and then he himself ghost wrote the committee report
giving himself the sole credit for inventing calculus and
declared Leibnitz to be a plagiarist. And there were
hundred such incidents of meanness and vindictiveness.
Theists should really be glad scientists are not focusing
on Newton’s religious beliefs. Religion has utterly failed
to instill any sense of charity or humility or kindness in
Newton. Newton was a great scientist, probably the greatest
scientist. But, as a man he was a very highly flawed
on the ethical and moral fronts. His endorsement of
God is not something to crow about.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Will is also gone. I got the first and the last post!
October 28th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Ravilyn:
“You are almost there.” (regarding my understanding of natural selection.)
“The power is in the selection, and how long the selection process is running. Even in trivial examples of the deck of cards you are able to immediately grasp that fact. It is the selection.”
Yes, I was almost there but as luck would have it I discovered that the text of “The Blind Watchmaker” is available online at amazon.com. I was searching for a quote from a book I was reading and the search led me to Dawkins’s summary at the end of the book. The following is from that summary on pages 317 – 318.
“No matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them. However improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical improbabilities. We are allowed to do this only if there has been sufficient time to fit all the intermediates in. And also only if there is a mechanism for guiding each step in some particular direction, otherwise the sequence of steps will career off in an endless random walk.”
This is my layman’s take on the points in this section.
>It is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates.
Only if the intermediates aren’t constrained to represent biotic reality. What is the series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between a bacterium without a flagellum and a bacterium with a flagellum?
>Each smaller change is less improbable than a single larger change.
True. The question is what is the total improbability of the smaller changes when compared to the single improbability of the larger change? Without actual values we don’t know.
>We can derive anything from anything else without invoking astronomical improbabilities.
Of course we can, if we are not constrained to represent biotic reality.
>We can do all this if we allow enough time.
Of course we can, if we are not constrained to represent biotic reality.
>There must be a mechanism for guiding each step in some particular direction, or the sequence of steps will careen off in an endless random walk.
The mechanism is called intelligent design. And I doubt that the walk would be endless if there are more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones.
But I digress. As I understand it, evolution is an unguided process with each step in that process mostly independent of the step that came before and independent of the step that follows. Natural selection cannot look ahead and decide to preserve a current variation because it will eventually be needed. I say mostly independent of the step that came before because no doubt the current genome of the organism would have some effect on what mutations are lethal and what mutations are not.
Natural selection is therefore constrained to “choose” only those variations that allow the organism to survive. Some of the variations will be neutral and some of the variations will provide an advantage.
The next variation that occurs is subject to the same rule. A variation is chosen because it allows the organism to survive and not because it is a step in prescribed sequence leading to a biological innovation.
As I see it, the sequence of steps that is chosen based solely on survivability would career off in an endless random walk.
So the analogy with the deck of cards fails. To make the analogy more closely reflect what I see happening I would change it as follows.
I would need a coin to toss and a die to roll.
Randomly draw a card from the deck.
Roll the die. If 2 – 6 is rolled, throw the card away. It died!
If a 1 is rolled, the card survived. Toss the coin. If heads, put the card on top; if tails, put the card on the bottom. After all, if natural selection knows where to put the card it is making a choice based on a criterion other than survivability.
I am sure you will correct me, but this is how I see it, and I see nothing but randomness in the entire sequence.
In the introduction on page xv Dawkins said this:
“Since living complexity embodies the very antithesis of chance, if you think Darwinism is tantamount to chance you’ll find it very easy to refute Darwinism!”
October 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Neil
Two quick comments.
1) You write “Only if the intermediates aren’t constrained to represent biotic reality. What is the series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between a bacterium without a flagellum and a bacterium with a flagellum?” Those intermediates are known, and some are still extant. The proteins of the flagellum are derived from proteins used in other situations, and in particular from proteins used for a bacterial secretory system. Such systems are used by bacteria to secrete toxins; many of the components of such systems are homologous to flagellar proteins. So, to answer your rhetorical question, a bacterium without a flagellum would look like a bacterium with only a secretory system. Obviously it will never be possible to explicitly describe every step of this evolutionary pathway in the detail that you seem to be demanding, but a plausible pathway has been proposed, and people are testing its predictions. Which brings me to the second point…
2) Isn’t just a tad hypocritical to demand such a level of detail from evolutionary biology while at the same time demanding no detail and no predictive hypotheses from your chosen notion, intelligent design? Scientists are hard at work testing their predictions about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, in part to satisfy the likes of you, but mostly because it is a useful intellectual endeavor. IDists like Behe are doing nothing at all, and yet you accept their untestable “explanations” uncritically.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
gene:
My post was a critique of Dawkins’s statements. It is he who is claiming that “it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates.”
(And it is he who got me to revisit natural selection when he said, “…only if there is a mechanism for guiding each step in a some particular direction…”)
First of all I reacted to the word “conceive”. In our imaginations we can conceive of lots of things, but sooner or later if these imaginings don’t represent biotic reality, they are scientifically meaningless. I have no problem with how scientific analyses begin. “Wild thoughts” can sometimes beget fruitful ideas. I do have a problem with where they end up.
Second, I had a problem with “infinitesmally graded intermediates”. This suggests that evolutionary steps can be divided into smaller and smaller parts without limit. I chose the easy example of the bacterial flagellum to ask “Well, if that is your claim, what about this?”
Dawkins did not use any qualifying words that would suggest any reservations on his part. He flat out said, “It is always possible…” If it is always possible, then show me!
Bottom line:
I was not demanding a level of detail from evolutionary biology that I do not demand from ID. I was challenging Dawkins to live up to the claim he made.
And you implicitly agreed with the point I was trying to make when you said, “Obviously it will never be possible to explicitly describe every step of this evolutionary pathway in the detail that you seem to be demanding”.
Bottom line #2:
I realize I am forming an opinion from an extremely small sample of Dawkins’s writing, but if the above is typical of his arguments then his arguments do little to change my mind. In fact just the opposite effect is acheived. His arguments are really just superficial speculations with no concrete numbers to back them up such that they tend to confirm my skepticism of the theory of evolution.
Then there is the 2 minute interview on arn.org where Dawkins says “Natural selection… well I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.” Faith, indeed.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Neil
Dawkins’ quotes, especially those gleaned from a source like arn.org, cannot be considered to be oracular. Ditto for Behe quotes, or Dembski quotes, or anybody’s quotes. It is a curious habit of creationists to treat quotes as if they were the only item on the menu; this must come from apologetics, where quotes ARE the only item on the menu. Reacting to quotes, from either side, is almost inevitably unsatisfying.
The relevant item on the menu is the evidence. There is good evidence that the bacterial flagella arose from a secretory system. This evidence leads to testable hypotheses, which can lead to more evidence. On the ID side there is no evidence, there are just god-of-the-gaps arguments. So quotes are supreme.
I’ll stick with the evidence, and with testable predictions. I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to demand evidence and testable predictions from the other side. This is particularly true if I see a double standard on that side, where minutely detailed evidence is demanded for one explanation, and no evidence at all is demanded for the other.
What testable hypotheses derived from ID theory, leading to predictions of results which would be different than those predicted by evolutionary theory, have been proposed? I am aware of none.
But I am aware of a lot of quotes…
October 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
gene:
So when you say that I cannot consider Dawkins’s quotes oracular, are you referring only to the video interview, or do you include his summary in “The Blind Watchmaker” as well?
You change the subject and start talking about quotes and demanding detailed evidence and predictions from ID proponents.
I have yet to get your take on the substance of Dawkins’s summary, which is the subject of my recent posts. Obviously, I found his summary lacking. What can I infer from the fact that you have not commented specifically on the problems that I saw in the summary?
Without specific comments I will go away asuming that my critique of the summary is essentially correct.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Neil
The comment on “oracular” pertains to the realities of discussions with creationists, their fixation on quotes instead of data, and the fact that quotes, no matter how prestigious the person being quoted might be, are not data. I was trying to focus (again) on the data re the bacterial flagellum, which was, I think, mentioned in your comment. Sorry if that seemed as if i was trying to change the subject; as far as I understood it, the bacterial flagellum WAS the subject.
Furthermore, I did comment on the specifics of your critique of Dawkins. I pointed out that in the specifc case of the bacterial flagellum (about which we know quite a bit), your invocation of non-biological reality is inaccurate. We know what the intermediates probably looked like, because such organisms still exist. They have secretory systems but not flagella (a conclusion derived from actual data); the proteins are homologous (a conclusion derived from actual data), and indeed it is “possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them” (a hypothesis which can lead to predictions, experiments, and more actual data).
If you are talking about all biological structures that seem designed when you say “If it is always possible, then show me!”, I submit that you are asking the impossible. for many many many things in the natural world, there is simply not enough information to give an a hypothetical pathway of the detail that we have for the bacterial flagellum. And even in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there are PLENTY of unanswered questions. So I would interpret Dawkins as saying that as science continues to progress, it should be possible to explain many more things than we can currently explain.
Hope this helps.. Now please give me some details about the mechanisms, apparently not involving finely graded intermediates, that you invoke with this quote – “The mechanism is called intelligent design”. Per usual, I would appreciate explication of testable hypotheses based on this “mechanism”, with the predicted results being different than those of evolutionary theory.
thanks in advance.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
gene:
It’s becoming apparent that we are beginning to talk past each other. I’ll try to explain where I am coming from one more time.
I have always considered Dawkins to be the premiere expositor of the theory of evolution of our time. If he can’t explain it so the layman can understand it, no one can, or so I thought.
So when I came upon those paragraphs where he summarized the theory, I was frankly suprised at the specultive nature of his arguments to the extent that I wanted to discuss my critique here. To put it another way, if you were an editor reviewing that particular text, what suggestions would make to change it or improve it or would you accept it as it is?
The subject is not the bacterial flagellum; the subject is Dawkins’s claim that prompted me to use that as an example.
Once more I consider the phrase “it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between [a beginning and an end point in an evolutionary sequence]“.
“[I]t is always possible to conceive…”
One definition of conceive is “imagine”. So the above phrase is true at it stands, but it makes for a vacuous argument. What will an imagined evolutionary sequence tell us about a real evolutionary sequence? It might be a good first step, but eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence. And can we really divide any evolutionary sequence into infinitesimally graded intermediates?
According to you, I am asking the impossible. “For many many many things in the natural world, there is simply not enough information to give an a hypothetical pathway of the detail that we have for the bacterial flagellum.”
I absolutely agree with you that there is simply not enough information to give an hypothetical pathway of the detail we have for the bacterial flagellum. That is why I criticized Dawkins’s statement.
For some reason you refuse to criticize Dawkins directly. I seem to have become your proxy for Dawkins and you redirect your criticism to me instead. This may not be your intent but this is how it appears to me.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:53 am
Neil
You wrote: “For some reason you refuse to criticize Dawkins directly.”
Ok, how about this? I have no bloody idea what he is talking about in that section. But even though that seems critical to you, it is completely irrelevant to me.
Quotes, no matter how eminent the quotee, are not gospel truth, nor are they data. I honestly don’t care about quotes; I care about evidence.
And then there is this goal-post switch. You seem to be taking Dawkins to task for an overactive imagination about ALL of the biological world, and I can see that point. But then, even though you write “The subject is not the bacterial flagellum”, you return to the bacterial flagellum, about which we know a lot and don’t have to imagine much, to say “I absolutely agree with you that there is simply not enough information to give an hypothetical pathway of the detail we have for the bacterial flagellum.” That is simply wrong; I didn’t say that AFAIK, and I don’t believe it. Did you read that article on the bacterial flagellum that I linked to in a previous post? If you did, and if you paid attention to the EVIDENCE there, you hopefully can understand that Dawkins’ overstatements about all things cannot be applied to this particular thing.
Let me know when you have digested that article, and see if there are still concerns. If it still bothers you that we don’t KNOW every step in the sequence, I can’t help you, and you will never be satisfied.
But if that is the case, please apply that standard to your own explanation, whatever it is. What was the exact sequence by which the designer made the bacterial flagellum?????
October 31st, 2007 at 8:49 am
Neil
I think that this other statement also needs to be addressed.
You wrote: “One definition of conceive is “imagine”. So the above phrase is true at it stands, but it makes for a vacuous argument. What will an imagined evolutionary sequence tell us about a real evolutionary sequence? It might be a good first step, but eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence.”
Science works in this instance by hypothesizing (aka “imagining”) a possible sequence. On the basis of that hypothesis, and using known mechanisms (mutation, common descent, gene transfer) we can then proceed to test that hypothesis with actual experiments, the outcomes of which have been predicted based on those mechanisms. If the outcomes are as predicted, support is generated for the hypothetical sequence of events. If not, the results usually suggest another hypothesis, which can be similarly tested. So the “imagining” is a valid first step, AND it is not just an excuse for ignoring a “real evolutionary sequence”, as you imply. It is a pathway toward an understanding of that real evolutionary sequence.
More critically, this only works if you have mechanisms to use for the predictive stage. We know many of the mechanisms of genetics. We know how descent works. We know how lateral gene transfer works. We can use that knowledge of the mechanisms to make predictions, e.g. IF this gene mutated in organism X at time Y, the results should be visible here as gene product Z. Absent mechanism, no predictions are possible. So if, as you claimed before, “the mechanism is intelligent design” (which is, by the way, not a mechanism), how do you proceed? Any sequence is possible. None can be predicted.
So when you say “eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence”, I would agree, but I admit that I also wonder if you really are interested in that sequence, or just in debunking the current best way to get there. Because if the latter is true, it will be incumbent upon you to give us a better method for gaining that understanding, and it is quite clear that ID is not that method.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:00 pm
gene:
“You seem to be taking Dawkins to task for an overactive imagination about ALL of the biological world, and I can see that point.”
and
“You hopefully can understand that Dawkins’ overstatements about all things cannot be applied to this particular thing.”
and
“Ok, how about this? I have no bloody idea what he is talking about in that section. But even though that seems critical to you, it is completely irrelevant to me.”
It was important to me as a laymen who gets his information from books like “The Blind Watchmaker” to get a sense of whether or not a working scientist (which I assume you are) agrees with how Dawkins approached the topic of evolution in this particular instance.
I thought his arguments, or rather speculations, were way over the top. You seem to agree with that. And that’s all I wanted someone to say in this thread. I have already been admonished not to rely too much on Dembski. It seems I should heed the same advice regarding Dawkins.
I know that intelligent design is not a mechanism. I am guilty of using a quick phrase as a convenience, much like we personify natural selection when we say natural selection “chooses”.
I have gone back to re-read your previous posts and have discovered, much to my embarrassment, I have misread or completely missed some things. For example, I missed the link to the bacterial flagellum, because I didn’t recognize it as a link. For that I apologize. That means it’s time for me to take a time out. I thank you for the time you have taken to respond. These discussions are always interesting, if not always fruitful.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Neil
I’m glad to be of service.
Frankly, if I was going to recommend reading for the layperson, I’d recommend Sean Carroll over Dawkins. He is much more literate in the field that is giving the most exciting data right now, that being evo-devo. But I think I already did recommend him to you here…
As for relying on Dembski (or Dawkins, or Wells, or Carroll, or anybody), I can only repeat what I said before. Evidence, not quotes. In all cases. But that’s just me; I understand that most folks involved in this discussion are more prone to philosophizing and less prone to considering new evidence. I wish that was not the case, but I recognize that it really is.
It’s a culture war, not a discussion over the science. If we concerned ourselves only with the science, it would not be a discussion at all… So we both have to talk both languages.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Neil,
1. You are changing the goal posts. The fundamental argument of IDist like Behe was, “how COULD such a complex organ evolve?
I can’t IMAGINE how!”. Then Dawkins comes along and show how it COULD evolve. How one could IMAGINE such a evolution. Now suddenly, you don’t want how it COULD, but how it DID. You parse the sentences like a lawyer trying to somehow find a justification of “reasonable doubt”. I repeat again, even if you PROVE evolution is all hocus pocus, it still does not prove ID. There is nothing in ID. No religion, No science, No predictions.
2. I have not come across the term “biotic reality” in evo-bio books. Googled for it and found numerous hits on anti-evolution websites. This term appears to be nothing more than viability dressed up to sound more imposing for the benefit of ignorant laymen. It is not a huge hole found in Dawkins’ books. In fact, Dawkins talks about it extensively. He says that every intermediary must be a viable life form. It should be able to fight and survive and reproduce. Also the lack of foresight of Natural Selection is also extensively mentioned in all evo-bio books, including The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has more conditions for the gentle slope on the “other side” of the cliff. The surface must be monotonic, always rising, never falling or dipping.
3. Some sections of Dawkins’ books are very difficult read for non science students/people. He talks about “spaces”, an abstract mathematical term, to discuss all possible sea shell shapes, all possible musical tunes etc. Dennett talks about the Library of Mendel and a library of ALL possible books. I am not saying you are dumb. But you need to put serious effort to understand these concepts. At a minimum you should have done and remember two college level calculus
courses and a statistics and probability course. I don’t mean to brag, I scored in the top 1% in every competitive examn I took. And even I find Dawkins a tough and demanding read.
4. Coming back to the concept of “biotic reality”: There are extant species living right now that show the gradual change from one species to another, with every intermediate stage viable and reproducing. 1. Two gull species in England form a chain of gradual changes and intermediaries. 2. Two species of frogs in a lake shore in California show this gradual changes with every intermediary being a “biotic reality”. Need to hunt to find the references. If I have the patience and time to do it, I will come back and post it. You can google for them and find it yourself too if you are inclined.
5. It appears to me, you just read creationist websites debunking evolution, instead of the original authors. In all your trawling through them, why have you not yet come across any credible reason why, under ID, humans could not synthesize Vitamin C?
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Neil,
Found the Ring Species of gulls in wikipedia.
Read it and understand that every gradual intermediary
between two species could be viable, or (bioticall realized
to use your term).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Let me see if I can find the frogs quickly.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 am
OK Neil, you are in luck.
Was able find the ring species of salamanders.
It is evolution species formation in action.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
Shows how every intermediary could be a biotic reality.
Of course all these show how the eye COULD evolve now how it DID. And that might satisfy a few die-hard theists.
But these arguments stretch the credibility of ALL
theists and you will be abandoning not-so-die-hard
believers who would have liked a non-confrontational spiritual religion.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 am
Neil,
Another ring species of some song birds.
Just abstracts are available on line.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6818/full/409333a0.html
So what do you think?
Does ID do any research like these evo-bio guys do?
Look at what the Discovery Institute wants YOU to believe.
There is this ruling orthodoxy of Darwinists. They
are ruthless. They brook no dissent. There is this large
group of people who believe evolution is all bunkum but
are forced to be silent by this evil overlords. That is what
they want you to believe. And these guys who spend their
lifetime studying salamanders or warblers or gulls are
so easily silenced? They work for a pittance. The salary
for these academics are a joke compared to what they can
make in the private sector. And they play along be silent?
Even at the height of persecution during the inquisition
in the middle ages, ordinary folk stood up, and expressed
their dissent and died for their beliefs. You think these
professors and grad students keep quiet? With tenured jobs?
After seeing that Behe was not fired by Lehigh? After seeing how much money Behe is raking in by pandering to the
gallery? Come on Neil, this conspiracy theory
is a bigger joke than the Wide Right Wing Conspiracy
Hilary Clinton talked about.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
I want to expand and explain what I meant when I said,
“Shows how every intermediary could be a biotic reality.
Of course all these show how the eye COULD evolve now how it DID. And that might satisfy a few die-hard theists.
But these arguments stretch the credibility of ALL
theists and you will be abandoning not-so-die-hard
believers who would have liked a non-confrontational spiritual religion.”
By “these arguments” I mean closely parsing sentences like
a defense lawyer and coming up “gotchas” and some kind of contrived and convoluted arguments to claim the there are
still unexplained things.
Most of the die hard theists will accept these gotchas and
arguments however contrived and convoluted they are. But there
is this vast majority of people who are told “there is a
controversy, there are unexplained questions, there is some
doubt” and they take you at face value. These are not the
die-hard theists. Some of them will eventually dig in and
start examining the arguments. When they see how easily
ID falls apart and how vacuous it is, they will turn against
you. IDists are ceding and giving up on a vast majority of nominally committed Christians. The ID movement will turn
out to be a great detriment to Churches in general. See
what happened in Florida science standards public
comments. 80% of the respondents are supporting evolution.
If you are a theist and if you believe Church is needed
to provide a moral compass to the society, you must see how
damaging Behe will turn out to be for it in the long run.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
KBC1963 writes:
“Would anyone like to question this positive empirical evidence for the positively proveable ability of intelligence to create complex interactive mechanical systems.”
Would anyone like to explain the validity of employing an analogy as evidence and why creationists use analogies so often instead of real data?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Wow.
Evolution happens. Get over it.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
A psalmist, far wiser than all evolutionists put together, said thousands of years ago, “The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
I refuse to respond or comment further–it’s a waste of time and energy to dialogue with deliberate dishonesty. Over and out . . .
November 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Bob 11-6-08 might be on to something. As Paul says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
In other words, all the above arguments could be reduced to the simple fact that the powers of darkness are terrified beyond comprehension because they know that their time is short. In a last-ditch and desperate effort to undo all the good that God has done, they stir up the masses to protest anything worthy.
The gays protest the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage in California. The feminists protest all things male in general. The atheists protest Christianity and all forms of it. The macro-evolutionists protest the intelligent design proponents.
The shrill voices of hate and fear protest everything that even slightly suggests a coming end of the age, a return of Christ in power and glory, a final judgment of all the living and the dead. For the believer no fear is present in any of these events. For the one shackled to unbelief, all these events stir up terror and rage and hatred beyond control. This anger goes much further than the insanity of political correctness. These violent reactions are truly a spiritual battle between invisible forces: the powers of light against the powers of darkness.
In that sense, Bob is correct: no point exists in saying or responding to anything further. It’s a done deal, “over and out.”
August 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Reading dr. Behes book about Darwins black box Surprisingly I finally found the last piece of info I needed for my theories on investing. Reading it I realized that the VAST majority of people cannot think logically for themselfs (thus they believe in evolution). Most people follow the crowd which causes stocks and gold and housing and whatever else you can invest in to fluctuate way more than it should. Causes stocks to go way lower and way higher than they should. For the past few years I have made a bunch of money on different stocks because of this. Recently PMI which I made a 500% profit on in the past two months. Thanks Dr Behe!
November 8th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Intelligent design = magic. Behe invokes magic to solve scientific problems. That makes him a preacher, not a scientist.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Very interesting discussion indeed. ID rules.
P.S.
To Neil Johnson
Your words are one of the most sane here, and your self-restrain and decency are pretty good. I second your and Dr. Behe’s vision of the problem.
Thank all of you, gentlemen.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Hi everyone. Just wondering if we could get this interesting thread back into action. We are seeing how molecular biology is revealing the workings of the cell as more and more complicated. Pretty soon, we may see evidence of human genes foreseen in the nuclei of bacteria. That would be a shock to both camps (ID and materialist). It would mean that the end was seen from the beginning and that Aristotle was finally right about something besides logic- biology ! The organic theory of life development. It’s not so far-fetched if we can already technically clone an organism from the information of one cell. (See movie “Sleeper” by Woody Allen). So, my question to all is how did DNA evolve? I understand that the DNA of bacteria is virtually as complicated as human DNA (except numerically). Watson and Crick in ’53 never dreamed of what we are now discovering about the complexity of DNA
April 30th, 2010 at 12:09 am
I know this is a ways back in the comment thread, but:
Ravilyn said: “And fittingly we too would mix up belief in Jesus with belief in 6000 year old universe and all other myths you guys believe in.”
It has been my experience (i am in no way saying that this is normative) in such debates about evolution, creation, ID, God, no God, etc. that those who believe in God are looked down upon because they believe in silly stories laid out in the Bible, that their faith is unfounded and just a “fairy tale.” Yet, it sounds like an INCREDIBLE leap of faith is required in order to believe in evolution. To believe that there is nothing, and then all of the sudden by no outside force, there is a single-celled organism just sounds…well, anything but logical. So you say that there is a perfectly logical and scientific reason as to how that first organism came into being without help, but you just haven’t found that out yet. Well, it takes a lot more faith to believe that that thing just popped out of nowhere than to believe that it was made by an intelligent being. wouldn’t you say so? why do people who believe in the Bible have to be ridiculed as believing in myths, when it is far more ridiculous to believe in something coming from nothing?
p.s. ravilyn, you shouldn’t have to mix up the belief in the resurrection of Jesus with a 6,000 yr. old universe with the story of Noah. If a Christian is going to take any part of the Bible as true, they should take the whole text as true.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:26 am
All I am going to say is: Pascal’s Wager. Empirically prove to me that there is not a God, since a lot of this discussion is based on what we can and cannot physically sense…By the way, maybe the eye evolved…but why is it not perfect then? Doesn’t evolution imply the betterment of something? Isn’t that why people think it is beneficial in the first place? Intelligent design does not imply working towards perfection, or even improvement. Intelligent does not INHERENTLY connotate either of those things, although it COULD be characterized by them. And if that’s the case, how can we trust only what the human senses behold to be true when we know that they are fallible? A lot of the time?
April 30th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Also, how come not all creatures have reason then? the human being’s ability to reason, whether it has been used for better or for worse, is our defining quality and it has shaped the way we have always lived, and all of the diverse ideas about morality that we assume,
April 30th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Caroline
1.Pascal’s wager is a logical fallacy.
2.Evolution does not imply “betterment”, but only a (potential) adaptation to prevailing conditions. It is a tinkerer, not an “improver”, and its target is moving all the time. There is no teleonomic quality to it: it does not look ahead or plan, which is why so many adaptations that were useful at some point cease to be eventually, and, given enough time, atrophy unless they incur no fitness cost on the individual bearing them.
3.Not all creatures have reason for the same reason not all creatures have wings: the power of abstract symbolic thought and self-representation is an expensive trait. Our brains consume a large percentage of our body’s energy just to function sluggishly (if the thought processes of many people on the interwebz are any indication). As a matter of fact, it is better explained as a side-effect of evolution: perhaps an emergent property of the complexity of our brain. I’d say it is not necessary to survival (and, again, using humans as an exmaple, perhaps detrimental to it!)
Anyway, your objections are easy to deal with since they are strawmen: I recommend picking up an introductory textbook on evolutionary theory and making your way through it. YOu don’t have to agree with it, but it will prevent you from making incorrect statements and arguing against non-existent positions.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Gandalf: yes, the molecular machinery of the cell is amazing and complex, However, that in itself does not eman that it has been designed, and there are virtually no molecular biologists (I know, this sounds like an appeal to authority, but not quite: merely a mention of expert opinion) who think that it does. Despite all the huffing and the puffing, evolutionary theory is as strong as ever. Besides the fact that it is supported by oodles of evidence, there is absolutely no competing paradigm that holds any water whatsoever.
May 29th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Jorg, In my opinion you are mistaken about molecular biologists. They are not numerous of course, but nevertheless there are some of them including Behe.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Behe`s view is no more or less absurd than many other scientists views. Big Bang cosmology is hardly an example of good science, yet is the consensus view. Origin of life studies still flounder, no breakthrough in understanding looks imminent,wether or not positing ID is helpful is at least debateable.Evolution leading to some sort of intelligent becoming is demonstrated by the appearance of H.Sapiens. Science progresses when dogma is overcome,not when it rules, and distinguishing fact from dogma is not always easy or obvious.