Monday, October 20, 2014

BREAKING NEWS!!! A creationist doesn't understand evolution

Last March, I dissected the views of James Tour, a chemist who doesn't understand evolution [A chemist who doesn't understand evolution]. Apparently he didn't listen because he's at it again and still being promoted by IDiots [Detective Columbo of Chemistry: "I Don't Understand Evolution".

I don't know who wrote that post but here's the punchline ...
Tour signed Discovery's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism years ago when the National Center for Science Education asserted that only a handful of scientists doubt Darwin's theory. Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs.

However, Tour doesn't seem to have been hurt. Is that possibly because chemists are more open-minded than biologists? Or is the dirty little secret about Darwinism -- that it has more public advocates in science than private believers -- becoming more apparent?
Maybe we should consider the possibility that that a synthetic organic chemist is not an expert on biology? Naw, that would require the application of skepticism [How to use selective hyperskepticism to debate Darwinists].

You just can't make this stuff up.


251 comments :

  1. None of this "reporting" by Chappie is new. It all dates back to 2012 and before. It was recently rehashed on a Christian "news" website. Dr. Tour has been very quiet since Nick Matzke called his bluff to explain evolution and Tour chickened out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chapman's big, new lie is his claim "Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs"

    The "Some lost their jobs" part is an old lie-- they can't actually point to a single IDcreationist who really lost his job over "doubting" Darwinism. Their IDcreationists martyrs either never had a job in the first place (like Richard von Sternberg, who was a patron (not employee) with a generously provided free desk at the Smithsonian), or else lost their jobs due to their own very poor performance (like astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez) or ethical lapses, never due to "doubting" evolution.

    But the "At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them" is a new lie. SFAIK the IDcreationists have not previously claimed that the voluntarily capped their IDiot list at 800 (it's a bit past 850 last time I checked.) The true story is that they just ran out of IDcreationists who could claim some kind of science degree (note that the Dissent from Darwinism petition does not require a Ph.D., and permits philosophers like Stephen "lying about information theory" Meyer, and M.D.s like Michael "Defund Science" Egnor, and in some cases requires no professional degree at all.)

    So Chapman's lie here is a knowing, conscious, deliberate lie about matters of which he has personal knowledge. It's not a difference of opinion or "controversy" over theories, it's a lie.

    By contrast, Project Steve, which is more concretely pro-evolution and may only be signed by scientists named Steve or Stephanie (who make up ~1% of all scientists), has over 1200 signatures, and year by year grows at a rate about 5 times faster than the Dissent from Darwinism list, which translates to a 500-fold faster growth rate for evolutionist than for IDcreationists, because Steves & Stephanies make up 1/100 of the population.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er, actually, it translates to a 5-fold faster growth rate, not 500-fold, because when you go from Steves to all scientists, both the increase and the denominator that it is compared to are 100x bigger. That cancels out.

      Delete
    2. Well, no. I am talking about *absolute* numbers of evolutionists vs. creationists, so my denominator is the increase in the absolute number of creationists, with the increase in the Dissent list used as a proxy. You are thinking about *percentage* increases relative to current population, which would be relevant if e.g. I were modelling population growth as an exponential, but I'm not. I'm asking if the creationists will ever overtake evolutionists in absolute numbers and become a majority. They are far behind now, and can never draw ahead unless their gain in *absolute numbers* is much higher than ours. In fact it is 500 times smaller.

      Your question might be relevant if we know or model both populations as growing exponentially. We don't know that, but if we did, their *exponential growth factor* (gamma) would be 5 times smaller as you point out. Either way, they are far behind and cannot catch up in absolute numbers, if current trends continue.

      Leave it to a population geneticist to think in terms of percentages of current population...

      Delete
  3. Although Chapman compares James Tour to detective Columbo, the differences, of course, are that:

    1. Columbo didn't just say "I don't understand your hypothesis" over and over again. Columbo pointed out actual problems and contradictions in the alibis of his suspects. James Tour, by contrast, just keeps saying "I don't understand macroevolution" over and over.

    2. Columbo listens to the answer. By contrast, scientists offered to answer Tour's questions (or he could read TalkOrigins) but he chose not to listen to a bit of it, just stick with the dumb-guy routine.

    3. James Tour made up false stories (he lied) about "private conversations" wherein unnamed an anonymous Nobel Prize winners (says he) would admit amongst themselves that there's no evidence for evolution so they don't believe it. This is a deceptive tactic on Tour's part, but Columbo, by contrast, did not use the "private conversation" deception.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EDIT

      I saw a video with james tour the other day.. The man is a religious fanatic.. His whole family including himself reads from the bible every single day . He claims to read from it before going to work and for family bible study. It doesn't surprise me that this religious fanatic james tour desperately wants evolution to be false and spreads nonsense rumors about the theory like "no scientist knows a thing about evolution and secret pet talks behind close doors".

      He damn well knows evo contradicts the rubbish claims of special creation in the bible with the the adam/eve drivel. When will people understand that having a phd doesn't make you instantly omniscient of every science field. What irks me about this guy is that Nick offered to talk to him .. Yet all we hear is dodges. The guy literally wants evolution to be explained to him within an hour "lunch break" ( yet he wont commit to a time and date and even then shows zero respect for the entire field of evolutionary biology to think it can be explained in a single "lunch break". ) The dude is just a religious troll.

      Delete
    2. I would agree. His claim to not understand macroevolution is absurd - even the very basic "Evolution 101" website has information on the mechanisms of macroevolution. He is just selling his "authority" as a witnessing tool, and those to whom Authority is more relevant than honesty and competence gobble it up.

      Delete
  5. No Breaking News but Old Hat thrice stewed.
    Tour might not even know Chapman wrote this. Chapman quotes something called ‘Christian news’. Christian News gives a video lecture by Tour from 2012, given at something called the Veritas forum, Tour presented a conversion story, and did not mention evolution. However, the first question was about evolution (minute 49). Chapman quotes Tour’s 2012 answer to that question.
    What this shows is how much footage the DI is able to spin from filly remarks. Tour had clearly not thought about what he said. Tour is not YEC, just unthinking ID. The worst about the video is that he seems convinced serving God his way promises professional success and affluence.
    But we should absolve Tour, it’s only Chapman.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Forgot link:
    James Tour at Georgia Tech – Veritas Forum:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZrxTH-UUdI

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where did Tour "chicken out" from speaking with Matzke? As far as I know they mutually agreed to speak when time allowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Beau, that's typical Beau bullshit.

      Tour imposed an additional condition at the last moment, saying he does not want the conversation recorded.

      Now why do think he would want that Beau ?

      Delete
    2. I can't say why he doesn't want it recorded, I'm not willing to assume either.

      Delete
    3. Hey Beau, I'm disappointed in you.

      You can usually be relied upon to make some sort of shit up.

      Here's my take on it.

      Tour has already been caught out making up shit about converastions with Nobel Prize winners, so that last thing he wants is a recording of any conversation he has with Matzke.

      You should read the article at uncommondecent where vjtorely crawls so far up Tour's ass trying to make up excuses for Tour backing out of the talk the Tour is going to be able to skip his next scheduled colonoscopy.

      In fact I'm surprised he didn't meet you on his incredible journey.

      Delete
  8. Reading this blog convinced me there are two kinds of scientists: ones who admit they don't understand evolution and ones who pretend to understand it.

    Do you know any scientist who can demonstrate understanding of evolution? Can you address a series of blog posts to professor Tour in which you explain how evolution "works"? We can ask then professor Tour and professor Behe to review your understanding of evolution.

    Just a reminder that you had your chance with professor Behe and Douglas Axe

    M. Behe:"And just as those alternative chloroquine resistance pathways are imaginary, Professor Moran's "millions and millions of possible evolutionary outcomes" are imaginary. In the absence of actual evidence that a huge number of relevant unrealized biochemical features could have been built by Darwinian processes, it is illegitimate to arbitrarily multiply probabilistic resources."

    "In the absence of an a priori requirement, science is obliged to investigate whether or not such pathways exist. Right now the evidence we have in hand militates strongly against it."

    D. Axe:"So, to Moran I say, regale us with heroic stories of magically evolvable apes and magically evolvable enzymes if you must, but when you’re finished with the stories, be sure to join us in doing the science that should convince everyone one way or the other as to their plausibility."

    If evidence for random evolution is so strong as modern evolutionists claim it to be why professor Behe needed to write half a dozen articles in which he practically challenged you to present your evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I claim that there are only a small number of pathways to chloroquine reststance and each of them require several sequential mutations. That's why chloroquine resistence is rare. The mutations all occur in natural populations at frequencies consistent with random mutations and many of them appear to be neutral by all tests that have been applied.

      The fact that you don't even understand what I said disqualifies you from making any comments about who does and does not understands evolution. You have demonstrated why I feel confident referring to you as IDiots.

      Delete
    2. Reading this blog has convinced me that there is one kind of IDiot.

      Delete
    3. Are you insane, Unknown?

      "We can ask then professor Tour and professor Behe to review your understanding of evolution."

      Tour says he does not understand evolution; how can he "review" the understanding of experts in the field? It's like asking a 5-year-old who says he doesn't understand addition to "review" his teacher's lesson in addition. Ridiculous.

      "Just a reminder that you had your chance with professor Behe and Douglas Axe"

      You are attempting to misrepresent the defeat of Behe on the topic of chloroquine resistance in malaria. Do you rememberer how Behe got his ass kicked on that topic? We do, but perhaps you think you can neuralyze us and replace our actual memories with fiction.

      The only thing that Behe ever got right, regarding chloroquine resistance in malaria, was what all the scientists in the field said was obvious: more than one mutation was involved, some might be neutral. We knew it; we said it. IDiots like Luskin at the DI dishonestly tried to present that as a "testable prediction" of Intelligent Design; it was a fraudiction, since it does not logically follow from their hypothesis.

      But, at every point where Behe differed from mainstream evolutionary expectations, he was proven wrong, experimentally, theoretically and mathematically. His experimental expectations were proven experimentally wrong; his mathematical expectations were proven mathematically wrong. His figure of 10^20, which he laughably squared to get 10^40, was off by many orders of magnitude. His reply was that being off by a factor of 1000 or more was "in the ballpark."

      He asked a mathematical question. I personally provided the most detailed mathematical answer and showed his 10^20 was off by 10^5, so his squared 10^40 was off by 10^10. Behe's only response was to misrepresent my numbers, misrepresent what I had computed and how I had computed it.

      Again: Behe is only ever right when he agrees with mainstream evolutionary theory. Where we disagree, he was proven wrong.

      Delete
  9. Enough Gish gallop, Unknown. Coming back here weeks after your "problems" with evolution have been answered and asking the same things again as if they were new is not a fresh strategy for ID/creationists. Get some new material.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does anyone on this blog have accolades comparable to Tour? It seems he's doing science while you all talk about the ignorance of real scientists. If Mr Tour can be labeled a top 50 scientist and be ignorant of science that says a lot about evolution, mainly that understanding evolution isn't a prerequisite to becoming a world class scientist in certain fields.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with the argument from authority is that authorities can also be wrong. Nobody needs any accolades at all to criticize Tour. It is the merit of the argument that matters. You should probably go back to the original post Dr. Moran made last March and see how Tour describes himself.

      "understanding evolution isn't a prerequisite to becoming a world class scientist in certain fields."
      Yes, just like knowing how to rebuild a transmission isn't a prerequisite to becoming a really good florist.

      Delete
    2. Shocking news: biological evolution is not relevant to physical chemistry.

      Beau is attempting Argument From Credentials, not a smart move for an IDcreationist, as it's a loser for them.

      The Dissent From Darwinism petition doesn't require Ph.D.'s, lets philosophers and M.D.'s join, and still only got ~850 names. Prioject Steve was limited to Ph.D.'s in hard sciences named Steve or Stephanie (1/100 of the general population) and got > 1200 names, and still grows 5 times faster than the Dissent list. The Dissent list had 1, one, member of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), that was Skell, and he died some years ago; and no Nobel Prize winners ever. All eligible Nobel Prize winners named Steve have signed the Project Steve petition.

      Beau, is Argument From Credentials a valid argument; does it measure how much evidence there is for theories? Yes or no, Beau. If Argument From Credentials is valid, we win; because much more than 99% of all scientists in all fields remotely related to evolution (physical chemistry isn't) accept evolution and common descent and reject creationism. If Argument From Credentials is not valid, then why, Beau, are you attempting it?

      Yes or no, Beau.

      Delete
    3. Beau sez:

      If Mr Tour can be labeled a top 50 scientist and be ignorant of science that says a lot about evolution, mainly that understanding evolution isn't a prerequisite to becoming a world class scientist in certain fields.

      Why, yes. That is trivially true. For instance, not to presume to speak on their behalf, but it wouldn't surprise me if Larry Moran, Joe Felsenstein, or any of the other accomplished scientists who participate on this blog had no more than a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms involved in Tour's work on nanotechnology. If that were the case, what would that mean for the validity of the theories underpinning Tour's work. Anything at all?

      Delete
  11. Maybe I'm misrepresenting Tour but I'm not sure he made an argument? Is saying you don't understand something an argument? As far as credentials, you all seem perfectly fine with that approach until you're asked to present yours. I don't honestly believe accolades or degrees necessarily make one opinion trump the other, however the use of this criteria seems terribly inconsistent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Beau, provide some examples where non-IDiot posters on this blog used the argument from credentials.

      And be sure explain how the poster used their position as say top scientist at some lab as the reason for claiming that their position was the correct on.

      Delete
    2. Maybe I'm misrepresenting Tour but I'm not sure he made an argument? Is saying you don't understand something an argument?

      Well, the IDiots are certainly presenting Tour's statement as an argument. So maybe they are the ones you should be asking about misrepresentation.

      Otherwise, yes, you are correct for once: Saying one doesn't understand something is not an argument against the thing one does not understand. Which is precisely the point of Larry's post. I'm glad you agree.

      Delete
  12. Note how Beau dodged my simple yes/no question totally.

    Beau says: "I don't honestly believe accolades or degrees necessarily make one opinion trump the other, however the use of this criteria seems terribly inconsistent."

    Yes, YOUR use of Argument From Credentials seems terribly inconsistent. And James Tour's use of Argument From Credentials seems very suspect.

    Let us address James Tour's actual argument, not his credentials nor authority. James Tour never presented evidence-based arguments against evolutionary theory. We cannot refute evidence-based arguments if they were never presented in the first place.

    Tour's argument is that, in private, at an unspecified time, at an unspecified place, anonymous, unnamed Nobel Prize Winners told Tour they don't understand evolution, implying they acknowledge there's no evidence for it. The fact that he calls the unnamed persons Nobel Prize Winners is the crux of his "argument": Tour is invoking Argument From Credentials. He never used an argument based on evidence against evolution; how, then, can we respond with evidence?

    If he, and you, invoke Argument From Credentials, then so can we. The difference is that when Tour invokes Argument From Credentials, he claims private conversations with unnamed Big Shots. We just go to Project Steve and read off the real names and affiliations of real people... including all eligible, living Nobel Prize winners named Steve.

    Now I have another question for Beau to dodge.

    If you have suddenly stopped liking Argument From Credentials (gee I wonder why?), then please summarize the evidence Tour cited against modern evolutionary theory, so that we may respond with evidence. Hint: your reply will be brief.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Can somebody explain me what macro-evolution is? I still don't have a clue..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Macroevolution is usually defined as evolution beyond the species level, in contrast to microevolution, defined as evolution within a species. Unfortunately, that definition isn't as clear as one might hope. What's "beyond the species level"? If we accept the usual meaning of "species", it would refer to any evolution that proceeds through a speciation event, i.e. a splitting of one species into two or more.

      A second though vaguely similar meaning is any large amount of evolutionary change. Again, what counts as "large" is unclear.

      The most common idea currently is that macroevolution is merely the sum of microevolutionary processes. Some (including me) would claim otherwise, that there are distinct macroevolutionary processes that can't be reduced to microevolution and that must be considered in any complete theory of evolution. However, among those who favor macroevolutionary processes, there are also differences of opinion on how important those processes have been in the history of life. To paraphrase Dave Jablonski: "Species selection never built an eye or a leg."

      Delete
    2. Actually you are missing a bit here. Macroevolution is defined as changes in species content in a population of species. If you have a speciation event you get an additional species, so that's macroevolution. But migration can also introduce additional species. And extinction can remove them.

      Species selection is only controversial as a concept if one does demand a higher level of evidence than for organismal selection. To show that some trait is under organismal selection, we simply use statistical methods to check whether changes differ significantly from the null model of neutrality. If we do the same for species, we find that there are clades that have grown in diversity significantly faster than the null would predict. That however does not satisfy the criteria for some people and we get to the tougher question of why there is selection. That's often an open question, but the same applies on the organismal level. If you find a dS/dN ratio that indicates that a sequence is under selection, you are still a big distance away from understanding how the sequence affects the organisms phenotype and then how this affects the organisms fitness given a particular environment.

      It is worth noting that the second meaning - "large amount of evolutionary change" - was introduced by Creationists to make statements by paleontologists more quoteminable. You have these quotes where Gould, Raup, Stanley, etc. talk about macroevolution meaning "patterns in biodiversity through cladogenesis, extinction and migration", which in the 70s was of course hotly contested (and to some degree remains so). What would be easier than to simply redefine the term so your readers get a completely different impression of what they are saying? And after all it is a technical term that the audience is not familiar with.

      Delete
    3. Are you sure that anyone has considered migration to be macroevolution? First I've heard of that. It sounds to me more like something that could be misinterpreted as macroevolution if your geographic sampling wasn't up to snuff.

      One other problem with species selection is that some people (Vrba, for example; not me) define it as requiring the selected characters to be species-level, emergent characters, and there's some question about whether any of those actually exist. (Again, I think species selection does happen, but it's driven by ordinary, non-species level, non-emergent characters.)

      And macroevolution has been defined in several ways at various times.

      Delete
    4. Johnny Harsh,
      Nice to have you back... I've heard some stupid rumors why you were not commenting on this blog... Thanks to Darwin it had nothin to do with me....I hope...

      Welcome back...!!! :-)))

      Delete
    5. Whether migration is a macroevolutionary process depends on how the population of species is defined. If you define your population to be a clade, then it's not. If you define it (at least in part) by geography it is. There can be issues with the sampling and most studies I'm aware of don't use it, but I'm sure we can at least gain some ideas about how migration fits into the picture by looking at cases where a large number of species was introduced through tectonic processes.

      As far as the objection by Vrba goes, it is not all that clearly defined what a species-level emergent character even is. Again, it's a different standard of evidence compared to organismal selection. I don't think anybody has defined an organism level emergent character either.

      Delete
    6. Agreed, but I don't see, so far, that it makes any sense to define the population of species as a local community.

      Delete
    7. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html

      Delete
    8. Hi Topgoosz, after you have got yourself banned from that Dutch news site for your anti-social behaviour and downright nasty attitude when confronted with evidence for Evolution, you've decided to come here to promote your ID views?

      Which question can we expect next? The 747 and tornado? Your Gish gallop ways of pumping out question after question are still rather notorious on the news site forum.
      Here's a link I and many others have sent you many times already, but which you have ignored as often as it was posted.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      So... are you really interested in finding out what evolution is, or is this first question the start of your Gish gallop here? If I take a peek at your profile, I'd say... the latter.

      Greetings,
      Edje from nujij

      Delete
    9. Hi Ed... Maybe you can get me back on NUjij.. I really love it it to beat all of you efoolusionists...

      Grreetings Topgoosz...

      Or maybe we can discuss other things on my blog. I promiss i don't gonna ban you...

      http://pseudowetenschap.blogspot.nl/2014/07/jerry-coyne-proven-wrong-by-physicists.html

      Hope to see you there, and feel free to bring same other friends from NUjij such as ecrapennensis.. What a fool it is still living in the past while reel science is marchin on.. What an idiot..

      Btw... macro-evolution never happened... In fact 4 billions of years to create an eye? A brain... etc? Come on...

      Delete
    10. Okay... still nobody can explain what macro-evolution really is.. Micro-evolution? Yes... Macro? Never observed..

      Delete
    11. Topgoosz, you're a sock puppet for Quest right? Can we permit multiple anonymous sock puppets here? Will Topgoosz start agreeing with Quest to make him appear more popular? And will Witton join in?

      Topgoosz, have we not pointed out many times Quest's peculiar style of writing, with many ellipses, many spelling errors, and pretending to know people in other countries, etc.? Do you make no attempts at all to conceal or alter your distinctive Quest-style? Surely you must be smart enough to realize that if you make a sock puppet, you're supposed to change your style of writing so we don't know you're the same guy.

      Larry is very, very tolerant. If it were my decision, I'd ban you.

      Delete
    12. Topgoosz: "Grreetings Topgoosz..."

      Are you greeting yourself? Do you do other things to yourself? Have you lost count of how many you's there are? I have.

      Delete
    13. Around the time top got himself banned from that Dutch site, he was Gish galloping ENV, UD and links from other scientific... *ahem* religious sites.

      Looking at his post, he's clearly here to advertise his own anti-science blog. From the link it looks like he's just parroting and rehashing 'news' from ENV etc.
      Prior to his banning, we did advise him to send his CV to DI. Anyone who was so utterly conviced of his moral superiority (f.e. Hitler was atheïst), who displayed a complete lack of understanding of science (f.e. flagellum, eye) and who was willing to lie through his teeth for jezus ( even when he was shown Luskin was lying about chromosome 2, top kept on spamming the DI propaganda), should get a job at DI without questions asked.
      I reckon his blog is some kind of entry exam into the DI PR ranks as foreign correspondant.

      But, I don't think he's Quests sock puppet... top doesn't think for himself, but he blurts the DI party propaganda, like a faithfull disciple.
      Quests chickens sounds way too 'sciency' for top, for that matter.

      Delete
    14. I just can't believe that there are two different IDiots here who both share these characteristics:

      1. The endless use of ellispses, intended to suggest evidence, without actually presenting evidence.

      2. The habit of addressing himself, because he's using multiple sock puppets, and is so dumb he forgets which sock he's using. Above, Topgoosz writes "Grreetings Topgoosz... " Quest has done this before, having a conversation with himself, and calling another sock by the name he's using because he can't keep them all straight. Grounds for banning, if it were my blog.

      3. Badd spelyng, bahd spllingg, baD spelllngg.

      4. "I'm your buddy, I can speak your language [badly], and I know your pal in [European country X]. I know all aboutcha, buddy."

      5. Ending comments with Argument from Incredulity: "macro-evolution never happened... In fact 4 billions of years to create an eye? A brain... etc? Come on..."

      There are TWO guys like that? I don't buy it. It's Quest. If it's not Quest, I'd swear it was an atheist trying to mock creationists by making them look stupid.

      Delete
    15. Hey Quest, how did you know John Witton was in jail, as you said he was?

      (For you who do not frequent this blog: it's a question I've asked Quest a thousand times. "Witton" was possibly another sock for Quest.)

      Delete
    16. Dinogenes,

      If this information will make all of your "scientific believes" come true... I'm more than happy to provide you with the accurate and testable information...
      I however would expect the same from you as well... Don't you think it is a reasonable request....?

      Delete
    17. Hey, it isn't even a coherent request.

      Delete
    18. Quest, if I hurt your feelings with a bit too much name-calling, I apologize. Eh, if you want to have a bunch of socks, whatever.

      Delete
    19. Dinogenes,

      Since when do you care about other people's feelings... especially ID proponents...? Don't you know that caring about someone else's feelings in the run for the survival of the fittest is a sign of weakness....?

      Don't tell me that you are paddling back from your unfounded accusations because you worry I'm going to continue to demand proof for your shifty science....?
      It is a bit obvious and laughable at the same time...

      To be fair; and I have tried to be as fair as possible to my opponents when deserved, I can't help but to admire the passion you have for your beliefs... even though I disagree with you a lot...
      For some inexplicable reason you remind me of Saul of Tarsus.... I know that you know this biblical character... and you are smart enough to put together the resemblance....

      Delete
    20. Dino G,

      I thought that you said that I was Witton's sock puppet...? Now it is the other way around...? I'm sure Witton will be perplexed as I'm about the change.... What's the reason for the change...?

      Delete
    21. Dino G wrote:

      DiogenesWednesday, October 29, 2014 12:34:00 PM

      "I just can't believe that there are two different IDiots here who both share these characteristics:"

      I have seen all evolutionists who share the same characteristics... Do you know what they are...?

      "1. The endless use of ellispses, intended to suggest evidence, without actually presenting evidence."

      Is this the best you got...? I guess you haven't been texting much... that is the new thing when you are taking a deep breath or just taking it easy... as I do...


      "2. The habit of addressing himself, because he's using multiple sock puppets, and is so dumb he forgets which sock he's using. Above, Topgoosz writes "Grreetings Topgoosz... " Quest has done this before, having a conversation with himself, and calling another sock by the name he's using because he can't keep them all straight. Grounds for banning, if it were my blog."

      I pretty sure it is a lie... Prove it and I will take it back....

      "3. Badd spelyng, bahd spllingg, baD spelllngg."

      I had been a bad speller and still am... however, ever since I got my new phone and the tablet, it got much, much better at is in the sense that my e-devices don't change into something else what I want to type... I used try to type "Dinogenes" by my phone would change into Diogenes....

      "4. "I'm your buddy, I can speak your language [badly], and I know your pal in [European country X]. I know all aboutcha, buddy."

      You don't get it because you are probably a 13th generation American, white-ass resist, who only sees his own point of view... My wife and I and our families have immigrated to North America within less than 100 years.... so we have a lot of family who are left behind all over the world... Eastern Europe, Western, Europe, Israel, and so on... We keep in touch with our families even if we hardly speak their languages....

      5. Ending comments with Argument from Incredulity: "macro-evolution never happened... In fact 4 billions of years to create an eye? A brain... etc? Come on..."

      I've always doubted Macroevolution as have half of this planet or more...
      I may have written something like the above but with some substance usually or all of you would not bother to answer me... Since you do, you are either bored to death with your life or something bothers you about my posts...

      "There are TWO guys like that? I don't buy it. It's Quest. If it's not Quest, I'd swear it was an atheist trying to mock creationists by making them look stupid."

      May be you are not as perceptive as you appear to be after all....? lol

      Delete
  14. Well, I can see one good reason and that is that species fitness should be dependent on the environment and there are geographic differences there. We might expect a trait to be under positive species selection in some region and under negative species selection in another.
    Another reason to consider is that invasive species are one of the prime causes of extinction in the present. While the rate of invasion was lower for most of earths history, there were some events that would have increased this - either opening of marine connections or continent collisions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All that says is that you must consider communities as factors in macroevolution, but it doesn't follow that communities are units of macroevolution. Communities are not evolutionary units, but clades are. Is local extinction a macroevolutionary event? I don't think so.

      Delete
    2. Depends on how local. If you are looking at small areas then I don't think it's useful But if you were to look at - say - Slugs in Australia, I don't think there is a big issue. Sure, you might have cases where a species exists both in Australia and NZ, goes extinct in Australia and is later reintroduced. But that's really not that different from a single organism migrating away from a local population and later migrating back. On the other hand you gain the opportunity to do comparative studies. I do agree that it's relatively pointless to look at more local communities, where migration would swamp out all other factors.

      Delete
  15. Professor Behe has shown very politely why you call us idiots, because you don't have arguments.

    Professor Tour is a top scientist (one a kind many evolutionists long lost hope to become). After reading a dozen books on the subject he says doesn't understand evolution don't you think the problem is with the theory and not with his understanding? Professor Tour is just being polite saying he doesn't understand evolution.


    M. Behe:"In the absence of an a priori requirement, science is obliged to investigate whether or not such pathways exist. Right now the evidence we have in hand militates strongly against it."


    D. Axe:"So, to Moran I say, regale us with heroic stories of magically evolvable apes and magically evolvable enzymes if you must, but when you’re finished with the stories, be sure to join us in doing the science that should convince everyone one way or the other as to their plausibility."

    Things are very simple
    1. is there any evidence for your imaginary pathways?

    2. can you do the science that should convince everyone to plausibility of evolvable apes and enzymes?

    I predict the answer is either name calling , story or excuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What on earth is one supposed to make of the fact that a highly respected scientist has read 'a dozen books' on evolution and doesn't understand it, and yet I for one do - and did, in basic terms, when I was about 11?

      Delete
    2. That people abuse the term 'respect'?

      Delete
    3. "he says doesn't understand evolution"

      For crying out loud - what's to understand? Reproductively isolated populations diverge genetically. It really is as simple as that.

      Delete
    4. Evolvable apes, eh? Why did you choose apes, instead of aardvarks? It's the 'man evolved from an ape-like ancestor' thing, isn't it? And you, Unknown, didn't evolve from a brutish, filthy, knuckle-dragging, nose-picking, poo-flinging ape, right? You're exceptional and 'specially created in God's image', and apes are just icky 'lower life forms', right?

      Would you complain about evolutionary theory if it were claimed by its contributors and supporters that evolution only applies to so-called 'lower life forms' and that 'man' was/is specially created in God's image'?

      Delete
    5. Tour doesn't understand how a process of phyletic change, reproductive isolation and extinction can produce modern diversity, but he presumably does understand how such diversity arose through repeated divine intervention.

      Delete
  16. Chris B:"The problem with the argument from authority is that authorities can also be wrong."

    of course . can you show us a scientist that can demonstrate he understands evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "of course . can you show us a scientist that can demonstrate he understands evolution?"

      Why, because you can present a scientist that doesn't understand evolution?

      In any case, your request is a non sequitor from my comment. Are you thinking about what you post when you post it?

      Delete
    2. BTW, Unknown, the claims of Behe and Axe have already been refuted. As I said before, you don't get to come back and pretend you are presenting their "criticisms" as if they were new.

      Diogenes spent time and effort in this same thread reminding you how Behe was just wrong, though he schooled you already some weeks back.

      If you disagree with these refutations, address them specifically and show how they are wrong. That is how a discussion works. It doesn't work like this:

      Behe/Axe/Unknown: 2 + 2 = 5

      Rational people: Actually, 2 + 2 = 4

      Behe/Axe/Unknown: Nuh-uh

      ...a few weeks goes by.....

      Behe/Axe/Unknown: 2 + 2 + 5

      Delete
    3. Unknown, you are pretending that Axe and Behe were never refuted in the posts and comments on this blog, when in fact they were humiliated here. Why do you lie and pretend we did not answer these questions?

      Do you think you can wipe our memories of what happened? Or are you just performing a jester-dance to buck up the waning confidence of your coreligionists?

      If you did not understand our refutation of Behe and Axe, then you really cannot judge whether our refutation exposed them as incompetents or charlatans.

      Prove that you have any knowledge of the refutations presented here. Briefly summarize Larry's calculation of the number of malaria parasites needed to evolve chloroquine resistance, then summarize my calculation and numerical results. How wrong, exactly, was Behe's claim of 10^20? It's wrong by 10 to the what power?

      Either you understand our MATH or you do not. Prove you understood the MATH. You dishonestly attempt to give your coreligionists the false impression that we never crushed and exposed Behe's blunders.

      Unknown, what is the population of malaria parasites that is in the mosquito and is transmitted when infecting the patient? This determines the limit on the number of mutations in existence at that time. What was Behe's number for the number of parasites per patient? How wrong was Be he's number? Numerically. In orders of magnitude, 10 to the what?

      Delete
    4. Re Uknown

      Behe was totally discredited under cross examination during his testimony in the Dover Trial.

      Delete
    5. Then again he did get to take home the "I saw Intelligent Design get royally reamed and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" shirt.

      Delete
  17. Uhh. I didn't predict obfuscation.

    The questions were addressed to evolutionary professor Larry Moran. But if anybody wants to answer them please. Do you remember the questions?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really, really want answers? You're not Just Asking?

      "1. Can you provide evidence for your imaginary pathways"

      Something of a loaded question! Which pathways?

      "2. can you do the science that should convince everyone to plausibility of evolvable apes and enzymes?"

      There is no science that would convince the determined denialist. None. It would be a waste of time trying. Humans and other apes are commonly descended, as are many, many enzymes, according to the evidence available. You could find it if you looked. Why do you want spoon feeding in a blog comments section?

      There you go - a non-answer! This is where you attempt to make some capital out of the vagueness of some random evolutionist in response to some decidely vague questions. Good game.

      Delete
    2. Unknown didn't answer any of my questions, because he couldn't.

      As for evolvable apes, we have the intermediate fossils. Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, etc. Your DNA is 98.7% identical to a chimp's, and your chromosome 2 is a fusion of ape chromosomes 2a and 2b, so eat it.

      As for evolvable enzymes, we've observed enzymes evolve FCOL. Do I have to list them all again and again? Jesus tapdancing Christ. I'll list three: beta lactamase, nylonase, and the PCP degradation pathway. The last one is in irreducibly complex system that recently evolved to degrade man-made pollution that didn't exist before.

      The very fact that you would bring up "evolvable enzymes" like it hasn't been observed, is pathetic. Where the frack did you learn your science? Answers in motherhuffing Genesis?

      Now I'm going to repost my questions because Unknown did not answer them.

      "Prove that you have any knowledge of the refutations presented here. Briefly summarize Larry's calculation of the number of malaria parasites needed to evolve chloroquine resistance, then summarize my calculation and numerical results. How wrong, exactly, was Behe's claim of 10^20? It's wrong by 10 to the what power?

      Either you understand our MATH or you do not. Prove you understood the MATH. You dishonestly attempt to give your coreligionists the false impression that we never crushed and exposed Behe's blunders.

      Unknown, what is the population of malaria parasites that is in the mosquito and is transmitted when infecting the patient? This determines the limit on the number of mutations in existence at that time. What was Behe's number for the number of parasites per patient? How wrong was Be he's number? Numerically. In orders of magnitude, 10 to the what?"

      Delete
    3. If he wants a direct reference, he can take a look at this:
      Reconstruction of Ancestral Metabolic Enzymes Reveals Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Evolutionary Innovation through Gene Duplication

      "Abstract

      Gene duplications are believed to facilitate evolutionary innovation. However, the mechanisms shaping the fate of duplicated genes remain heavily debated because the molecular processes and evolutionary forces involved are difficult to reconstruct. Here, we study a large family of fungal glucosidase genes that underwent several duplication events. We reconstruct all key ancestral enzymes and show that the very first preduplication enzyme was primarily active on maltose-like substrates, with trace activity for isomaltose-like sugars. Structural analysis and activity measurements on resurrected and present-day enzymes suggest that both activities cannot be fully optimized in a single enzyme. However, gene duplications repeatedly spawned daughter genes in which mutations optimized either isomaltase or maltase activity. Interestingly, similar shifts in enzyme activity were reached multiple times via different evolutionary routes. Together, our results provide a detailed picture of the molecular mechanisms that drove divergence of these duplicated enzymes and show that whereas the classic models of dosage, sub-, and neofunctionalization are helpful to conceptualize the implications of gene duplication, the three mechanisms co-occur and intertwine."

      Delete
    4. Here's one on how promiscous transcription factors eventually manage to expand entire regulatory networks:
      Duplication of a promiscuous transcription factor drives the emergence of a new regulatory network.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25204769

      3 minutes on pubmed will give Unknown what he apparently thinks doesn't exist.

      Delete
    5. Great references guys. To this I add the PCP degradation pathway. Note that the middle enzyme in the pathway evolved a new function recently, and if you remove it, there's no PCP degradation. So the system is irreducibly complex by Behe's definition.

      Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach. Copley SD. Trends Biochem Sci. 2000 Jun;25(6):261-5. Abstract: The pathway for degradation of the xenobiotic pesticide pentachlorophenol (PCP) in Sphingomonas chlorophenolica probably evolved in the past few decades by the recruitment of enzymes from two other catabolic pathways. The first and third enzymes in the pathway, pentachlorophenol hydroxylase and 2,6-dichlorohydroquinone dioxygenase, may have originated from enzymes in a pathway for degradation of a naturally occurring chlorinated phenol. The second enzyme, a reductive (TCHQ) dehalogenase, may have evolved from a maleylacetoacetate isomerase normally involved in degradation of tyrosine. This apparently recently assembled pathway does not function very well: pentachlorophenol hydroxylase is quite slow, and tetrachlorohydroquinone (TCHQ) dehalogenase is subject to severe substrate inhibition.

      Also see: Anandarajah K, et al. Recruitment of a double bond isomerase to serve as a reductive dehalogenase during biodegradation of pentachlorophenol. Biochemistry. 2000 May 9;39(18):5303-11.

      Delete
    6. Meh. It's still S chlorophenolica. It's only evolution when someone decides to change the name!

      Delete
    7. No, because then it'd still be "just a bacterium". Suppose it changes KINGDOM in a single experiment, they'd respond "Yeah, but it's still just a cell". Suppose it becomes an entirely new form of living entity, they'd respond "yeah, but it's still just an organism".

      Checkmate, evilusjonists!

      Delete
  18. Hey Unknown and Beau Stoddard,

    "Does anyone on this blog have accolades comparable to Tour's? It seems he is doing science while the rest of you talk about the ignorance of real scientists."

    Nature just released a list of the top 100 most cited papers. #41 is Joe Felsenstein.

    http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224

    Congratulations, Joe.

    Do Beau and Unknown have accolades comparable to Joe's? Or do you just complain about the ignorance of real scientists?

    Would you like to invoke the Argument from Credentials some more? You were so fond of it before. What happened to Argument from Credentials? Not so fond of it anymore? Why would that be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soon to be No. 40, as Joe's paper is still climbing rapidly, and No. 40 has long passed its peak.

      Anyway, congratulations, Joe.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Athel and Diogenes, though it mostly means that an awfully large number of people are out there inferring phylogenies. And in case anyone wants to know whether Athel Cornish-Bowden knows what he is talking about when it comes to science, here is the web site for his research.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Joe.

      Your paper at No. 41 is actually a very interesting and not very typical example of a highly cited paper. Like most it is a methods paper: as I'm sure that you know, but probably the IDiots who frequent this site do not, most very highly cited papers are methods papers, and in most cases they just show that someone or other stumbled on a method that became very useful and popular. They don't necessarily represent a serious intellectual achievement, and I'm sure that Oliver Lowry thought he had done more important things than devise the method of protein estimation that carries his name. Your paper is not a typical highly-cited methods paper, however, as it doesn’t just describe something you stumbled on (at least, I’d be very surprised if you say that you did) but is the fruit of some serious thought about a major problem: how do we know how much confidence to place in a reconstructed phylogeny? In the early days of sequence-based phylogenies I was quite struck by how little thought went into the statistical aspects of what was being done. Someone who in experimental work wouldn’t dream of attaching significnce to a difference of one count between two radioactive samples would nonetheless attach significance between trivial differences in distances between sequences.

      All of this should interest the IDiots who come here, because they claim to be very interested in epistemological questions: how do we know that we know the things we claim to know. So I’m looking forward to read a penetrating analysis of your paper by Dr Byers or Dr Quest. Maybe they can identify some shortcomings that have escaped notice until now.

      Delete
    4. Something I intended to say in my follow-up to Joe's kind remarks is that while I hope I know what I'm talking about when it comes to questions of general biochemistry and in particular the behaviour of enzymes, my knowledge of molecular evolution is at a lower level. It's a topic I've been very interested in since I knew Alan Wilson and heard a lecture from Walter Fitch in the 1960s, but despite a certain amount of work it's never been the centre of my research, and wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that I get some things wrong.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Athel. Flattery will get you everywhere. I haven't noticed anything wrong in what you have said.

      In turn, I'd say that your specialty, the mathematical treatment (and empirical testing) of enzyme kinetics, is of steadily increasing interest as we know more and more about how gene interaction networks function.

      Delete
  19. Diogenes

    Did you miss this in your flurry?

    Maybe I'm misrepresenting Tour but I'm not sure he made an argument? Is saying you don't understand something an argument? As far as credentials, you all seem perfectly fine with that approach until you're asked to present yours. I don't honestly believe accolades or degrees necessarily make one opinion trump the other, however the use of this criteria seems terribly inconsistent

    I have no credentials in the sciences whatsoever, I'm simply fascinated by your obsession with ID proponents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beau, you seem to have missed this request from steve oberski, just below the post you quote above:

      Hey Beau, provide some examples where non-IDiot posters on this blog used the argument from credentials.

      And be sure explain how the poster used their position as say top scientist at some lab as the reason for claiming that their position was the correct on.

      Delete
    2. As a non-ID proponent I'm fascinated with ID proponent's fascination with religion, which ID is of course not about, at all, never-ever, nyah-nyah!

      Delete
    3. Great Beau, I'm glad you were honest about your lack of credentials. I have always greatly preferred arguing from evidence, as I've demonstrated in many, many arguments about anti-evolutionists. However, James Tour never presented an evidence-based argument against evolution, he presented a common type of "evidence substitute" often used by anti-evolutionists, the "private conversation" claim, in Tour's case that he had a private conversation with unnamed "Nobel Prize winners" at unspecified times and places and they didn't believe in evolution. That's an evidence substitute, so no evidence works against it.

      I've been consistent in preferring argument from evidence over argument from credentials. No anti-evolutionist on this forum has been so consistent.

      We've seen the "private conversation" evidence substitute many times before. For example, David Berlinski, the philosopher who works for the Discovery Institute, said in the internet video The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski that the founder of the theory of self-replicating automata, von Neumann, privately laughed at the theory of evolution.

      Berlinski of the DI: "von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century, just laughed at Darwinian theory. He hooted at it."

      As this was the "private conversation" evidence substitute, no evidence would work against it. However, at Panda's Thumb Berlinski's story was shown to be highly implausible based on the fact that von Neumann's published works assumed evolution worked to increase complexity once automata can self-replicate.

      When Berlinski was asked to corroborate his "private conversation" evidence substitute, here was his answer. Note the italics in the original, made into boldface here:

      Berlinski: "How do I know? Here's how:

      I have been close to a number of mathematicians, and friends with others: Daniel Gallin (who died before he could begin his career), M.P. Schutzenberger (my great friend), René Thom (a friend as well), Gian-Carlo Rota (another friend), Lipman Bers (who taught me complex analysis and with whom I briefly shared a hospital room, he leaving as I was coming), Paul Halmos (a colleagues in California), and Irving Segal (a friend by correspondence, embattled and distraught). Some of these men I admired very much, and all of them I liked.

      I had many other friends in the international mathematical community. We exchanged views; I got around."


      Note that Berlinski, like James Tour, is invoking his allegedly famous "friends" with their great credentials, so Berlinski is, like Tour, invoking argument from credentials. Most of them are dead, so we can't check their version of the story. In Tour's case, the "Nobel Prize winners" were never named.

      Another "private conversation" story began with the creationist Harold Rimmer, who in the 1920's made up whole cloth an imaginary conversation between an unnamed "atheist professor" and a Christian. The unnamed "atheist professor", an astronomer, has been computing ancient dates astronomically, and he finds he's missing a day. The Christian tells him, oh, that's in the Bible, God made the sun stand still during Joshua's long day. The "atheist professor" checks his math, he knows it's evidence that the Bible is true, but, he says in a "private conversation", he can't believe it because atheism is his faith.

      The whole story was Rimmer's invention, but in the 1960's yet another creationist, Harold Hill, took up Rimmer's fake story and added more fakery: now the "atheist professor" were atheists at NASA using what were then cutting-edge computers to compute ancient dates. The whole NASA/computer version became a popular urban legend.

      Delete
    4. Beau: "I don't honestly believe accolades or degrees necessarily make one opinion trump the other, however the use of this criteria seems terribly inconsistent."

      I've been consistent in asking for evidence. I'd agree with you if you had said that the way anti-evolutionists use the Argument from Credentials is totally inconsistent. The anti-evolutionists tout every one of the few Ph.D.'s they've got; but many of their Ph.D.'s are fake, from a diploma mill, or in unrelated topics like engineering (Henry Morris' was in civil engineering), computer science, philosophy (like Berlinski and Stephen Meyer, etc.) They flaunt their credentials, not their evidence, until we whip out the Project Steve petition and prove mathematically that 99% of the Ph.D.'s in hard sciences believe in evolution. Then they stop invoking argument from credentials. Very inconsistent.

      Delete
    5. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen wrote:

      "As a non-ID proponent I'm fascinated with ID proponent's fascination with religion, which ID is of course not about, at all, never-ever, nyah-nyah!"

      I will give you an example just toget the idea:

      Some evolutionists are fascinated with abiogenesis but most of them are not... Do you know why...? Because if it is ever proven that abiogenesis requires an ID power outside of materialism, they can kiss their theory goodbye... unless... they are what you are not....

      Delete
    6. Quest :
      "Because if it is ever proven that abiogenesis requires an ID power outside of materialism, they can kiss their theory goodbye... "

      No.
      Abiogenesis and the origin of life says nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory. If any ID/creationist one day produced a single mote of evidence to support their claims, it would be a first. But even if they presented evidence that some "intelligence" initiated life on Earth, it would in no way invalidate the evidence and empirical data supporting evolutionary theory. Do you get the idea? We have been over this issue many times, but you still bring it up as if it were new. Why?

      Delete
    7. Because if it is ever proven that abiogenesis requires an ID power outside of materialism

      Odd, many people seem to argue as if this has already been proved.

      How exactly would you prove this?

      Delete
    8. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmissen wrote about an apocryphal story of a Christian counfounding an atheist: The unnamed "atheist professor", an astronomer, has been computing ancient dates astronomically, and he finds he's missing a day.

      Actually there is a missing time period. At the end of the year 1 BC, the year 1 AD started immediately. There was no year 0 (which would have been BC, I guess). This apparently had something to do with Jesus, and so it proves that skeptics of Christianity must be wrong. And it's hard to get around -- a whole year is missing.

      Delete
    9. Typo: Rasmussen

      Also there is a corresponding biological analogy, which makes for a mystical connection. In coding sequences, bases are number 1, 2, 3, ... starting from the first base of the first codon. The sequence upstream of that is conventionally given negative numbers, -100, -99, ... , -3, -2, -1. The last upstream base is -1, and next to it is base 1. There is no base 0. This drives computer programmers in bioinformatics slightly crazy.

      That means that there is one base missing per protein coding sequence, so a total of about 20Kb of missing sequence. Taken together with the missing year, this connects genes to Jesus.

      This is all quite spooky and thus appropriate for the day.

      Delete
    10. @Joe

      It's even whose than you imagine. The same mysterious missing bases are at the transcription star site (+1). That applies to every gene so that's >25Kb of missing DNA!

      Some people think that this is part of the "dark matter" of the genome and some people think it's evidence of an extra dimension of genome information.

      No matter what explanation turns out to be correct, it is certainly evidence of design and proof that gods exist.

      Delete
    11. Diogenes: Most of them are dead, so we can't check their version of the story.

      ALL those named in that passage have been dead for some time. If I were a famous mathematician, I'd avoid meeting Berlinski. The mortality rate among his eminent friends is disturbingly high.

      Delete
    12. Piotr and Diogenes: Berlinski was 15 when Von Neumann died so I doubt he heard any criticism from Von Neumann in first-hand conversation. Another name he mentions is Gian-Carlo Rota, though I don't know whether he attributes any particular criticism of evolutionary biology to him.

      He may well have known Rota -- a lot of people did. Rota, who died in 1999, was outspoken, loved saying controversial things. Mathematicians pointed out to me his frequent book reviews and editorials in Advances in Mathematics. He seemed to want to goad mathematicians into grappling with biological problems. I think that he hoped for great advances due to new mathematical theorems, if they would do this. But I don't think that he criticized evolutionary biology as wrongheaded. Here, in its entirety, is his review of a computational biology book in 1989:

      M. S. WATERMAN, Mathematical Methods of DNA Sequences, 1989, 283 pp.

      The bigoted nitwits who vapidly view themselves as the “mainstream” of today’s mathematics will be the last to realize the revolution in mathematics that is happening under their very eyes, and that is the development of new combinatorial and probabilistic methods in response to the problems of molecular biology. Soon they will find themselves swept away in a tide of irrelevance, and they will be wondering what has happened to what, in their
      incorrigible
      dormarion professionnelle, they mistakenly thought to be the important problems of the age. It may be too much to expect them to read this marvelous account of what is happening in the real world, one that, were they to set eyes on it, would put them to shame.


      The "marvellous account", by Mike Waterman, includes discussion of inferring evolutionary trees using sequence data. If Rota believed that biologists were wrongheaded about evolutionary biology, he seems to have not said so in this review!

      Delete
    13. Sorry, a typo. In copying the Gian-Carlo Rota review above, accented characters interacted with the copy/paste machinery and changed a phrase he used in French. He actually used the phrase "déformation professionnelle".

      Delete
    14. Here's what Berlinski said (here about what Rota said to him:

      In talking of the mathematician's skepticism, I mentioned Von Neumann because his name was widely known. I might have mentioned Gian-Carlo Rota. He despised the enveloping air of worship associated with Darwin; he thought biology primitive and dishonest.

      How do I know this? I know it because we were close friends, and because he said so. He said so to me.

      Gian-Carlo had, in fact, read closely one of my unpublished papers on Darwinian evolution. Written in late 1970, during my stay at IIASA (the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), my essay later made its way into Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic & Luck, stripped by then of almost all of its technical details.

      A few mathematicians at IIASA had already read what I had written; they had, after all, encouraged me to write it. When we met later in the year, Gian-Carlo offered me his delighted agreement, which he extended in the spirit of it's about time; he urged me to keep at it; he considered publishing my essay in his journal; but after some back and forth between us, he decided that it would be best were I never to publish another word on the subject.

      Gian-Carlo was a man of very refined political sensibilities.


      I wonder whether maybe Rota changed his mind by 1989 when he wrote that book review?

      Delete
  20. Quest, I don't 'choose to believe' in evolutionary theory, I provisionally accept it based on overwhelming scientific evidence. New evidence could invalidate parts or even all evolutionary theory, although100+ years of data is a lot to contend with. An 'intelligent source' for abiogenesis would still not explain the evidence of life forms evolving since your hypothetical intelligent biogenesis.

    "because if abiogenesis one day is proven to becoming from an outside source which it looks like so far, "

    Does it, Quest? What is your evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  21. If abiogenesis happened as you claim "scientifically" by some lucky accident, why can't you replicate it...? Was the blind accident smarter than you..possibly..? It must have been... lol. What other assumption can I make...?lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quest,
      You never answer my quesitons. But I'll answer yours (again).

      "If abiogenesis happened as you claim "scientifically" by some lucky accident, why can't you replicate it...?"

      The ability to recreate life in the laboratory is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

      "Was the blind accident smarter than you..possibly..?"

      No one said it was a blind accident, and it has nothing to do with 'being smart'.

      "What other assumption can I make...?lol"

      You will make any assumption to prop up your religious beliefs, for which you have no evidence whatsoever. (a)biogenesis is just a god of the gaps argument, Quest. An unknown region of human ignorance to hide your god and fool yourself into ignoring scientific evidence so you can feel ok about your belief in the supernatural. So be it.

      You have given up any pretense of trying to understand anything scientific or providing any evidence for your preposterous assertions. You have regressed into pure troll mode. You just parrot stale, debunked arguments, asking for unreasonable, irrelevant lines of evidence while providing zero evidence for your own claims. You show up at new threads, making the same dishonest arguments that were refuted in previous threads as if they were new. I don't understand how you could spend your time and energy this way.

      O, yeah and: ....lol....

      Delete
    2. Quest the Troll dodges the question. What is Quest's evidence that there is something "beyond space and time?" What does that even mean? I suspect that Quest can't see the light because his head is up in someplace very dark.

      Delete
    3. Beal,

      Why don't you write some scientific evidence for your claims...? Do you know what that is Beal?
      I give you example Beal: you put all the necessary components of a living cell in a tube in the best possible conditions... Then you wait for those components to assemble somehow a cell.. If they manage to it, you receive a Noble Prize and the cell will be unique because it will be the same size as your brain... This is the truth Beal... Since the first is not possible you having one cell in your brain is also not possible... but...your were close Beal.. LMAO ...

      Delete
    4. "I give you example Beal: you put all the necessary components of a living cell in a tube in the best possible conditions... Then you wait for those components to assemble somehow a cell.. If they manage to it, you receive a Noble Prize"

      This makes the unfounded assumption a complete cell is the most simple unit of replication. Prove that first, then you might have an argument.

      "and the cell will be unique because it will be the same size as your brain... "

      Silly ad hominem troll blather

      "This is the truth Beal... Since the first is not possible you having one cell in your brain is also not possible..."

      No, no truth here, just petty, childish insults.

      "but...your were close Beal.. LMAO ..."

      No scientific arguments here. Go back to the UD echo chamber where all rationality is soon banned, and you can tell each other you are right.

      Delete
    5. That's the (somewhat) interesting part about Quest's post. His arguments, as asinine as they are, are completely identical to arguments put forth by the brightest and best educated exponents of Intelligent Design Creationism. To wit:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crek2HRRYS4

      So what does it say that a barely literate ignoramus like Quest can match a luminary of the creationist movement like Jonathan Wells? Are all IDiots geniuses? Or are all IDiots idiots?

      Delete
    6. If the ability to reconstitute the conditions were a genuine acid test of one's preferred 'origins' hypothesis, we may eagerly await their demonstration of the creation of a living cell by active intent (Design).

      What tricks does Quest propose for overcoming the thermodynamic tendency of molecules to interact in undesired ways, as he wheels them into the place they are supposed to be in his imagined 'minimal cell'?

      Delete
    7. To the creationist, sudden creation is not only their imagined pathway to existence, but the mental block that excludes all other possibilities. To them, the problem is always one of bringing about the sudden creation of a complex cell or multicellular organism. From this starting point, they rightly conclude that the sudden arise of such entities in nature would require something akin to an omnipotent designer. Unfortunately for them, the designer of the universe forgot to cover biochemistry as he dictated the bible, so no help there.

      Delete
    8. Hey, Quest, you neglected to address the claim you brought up. This is your claim in case you lost it:

      What is Quest's evidence that there is something "beyond space and time?" What does that even mean?

      Something beyond space and time, Quest. How exactly does that work? Your notion. I figured you'd be all a-twitter with anticipation in enlightening us all.

      Delete
    9. Beal,

      You have missed my point... I'm shocked because you really seem like a bright writer of the free newspaper nobody reads....
      Here is the reality check for you Beal;
      You have never, ever, ever made a scientific comment on this blog... unless the totter comment you consider science...

      I can make claims beyond space and time... but your one brain cell would have to evolve which we all pretty much know is just as likely as non-living matter can come to life.... I know you and your buddies here chose to believe in this shit but I don't Beal... Do you know why...? Because most of my life I spent detecting bullshit... both religious and so-called scientific... So, you can't fool me Beal.... but if your buddies can provide experimental evidence for your and their beliefs... that is different...

      I however...have no problem sleeping at night over this shit... Even the Pope can kiss my ass after what he said about how evolution and creationism are compatible.... Sometimes I hope there is a hell... You Beal don't belong in hell.. you are too, too bright for that unique space...LMAO...

      Delete
    10. Chris B,
      Where is your experimental/scientific evidence...? You attribute super designer qualities to damn lack because you can't prove that damn lack is even smarter than you...? I'm sure you want it to be so.. but the reality is different ....
      So.. you HAVE NO CHOICE but to amuse us with the "scientific stories" how spandex time and damn lack has done what your "intelligence couldn't.... and that is the core of your stupidity... If you chose to live with this shit, it is not because of scientific evidence.. It is because you don't like or resent the alternative... Live with it... if you can...

      Delete
    11. Word of advice, Questy, don't mix hot air with alcohol.

      Delete
    12. Please, Quest, you just sound like a raving loon. Evolution exists on years of evidence, and goes on describing the natural world while you sit stagnant in your chosen, baseless beliefs that you still have not produced any evidence for.

      Your posts here are entirely content free, and you have reached a new low by ranting on and on in this thread, barely coherent ramblings about time, luck, intelligence, and science. Is this just reflexive troll baiting, or are you having some kind of meltdown?

      Until you come up with a fresh, valid argument, I'm done with you.

      Delete
    13. P.S. Quest, just to try and focus your scattered, incoherent babbling: provide me one piece of scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design. Tell us about your "reality".

      Delete
    14. Pest, what is your evidence that anything was created by an "intelligence" (spook) outside time and space, as you claimed? What is your diagnostic for "outside time and space"? Is that diagnostic (if it existed) itself inside time and space? Where is your evidence? Can you even conceive of what type of evidence, just as a category, could be inside time and space, but be proof of a spook or spirit outside time and space?

      Delete
    15. Dino G,

      I've have asked you this before; Where is the energy coming from for the expansion and the acceleration of the universe...?

      Also, what fine tuned the expansion that is just right for life on Earth..?
      The fine tuning for life to be possible exceeds the best examples of human fine tuning design (It was Hubble telescope last time I checked) by much more than a factor of a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times...

      What did it Dino G...? A random accident...? Or maybe Beal did it..?

      Delete
    16. Pest, you did not answer, nor even approximate an answer, to the simple question I asked you, about what type of evidence you could possibly even conceive of, that is inside time and space, but proves the existence of a big spook outside time and space.

      Instead you change the subject to the expansion of the universe. OK, you made a false statement, you need to change the subject and Gish gallop. You change the subject to ever newer fslsehoods .

      1. What evidence shows that the expansion of space requires an energy? Not a cause. Not a force. An energy. They're not the same.

      2. In quantum mechanics, don't all particle types contribute to vacuum pressure? If there were undiscovered types of particles, would that increase or decrease vacuum pressure?

      3. If scientists don't know the source of an energy inside space and time, what is your evidence that the source must actually be outside space and time-- and it must be a big fat spook? Did Marie Curie back in ~1900 invoke God of the gaps and infer that the energy source behind radium was an invisible spook outside time and space? If she thought like you, how would that have worked out for her?

      4. Quest, did you invoke God of the gaps or didn't you? Yes or no. Yes or no.

      Delete
    17. Dino G,

      I can't seem to find anything ever since I got a new Windows tablet and phone... I liked my laptop and iphone better...

      Anyway, I had this pre-print paper saved that answers pretty much all Of you mostly stupid questions but I can't find it anywhere even behind the paywall...( I just don't get why such seemingly intelligent person would be sooo stupid sometimes...?)

      Anyway, I copied Hugh Ross's article that refers to the article I can no longer find....
      "The authors also demonstrated that a universe governed by a cosmological constant will—of necessity—manifest extremely low entropy at its beginning. Such a low entropy state, according to the authors, would demand that “an external agent” (external to matter, energy, space, and time) that “intervened…for reasons of its own” in some miraculous way.4 In other words, the researchers conclude that either astronomers are wrong about the cosmological constant or, a specific deity miraculously intervened."

      http://www.reasons.org/articles/vexing-implications


      Delete
    18. Here is also a link to a later version of the full article in different formats....

      http://arxiv.org/format/hep-th/0208013v1

      Delete
    19. Of course the authors do not claim to have demonstrated any such thing. Hugh Ross is an expert in quote-mining and twisting other people's words and opinions -- in other words, a bloody liar.

      Delete
    20. The thing you might want to realize before you spend your whole life with your mind marinating in Hugh Ross-style pablum, Quest, is that reality is far more interesting. Cosmologists really are wrestling with all sorts of wildly fascinating implications (for time's arrow, etc.) of a low-initial-entropy universe, and A Magic Being Dunnit is just a nursery rhyme - a very boring one - beside them.

      Delete
  22. Apart from the fact, already mentioned, that you don't need to be a scientist to sign the scientific dissent from Darwinism statement, let alone a biologist, the statement itself is so vague that a perfectly good scientist could sign it with a clear conscience:

    "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

    The second sentence in particuar is one almost everyone would agree to, but it's a pity that the IDiots themselves don't seem to follow it. How much "careful examination of the evidence" have seen from Messrs Byers and Quest?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Reconstruction of Ancestral Metabolic Enzymes Reveals Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Evolutionary Innovation through Gene Duplication"

    "Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic"

    Great. I have a request for you. Could you ask professor Larry Morran to let you post an open letter addressed to professor Behe in which you show that you know of some pathways which are beyond the edge of evolution defined by him.

    Evolutionists try to refute Professor Behe for 20 years now with no success. Professor Morran confessed that it took him years to understand Behe's argument (I don't think he understands now). So here is your chance you need not be so shy when you have the occasion to refute professor Behe.

    I'm very excited about this. Can't wait professor Behe's reaction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionists try to refute Professor Behe for 20 years now with no success

      You're kidding.

      Delete
    2. Unknown: The world doesn't revolve about Professor Behe. Do you really think biologists and biochemists have no better use of their time than flogging a dead horse?

      Delete
    3. Hey there Unknown,

      Leo Behe, the son of Michael Behe weighs in on his fathers motivations:

      "I think that all scientists who hold to a particular religious creed must experience conflicts with their sacred texts and their scientific observations. I can’t speak for my father’s personal beliefs specifically, but I believe that the constant reinterpretation of sacred texts to correct conflicts between theological claims and scientific discoveries says something about the faith upon which those claims are based. For irreducible complexity particularly, the glaring inefficiencies apparent in life—along with a universe that appears more chaotic and indifferent the more we learn about it—will challenge the religious beliefs of any scientist and continue to force additional reinterpretations of sacred texts. It is my hope that eventually such texts will lose all credibility."

      Delete
    4. Unknown: "Great. I have a request for you. Could you ask professor Larry Morran to let you post an open letter addressed to professor Behe in which you show that you know of some pathways which are beyond the edge of evolution defined by him."

      First of all, if ever I wanted Behe's opinion on some matter I'd just write him directly. Second, I'm not claiming the result of that paper is "beyond" his "edge of evolution". The contention I'm supporting is that there are many evolutionary routes to "other things that work" from almost any given place in phenotypical space.

      I was asked for evidence of "unrealized biochemical pathways", so I gave evidence that evolution has historically explored many different pathways that were available to it. This is evidence against Behe's vision that evolution was some kind of miracous event that had to be guided by his god, in order to alight upon any functional complex mechanism.

      I actually agree with Behe that there are "edges" of evolution, it's just that Behe extrapolates from single experiments to the entire history of life. He's basically saying "this one thing over here was very unlikely and therefore slow to evolve, therefore everything else that evolved was too, which means it couldn't have evolved at all, therefore god".

      I'm attacking, specifically, the claim "therefore everything else that evolved was too".

      You get it now?

      Delete
    5. Evolutionists try to refute Professor Behe for 20 years now with no success.

      Evidently you've never read Behe's cross examination at the Dover trial. His credibility was so thoroughly destroyed that the trial judge suggested it might be used in law school textbooks as an example of how lawyers can conduct particularly effective cross examination.

      Some of the topics Dr. Behe raises are actually of some interest to people who think about or work on evolutionary biology. For example, how life "travels between fitness peaks" is a very interesting topic, and a lot of good work has been done on it. (One answer, to put it extremely generally, is genetic drift. Another, for most microorganisms, is horizontal gene transfer.) It is Dr. Behe's answer - essentially to say no, life cannot travel between fitness peaks, therefore [Deity of your choice] did it - that is unscientific, not warranted by the evidence, and ultimately uninteresting.

      Delete
    6. The best thing about this "Unknown" dude is that he doesn't seem to have any thoughts of his own. It's all about presenting stuff to Behe so that Behe can respond. It would seem Behe is this "Unknown" dudes infallible authority.

      He quotes Behe's general statements all the time but never directly responds to any comments. He might pick out a single sentence here or there, but then he just responds by quoting Behe whether or not it befits the subject or question.

      Unknown, I recommend learning to think for yourself instead of this mindless relying on a single authority. I have yet to see you make or even address a single argument or claim with your own thoughts or explanations. Can you even do anything but mindlessly regurgitate Michaeal Behe?

      Tell me in your own words how Behe's work somehow invalidates the work done in the papers I have given. Don't just mindlessly quote something, explain it in detail. I challenge you to do that because I don't think you can.

      Delete
    7. Rumraket: "It's all about presenting stuff to Behe so that Behe can respond. It would seem Behe is this "Unknown" dudes infallible authority. "

      Exactly, but this worship of Behe's authority, this desire to establish and defend Behe's authority, is Unknown's one and only thought and goal. As I have said before, creationists do not care about science or scientific facts or investigation or accuracy or factual truth or experimentation or solving mysteries or discovering new phenomena. They only care about scientific authority, and transferring the authority of science, the popular confidence in scientific conclusions, to their authoritarian, semi- or fully fascist Creepublican religious leaders. Where scientific facts are concerned, creationists will falsify them, hoax them and lie about them; as above, we see Unknown actually claiming that Behe's creo shit has not been scientifically refuted after 20 years!? Absolute invention. In fact, Behe in 1996 was too ignorant to know that the issue now called "irreducible complexity" was discussed in the scientific literature many decades previously by evolutionist H.J. Mueller, who predicted in the 1930's that what we now call irreducibly complex biochemical systems would be produced by evolution. As Mueller pointed out 50+ years before Behe, an IC biochemical system can evolve when a proto-network of interacting proteins adds a redundant element, then evolves to be dependent on it, possibly via the subtraction of other elements.

      What's worse, also in 1969 it was shown that the blood clotting cascade, which Behe would later stupidly call "irreducibly complex", was in fact reduced, but still functional, in whales which lack Hageman factor, an enzyme that Behe in 1996 indisputably, explicitly, and ignorantly called part of the IC blood clotting system.

      Behe in 1996 was ignorant of the scientific literature, ignorant of Mueller, and ignorant of cetacean blood clotting; his entire anti-evolution shtick, repeated over and over, is to endlessly and falsely claim that no scientist knows the answer to the "mysteries" he has "discovered", but how would Behe know that, when he deliberately does not read the scientific literature, or else lies about it? Behe was confronted with this in a debate with Ken Miller about 2003 and had no response to this refutation.

      By 2005, at the Dover trial, Behe's shtick had degenerated into a farce that even a non-scientist Republican judge could see through. At Dover, Behe lied on the witness stand and said that in his 1996 book, he had never really claimed that Hageman factor was part of an IC system. Bullshit and perjury, I read his book. Then we had the ridiculous farce of Behe claiming that no scientist knew a thing about how the immune system evolved, then the cross-examining lawyer piled 50+ then-recent papers on the solution to the "mystery" of the evolution of the immune system, and Behe was left pathetically saying, to paraphrase, "I haven't read any of those papers but I know they don't answer the question I asked." How would he know, when he is ignorant of the scientific literature, and his ignorance is purposeful, when he needs "Gaps" in science, however he may contrive or falsify these "Gaps" by lying about scientific facts, just so he can squeeze his authoritarian God into the Gaps he hoaxed up?

      And Unknown wants us to write Behe an open letter? NO. Unknown wants us to acknowledge Behe as a scientific authority. NO. Piss off. Behe perjured himself at Dover, he lied, he is an ignoramus and not a scientific authority. IDcreationists have no scientific authorities.

      Delete
    8. the cross-examining lawyer piled 50+ then-recent papers on the solution to the "mystery" of the evolution of the immune system, and Behe was left pathetically saying, to paraphrase, "I haven't read any of those papers but I know they don't answer the question I asked."

      Diogenes, I have to point out you are wrong about this. It was even worse than you've said! :-) The papers were not all recent, and it wasn't only papers; there were textbooks as well, and altogether the pile of documents in front of Behe refuting what he'd said about irreducible complexity was about a foot high. So it wasn't just recent work, but in fact literally textbook science that contained information about systems Behe said could not possibly exist in life on Earth, but did, and to which his response was, as you said, that this information wouldn't change his mind regarding its impossibility.

      Delete
    9. Judmarc, I stand corrected. Behe is more deliberately ignorant than even my cynical imagination can conceive.

      Delete
    10. unknown says,

      Evolutionists try to refute Professor Behe for 20 years now with no success.

      Behe's original argument was that there are irreducibly complex structures in some cells and that such structures could not have evolved; therefore gods must have made them.

      I agree that there are irreducibly complex structures using Behe's basic, original, idea. However, in some cases we have very solid evidence of their evolution. Most metabolic pathways (e.g. citric acid cycle) fall into this category. In other cases we have pretty good speculations, supported by some evidence, that such structures can evolve (e.g. bacterial flagella).

      Thus, Behe's basic premise - that irreducibly complex structures cannot possibly arise by natural means - has been solidly refuted.

      Professor Morran confessed that it took him years to understand Behe's argument (I don't think he understands now). So here is your chance you need not be so shy when you have the occasion to refute professor Behe.

      Behe's second book was The Edge of Evolution. In that book he argues that there are some hypothetical processes that are beyond the reach of evolution. He miscalculates the "edge" from his data on malaria but the basic idea is correct. If those hypothetical speculations actually occurred as Behe proposes then it's difficult to imagine how they could have arisen by natural means (e.g. multiple spontaneous detrimental mutations occurring at once.).

      However, Behe has failed to demonstrate that his hypothetical, "beyond the edge," pathways were followed, so there's no evidence to support his claim that gods are the only possible explanation. In all the cases that he has proposed, there are perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations that are well within the realm of possible mutations.

      His argument for the existence of gods has been rejected.

      Delete
    11. I agree that there are irreducibly complex structures using Behe's basic, original, idea.

      Are you thinking of actual examples or simply saying the basic concept is rational?

      Delete
    12. I would say both. Under Behe's original definition, an irreducibly complex structure or system is merely one where, if you remove a piece necessary for the function of the system, it stops working in the way it did. Under that definition the flagellum, for example, is irreducibly complex. If you remove a necessary component (like the filament), it stops working like a flagellum.

      There's nothing wrong with the concept itself, Behe's mistake was to think this means it can't evolve, because he always neglected to consider what the ancestral stages would have functioned like. Without the filament, the remaining components could have been slightly different and as a result the entire system would have a different function, instead of no function at all.

      You see the same basic mistake repeated in many creationists argument. For example, if human beings had no penis or uterus, how could they ever reproduce? Well, back before the uterus and the penis, we weren't human at all, we were fish swimming around in the sea. Eggs were simply ejected onto the the bottom and semen ejaculated into the water over the eggs.

      This creationist vision where there was some ancestral stage where everything else was just as it is now, but with missing components, is the central mistake. It's like saying "how did human beings navigate around before their eyes evolved?". It's being deliberately stupid.

      Delete
    13. I was thinking of the concept all the way through to the "could not have evolved" conclusion, and wondering whether there is some (for example) RNA mechanism or path common to viruses, Archaea, and bacteria, that would be a sort of "minimum requirement for life," to the extent that it would not have evolved into the state we now see it in these life forms but was essentially part of them from the time they could be referred to as "life;" and constructed such that removing a part of the mechanism or path would render the life form non-viable.

      Delete
  24. Is it possible that "Unknown" is a sock of Behe himself, be he Behe, if you like?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is the genius Behe, speaking to the well-known scientific journal, the Baptist Press, saying how the Ebola virus must be designed by God... but that doesn't make God evil! Just because the only possible way Ebola can reproduce is by infecting innocent people, entering their cells, hijacking their cells' transcription and replication apparatus, duplicating themselves until the cell walls burst, thus releasing new virus, AND causing their victims to bleed from their ass and eye sockets so that their bodily fluids will infect the next victim... Nah. That can't possibly prove that the God who intelligently designed those functions is an evil god!

    Baptist Press: Viruses in general are “utterly mysterious” to advocates of a “Darwinian process” because “there is no good theory at all for how any virus came about,” Behe said, adding that the most reasonable explanation for viruses is an intelligent creator.

    No God of the Gaps invoked there!

    Ebola’s existence doesn’t suggest an evil creator “any more than an automobile shows malevolent intent,” Behe said. “Automobiles can be used and sometimes they cause problems, crashing and killing their drivers or running into people. But the machine itself is good.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cripes! Is he really that stupid? An automobile, used in its usual manner, does not necessary cause deaths. Ebola MUST cause death in order to survive and propagate. And are we to understand Behe's omnipotent omnibenevolent deity just had to include Ebola in its perfectly designed universe, and this was the only way that could be accomplished?

      If a car couldn't not possibly be driven without killing people, it's designer would either be incompetent or evil.

      Delete
    2. That interview woudn't happen to be online, BTW, would it, Diogenes?

      Delete
    3. Never mind; found it:

      http://www.bpnews.net/43656/ebola-utterly-mysterious-to-darwinists

      Delete
    4. And are we to understand Behe's omnipotent omnibenevolent deity just had to include Ebola in its perfectly designed universe, and this was the only way that could be accomplished?

      God was certainly a busy body, tinkering away in his shed absent-mindedly inventing all manner of things I guess.

      But just for clarification, Ebola need not cause death in order to propagate and wouldn't be expected to have such dramatic effects upon its natural host (fruit bat perhaps?). That Ebola sometimes infects and kills primates is rather incidental to its existence and propagation. Rapid death of host isn't a good long term survival strategy (not that Ebola has a strategy of course).

      Delete
    5. Baptist Press: Viruses in general are “utterly mysterious” to advocates of a “Darwinian process”

      Jesus, how irritating. Viruses are no more mysterious, and perhaps less mysterious from a mechanistic perspective, than any other biological entity. Such magnificent simpletons: people who think that invoking god, by any name, offers an explanation of anything.

      Delete
    6. Ebola, Malaria, and lots of other horrible, deadly things. Behe's god is such a loving guy:

      “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it. – Michael Behe, The Edge Of Evolution, p. 237"

      And there's this:

      http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/book-reviews/the-edge-of-evo/

      Delete
    7. Yeah.. IT MUST BEEN A MIRACLE that
      evolution happened despite all those deadly diseases that could have killed any life that came into existence by a very thin thread and then overcame all those terrible diseases and miraculously jumped from single celled organism to multi-celled organism without for-knowledge and doing a better job than slough-ass-Joe with a comfortable jobs doing shit that contributes to the society....

      Delete
    8. Dammit. Just when we think we have it all figured out, Quest comes along and dismantles and destroys our arguments. And its back to the drawing board for the befuddled scientists.

      Delete
    9. A very interesting point was raised on another discussion board I frequent: Suppose it was discovered that Ebola had actually been deliberately engineered (i.e. "intelligently designed") by a terrorist group. Would Behe then argue that this was not done with malevolent intent?

      Delete
  26. "In that book he argues that there are some hypothetical processes that are beyond the reach of evolution. He miscalculates the "edge" from his data on malaria but the basic idea is correct. If those hypothetical speculations actually occurred as Behe proposes then it's difficult to imagine how they could have arisen by natural means (e.g. multiple spontaneous detrimental mutations occurring at once.)."

    Professor Behe has shown with scientific, experimental data that random evolution can't do much. You claim that random evolution can do whatever from bacteria to man, but you never backup your claims with scientific data.

    If you were me who would you give credit to? To a professor who is not affraid of challenging the dogma or to a professor who when is supposed to support his imaginary pathways with scientific evidence always retreats?

    You spent hundreds of posts bashing creationists. Why don't you write 10 (or whatever) posts explaining to professor Tour how evolution works? I am sure that it wouldn't be a problem for you to explain evolution in a way a real scientist like professor Tour could understand it. It wouldn't be a problem if you really understand it. But of course a real scientist like professor Tour who is doing real science is able to detect flaws in your hypothetical arguments.

    Can you explain by random errors the origin of:
    - Proteins
    - DNA code
    - ribozome
    - Cell
    - mollecular machines found in the cell
    - multicellular organisms
    - organs like eyes, brain, liver, heart, lungs all these interconnected
    - body plans

    ..anything. What is your best you can demonstrate by random errors? Need I remind you that you are professor of evolutionary biology paid by the public to teach evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown, it's very tiring for you to repeat the same lies in the very threads that already debunked those lies. Behe has never "shown with scientific, experimental data that random evolution can't do much." Behe doesn't do experiments on the biochemical systems he misdescribes, and evolution by NS isn't random, and Behe's religious blurts weren't ever based on "experimental data"-- the idea is laughable! Behe!?-- they were based on Behe's rich imagination, not evidence: Behe would IMAGINE one transitional state, then IMAGINE the organism dying. That's it, that proves the Universe and all organisms from humans to the Ebola virus were created directly by God. Behe didn't do experiments on the Ebola virus, but he imagines that it and all other viruses and bacteria were beneficial in the Garden of Eden, then they turned evil because Adam ate an apple (see Behe's interview above, from the Baptist Press.)

      As with the blood clotting cascade, Behe did not do experiments on it: he would IMAGINE the blood clotting system with one enzyme, like, say, Hageman factor, removed, then Behe would IMAGINE the organism dying, that's it-- he imagined that that proved the universe was created by the Christian triune god. Oops, Behe never bothered to read the scientific literature he was lying about, so he didn't know that back in 1969 it was shown that whales lack Hageman factor, their blood clotting system is reduced, but they do not die. So his argument was based on his imagination, and his imagination led him to his humiliation on the witness stand at Dover.

      But of course a real scientist like professor Tour who is doing real science is able to detect flaws in your hypothetical arguments.

      Our arguments are not "hypothetical", and of course you know Tour never presented evidence or concrete arguments against evolution; because Tour knew such arguments are trivially easy to refute; even talented undergrads can refute them; and Tour did not want to humiliate himself by presenting "evidence" against evolution and then getting Behe'ed. Tour is thus unlike Behe, who feels no compunction about getting humiliated in public again and again, when his infantile predictions are falsified over, and over, and over again. Behe is the Elmer Fudd of creationists, always getting twicked by that wascawy wabbit.

      Unknown, don't ever again lie on this blog about how Behe has "shown by scientific, experimental data" anything. If Behe or any IDcreationist had such evidence, you would have presented it. You did not present any such evidence because it doesn't exist. Instead, you lie about how the evidence against evolution was presented somewhere else, but you dare not say what that evidence is, because in saying it aloud you would humiliate yourself, like Behe did at Dover. Who is smarter: an anti-evolutionist who seeks humiliation and gets it, like Behe, or one who knows it's coming and tries to evade it, like you and Tour?

      Delete
    2. "Can you explain by random errors the origin of:
      - Proteins
      - DNA code
      - ribozome
      - Cell
      - mollecular machines found in the cell
      - multicellular organisms
      - organs like eyes, brain, liver, heart, lungs all these interconnected
      - body plans"


      I take it you're asking these questions because you have hard, detailed experimental demonstrations of the real-time designing and construction of these structures by the intelligent designer, right? Otherwise you might be guilty of having a double standard with regards to evidence. Last I checked, your religion says hypocrisy is a sin. *whistle*

      Delete
    3. Professor Behe has shown with scientific, experimental data that random evolution can't do much.

      What he's shown is that bad math, combined with deliberate ignorance of the role of neutral drift, leads to conclusions that don't match the facts.

      You claim that random evolution can do whatever from bacteria to man, but you never backup your claims with scientific data.

      If you want reams of scientific data (collated and verified by computer, no less), you may want to read a book I'm currently enjoying, The Logic of Chance by Eugene V. Koonin, and the actual data it cites from hundreds of experiments. The data from these experiments reveal many interesting facts about the evolutionary relationships among the various forms of life on Earth by examining the relationships between their cellular constituents (nucleic acids, proteins, etc.). It's on a far, far more incisive and sophisticated level than Behe, and is thus far more interesting to anyone who actually wants to learn about the topic.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. but you don't have experimental evidence

      In the comment immediately above yours I told you where you can find a wealth of such experimental evidence. This is not a lot to demand: Do you have the gumption to simply go pick up a book and confront the facts you say don't exist?

      Delete
    6. Quest dodges the question again (oh, the irony) and I'll take that as a "No, ID has NO experimental evidence to show."

      Of course, Quest simply confirms once again the vacuity of ID as all hot air and bluster. Oh, and ellipses...lots...and...lots...of...those...things... 'cause when you got nothing else ...

      Delete
  27. I think the line of reasoning exemplified by "I take it you're asking these questions because you have hard, detailed experimental demonstrations of the real-time designing and construction of these structures by the intelligent designer, right?" isn't the best for arguing with creationists. After all, their main argument is "We don't know, therefore God." They expect not to know.

    Asking scientists for evidence is reasonable, of course. However, Quest and allies have proven unable to understand that evidence is evidence, and to want evidence for things that don't happen because evolution doesn't work that way. That limits my desire to spend more time providing evidence. For readers less firmly committed to misunderstanding than Quest, I recommend Coyne's book Why Evolution is True, which covers evidence and the reasoning involved, in fairly simple language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barbara,

      Don't misunderstand me but Coyne's book is a joke... I never questioned varieties with in a specie or a kind... If there was no room for that , then a lot of people would look the same.... and very few do look the same...
      So, the idea that variation within the kind or a species is expected is a good thing and it was possibly designed or predicted....

      Asking scientists for the evidence for their beliefs/theories is a must.. or we may as well move to the dark ages the beliefs.. without evidence were enforced and we would want that since the dare ages are possibly gone...?

      Delete
    2. There's nothing in Coyne's book limiting evolution to "within a species or kind." Macroevolution is a topic of great interest; how odd to encounter such a wonderful question and take the attitude, "Just say no." Why, because you think some holy book tells you? I'd find a different interpretation of the book or a different guide for life if the one I was using told me to go no further when encountering interesting questions.

      Delete
    3. "Asking scientists for the evidence for their beliefs/theories is a must" -- but then you have to listen to, and learn from, the answers. Arguing with the answers when you have evidence that counters those answers is legitimate. All you respond is that the evidence is not evidence.

      Well, not quite all. Sometimes (e.g. suggesting that the book "Why Evolution is True" fails to address evidence for macroevolution) you provide evidence you never seriously checked into the evidence offered you.

      Delete
    4. Barbara,
      You are the only lady here on the blog and seem like a sensible person with the exception of Beal… obviously… I have been asking this question some of the best scientist in the world… and I mean that…
      What strikes you the most, as a scientist, when you read about this issue…? I’m just curious… because to me, when I learnt that, it was obvious to me like the Sun being hot… I would like your opinion on the issue, if you feel comfortable answering it… I pretty sure you can…
      OK, here it goes: Enzymes are needed to produce ATP. But, the energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes…DNA is absolutely required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA….Even more… proteins can be made only by a cell , but a cell can be made only with specific proteins…. So… how has this beautiful system evolved via a Darwinian mechanism, whatever that is today…?
      My question actually is not necessarily whether this process is possible via the Darwinian/Evolutionary process… because most evolutionists would say “yes”?
      My actual question is not whether it is possible for a living cell to develop through a Darwinian means…. It is how or what would be the best explanation of this process if you were to explain honestly to yourself… or someone you love...?

      Delete
    5. Dear Quest, about microevolution:
      1. The Earth is around 4,5 billion years old. (This is not debatable. The evidence for that is of the same magnitude as the evidence for the moonlandings and the Holocaust. If you don't agree with this, you might as well stop reading this post).

      2. Do you accept that every living being has at least one parent, a mother?

      3. Do you agree with me that every daugher is of the same species her mother?

      4. Imagine the line Eddie - mother - grandmother - great grandmother - etc, etc.

      5. Assume roughly 5 years on average between every birth. (forgot this one the first time)

      6. After 100 million etceteras, which species does my personal ancestor belong to.
      A human?

      Delete
    6. Dear Eddie Johansson,

      What caused the Cambrian Explosion...? What mechanism was responsible for the body explosion of everything according to the Darwinian Religion...? I don't want the usual speculation... I want the experimental evidence that proves that the body of Beal, for example, can explode into a higher living creature that can process logic..and without the baseball hat... Can you do it...?

      Delete
    7. Quest, there are a lot of questions that you haven't answered and a LOT of things that you haven't replicated. You should be doing those things instead of asking even more STUPID questions.

      Delete
    8. The whole truth..
      My not answering all the questions MUST make the evolution true... How about abiogenesis...? Is that Included in the package... or is it separate...?

      Delete
  28. Have you all seen Cornelius Hunter's version of Tour's claims?

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/10/top-chemist-they-just-stare-at-me.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rumraket:"I take it you're asking these questions because you have hard, detailed experimental demonstrations of the real-time designing and construction of these structures by the intelligent designer, right? Otherwise you might be guilty of having a double standard with regards to evidence. Last I checked, your religion says hypocrisy is a sin. *whistle*"

    Nice do you realise that with your excuses all you do is to admit your lack of evidence? Do I teach creation, do I teach ID? So suppose i dont have evidence for an alternative can't I request evidence from scientists for their absurd theory?

    Diogenes:" Behe has never "shown with scientific, experimental data that random evolution can't do much." "
    He did every single article Behe wrote is based on the best scientific data available to date.

    If you have better data bring it on. What's your best evidence of what random errors can build?
    With open letter to professor Behe and professor Tour please.

    As allways you missed the most important question. Can you explain by random errors the origin of:1,2,3,..anything. What is your best you can demonstrate by random errors?
    With open letter to professor Behe and professor Tour please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for conceding you have a double standard.

      Delete
    2. As allways you missed the most important question. Can you explain by random errors the origin of:1,2,3,..anything. What is your best you can demonstrate by random errors?

      I suppose this means you're unaware that Nobel Prizes have been awarded for experiments demonstrating "evolution by random errors." Your confusion is in mixing up "I'm unaware of it" with "No such thing exists." In other words, the scope of your ignorance does not limit reality.

      Delete
    3. "I suppose this means you're unaware that Nobel Prizes have been awarded for experiments demonstrating "evolution by random errors." Your confusion is in mixing up "I'm unaware of it" with "No such thing exists." In other words, the scope of your ignorance does not limit reality."

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

      Delete
    4. Judmac, without a doubt, must mean the Nobel Prize that was awarded to 3 biologist for “controlling the development” of fruit fly …and “controlled development” it was…

      These guys have mutated the fly embryos and they got 3 results of the controlled by error mutations; the same fruit fly, a dead fly and a defective fly that had another set of wings but couldn't fly…

      And for that experiment these guys got the highest award in science- the Nobel Prize in medicine…Well… good for them…However…
      Can you imagine what kind of a scientific award an engineer would get if he modified by controlled errors an already existing blueprint of a fully functioning plane and then build the plane according to the 3 erroneous new blueprints 3 different planes…?
      1. The first plane that would be the same as the original one that would have the same blueprint as the original one…
      2. The second plane couldn’t be assembled because the parts would not align, so the project would be dead…beyond finish…
      3. The third plane would have another set of wings but would be defective and unable to fly…

      I’m sure I don’t have to explain what would happen to this engineer… His career and he would be finished… He would never design, modify (ever without error, or build another plane…

      However…evolutionary biology is different…When you screw up an organism that is can no longer function or it is dead, you get the highest award in science-The Nobel Prize…

      Why…? I guess some people want to believe that the mechanism that screwed up the flies is somehow responsible for their origins, so they don’t have to believe in God…Well… maybe with one exception…

      When the same erroneous mechanism causes genetic defects, then they blame God for it…
      When a building collapses due to the same errors, then they call it an act of God…

      Delete
    5. Please, somebody give us something else to talk about other than responding to Quest.

      Delete
    6. Can you... respond...? I don't think you can Jonny Hush... If you could, you would overwhelm me and others with an experimental evidence that prove us wrong.... however.. that only exist in the domain of your wishful thinking... and that is the truth you can't accept...
      THAT IS WHY YOU WANT SOMETHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT... YOU WANNA TALK YOUR RELIGION...

      Delete
    7. Hey Quest, we're still waiting for your answers to these questions, the ones you said would be easy to answer. I've copied and pasted them below for you.
      "Hey quest, since you obviously believe in a 'designer-creator-god' and since you are obviously asserting that exact replication of ancient processes and events is absolutely necessary in order to make credible claims or inferences about them, let's see you exactly replicate all of the processes and events of the following:

      1. The origin and existence of your chosen 'God'.
      2. Creation of the universe, life, and everything else throughout time by your chosen 'God', including how, when, and where.
      3. The biblical flood, if you're a christian.
      4. The garden of eden and a talking serpent, if you're a christian.
      5. Adam and Eve, if you're a christian.
      6. Jonah living inside a fish, if you're a christian.
      6. The exodus, if you're a christian.
      7. Baby jesus, adult jesus, crucified jesus, zombie jesus walking around, and zombie jesus flying up to heaven, if you're a christian.
      8. Every miracle that has ever been alleged. "

      Good luck.

      Delete
    8. Hi Ed. I am new to this thread. I haven't followed all of it, but from what I have followed I will say this. There is not "proof" of a divine being, a creator who has always been, doing the things you listed. However, let's all realize that believing in that possibility is not any more crazy than believing that dense energy formed living, working, harmonious biological systems in our bodies. The balance within our own bodies, and within species, is (in my opinion) statistically impossible to have evolved by chance. I think we do evolve, but that these systems were put in motion by a greater force (a watch has a watch maker. and look at the law of entropy. Things don't come together by themselves in the physical world). So you believing in what is statistically impossible is not any crazier than me believing in something I can't explain either. We each just pick which to believe. -- From a Christian with a PhD in Microbiology & Immunology.

      Delete
    9. Well, at least she knows how to use periods.

      Delete
    10. I love it when they use they use the "but you are just as bat-shit crazy as we are" argument.

      It's the old "I know you are but what am I" playground taunt, which is an appropriate response from a mental child in an adult body.

      And why do those damned xtians keep waving their credentials around ?

      Delete
    11. Andrea has a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, but doesn't seem to understand how biological systems can harness energy in order to (temporarily) decrease their entropy. I guess she must have skipped out on those classes.

      Here, Andrea. This will help explain why God is not a good hypothesis:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

      Delete
    12. Andrea,

      However, let's all realize that believing in that possibility is not any more crazy than believing that dense energy formed living, working, harmonious biological systems in our bodies.

      Who believes or says that "dense energy formed ... biological systems in our bodies"? Whose views are you alluding to? Is that what they teach at the institution that conferred your PhD?

      The balance within our own bodies, and within species, is (in my opinion) statistically impossible to have evolved by chance.

      Why do you think so? Can you present some probabilistic calculations?

      I think we do evolve, but that these systems were put in motion by a greater force (a watch has a watch maker.

      Does it follow that a dog has a dog-maker, snow has a snow-maker, stones have a stone-maker, etc.? What about a watchmaker? Does he have a watchmaker-maker?

      and look at the law of entropy. Things don't come together by themselves in the physical world).

      If you mean the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it doesn't say or imply any such thing. Anyone with a degree in a scientific discipline should be aware of that. Without a little basic scientific literacy a diploma is just a piece of paper.

      Delete
    13. Hydrogen and oxygen molecules "don't come together by themselves in the physical world" to make water, because the "law of entropy" says so. It only happens thru God the Watermaker. So says Dr. Andrea, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology.

      Delete
    14. Strangely, Genesis doesn't make it clear how water came into existence. "The waters" were already there on the first day, even before there was light. But since every watch has its watchmaker and there's something called the law on entropy, we cannot accept the ridiculous idea that water molecules formed spontaneously by chance. There must be a sentence missing from Gen 1. The first sentence should be amended as follows:

      In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth: and on the morning of the first day, as God got out of bed, he made water.

      Delete
    15. Ed or whoever is hiding under this:
      J. 1. The origin and existence of your chosen 'God'.
      Q. God does not have a beginning or end; God is outside of time and space….If God had a beginning then it would be required for God to have a cause or an uncaused cause…. This kind of “reasoning” would lead to infinite regress and would deter scientific progress if every scientific explanation would require an explanation of an explanation and so on…
      2. Creation of the universe, life, and everything else throughout time by your chosen 'God', including how, when, and where.
      Universe: how- energy conversion to matter, possibly some kind of delicately controlled and fine-tuned “big-bang”…
      When: 14.5 billion years ago according to cosmologist’s calculations..
      Where: outside of time and space; possibly in other dimension or something beyond what we can comprehend since we can’t comprehend something without a beginning or end…
      Life: there is no doubt in my mind that life had to have been created; top to bottom- with all functioning components fully functioning at the time… Evolution and abiogenesis theories lack even the basic concept of how that could have happened… I have been asking this basic question have all of the best scientist in the world and none of them have a clue:
      “Enzymes are needed to produce ATP. But, the energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes…DNA is absolutely required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA….Even more… proteins can be made only by a cell , but a cell can be made only with specific proteins…. So… how has this beautiful system evolved via a Darwinian mechanism, whatever that is today…?
      To me, this particular example suggests that life had to have been created because all of the components are required to be present and fully functional for life to operate…Furthermore…multicellular life suggests that evolution could not have happened either…the transition is unlikely…
      So, how life had to have been created fully formed and operational…
      How? Quantum entanglement reveals as to how that could have happened….
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtYfz72MmtM
      For those unfamiliar with the science, I recommend watching the whole video… for those familiar with the subject… the 38 minute mark will do…
      3. The biblical flood, if you're a christian.
      Q. What’s your question…? Did the flood happen..?
      4. The garden of eden and a talking serpent, if you're a christian.
      Q. Again…? What’s your question…? Did the garden of Eden exist..? Who told you the serpent talked..?
      5. Adam and Eve, if you're a christian.
      Q. Again… specify your question you moron….
      6. Jonah living inside a fish, if you're a christian.
      Young girl-scuba diver survived inside a shark for few hours… Why couldn’t Jonah for few days is he had oxygen supply…?
      6. The exodus, if you're a christian.
      Again… moron can’t even ask the question properly… Are you asking about the parting of the sea…? There are physicists who found some electromagnetic powers that can part the water…
      7. Baby jesus, adult jesus, crucified jesus, zombie jesus walking around, and zombie jesus flying up to heaven, if you're a christian.
      Again…Moron doesn’t know what he is asking because he was brain-washed not to believe…
      Jesus dematerializes and returned to “heaven” a realm of not materialized some kind of spirit creatures…
      8. Every miracle that has ever been alleged. "
      1. Resurrection? Quantum entanglement sheds light on that, as does the multiplying of bread…
      Walking on the water…? Geckos can walk upside down on a very, very smooth surfaces like glass…Why can’t Jesus do the same on the ceiling or the water surface…?

      Delete
    16. Pusta Golowa professor Gegajacy:
      Genesis doesn't mention how oxygen and hydrogen come into existence either....? How does your scientific religion answer that...? I'm sure that professor of some shifty studies of language helvoluton can answer that...?

      Go ahead professor and enlighten everyone... Your students are watching...
      I'm sure your have a ton of papers the SPECULATE how that happened... and after that has been confirmed you can live in your "world of scientific certainty and bliss of what if".. it must be nice.. if that what you are looking for...

      Delete
    17. Quest, the challenge that Ed reposted is mine (Thanks Ed), and I didn't ask you (Quest) to spew even more of your blithering creobot-IDiocy. Here again is what I said (pay attention to the bold part):

      Hey quest, since you obviously believe in a 'designer-creator-god' and since you are obviously asserting that exact replication of ancient processes and events is absolutely necessary in order to make credible claims or inferences about them, let's see you exactly replicate all of the processes and events of the following:

      1. The origin and existence of your chosen 'God'.

      2. Creation of the universe, life, and everything else throughout time by your chosen 'God', including how, when, and where.

      3. The biblical flood, if you're a christian.

      4. The garden of eden and a talking serpent, if you're a christian.

      5. Adam and Eve, if you're a christian.

      6. Jonah living inside a fish, if you're a christian.

      6. The exodus, if you're a christian.

      7. Baby jesus, adult jesus, crucified jesus, zombie jesus walking around, and zombie jesus flying up to heaven, if you're a christian.

      8. Every miracle that has ever been alleged.

      ------------------------------------------------------

      Get busy replicating all of that. And as Ed said: "Good luck".


      Delete
    18. By the way, Quest, I agree with Piotr: "Oh, sod off, Pest. Go walk on water."

      Delete
    19. So you believing in what is statistically impossible

      Where did you ever get the extremely strange idea that anything about life violates the physical or chemical laws of the universe? That went out the window with Wöhler's synthesis of urea nearly two centuries ago.

      Delete
    20. If God had a beginning then it would be required for God to have a cause or an uncaused cause

      As I've already mentioned, this has been experimentally demonstrated not to be true (the requirement for something that has a beginning to have a cause). It has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment that uncountable so-called "virtual particles" having actual existence and measurable effects wink in and out of existence every moment everywhere. These have no defined cause, but do have a beginning. This "uncaused cause" stuff that appears to be at the basis of your thinking is nothing more than sloppy philosophy. But if it is more comfortable for you to base your thinking on this than on scientifically confirmed fact, go right ahead.

      Delete
    21. Hello Andrea, you called yourself a "Christian". The bible is the basis and rule book of christianity. To be a "Christian" you must strictly believe in and practice everything in the bible. It also means that you cannot just believe in the "possibility" of a "divine being, a creator who has always been". You must totally believe in, worship, and push 'yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost' and you must believe in satan, angels, demons, heaven, hell, miracles, a talking serpent, and that two people named adam and eve were the first humans, that a guy named jonah lived inside a fish for three days and survived, that a woman was magically turned into a pillar of salt, that the jesus guy was conceived by yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost and a married woman named mary, that there was a worldwide flood as described in the bible, that this universe is only 6,000 years old and was created as described in the bible, that two of all of the living things on Earth (or seven of certain ones) were loaded onto a boat and survived (along with only eight people) that year long flood and its aftermath, that people used to live for 900+ years, that the jesus guy rose from being tortured-crucified-killed and walked around with a bunch of zombie saints who also rose from being dead, that the jesus guy later flew up to heaven to be with his dad and himself yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost, that it's perfectly fine and 'God' commanded to dash babies against rocks and mercilessly slaughter men, women (including pregnant ones), children and livesock-pets in the name of yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost, that goats are spotted-striped because their parents mated while looking at striped sticks, and a whole bunch of other ridiculous, horrific, biblical-christian fairy tales. Oh sure, you, like other christians can (and I'm sure you do) pick and choose and modify the parts of the bible that you want to believe in, worship, and push but then you and other self-proclaimed christians aren't really christians.

      Legitimate scientists look for, study, and explain real things. Science doesn't rely on a so-called 'holy book'. Yeah, scientists aren't perfect and sometimes they get some things wrong. Science doesn't rely on authoritarian demands that must be followed under the threat of eternal punishment in a lake of fire and other horrible things. Religious people make up, believe in, and push fairy tales and many religious people are despicable monsters. There are lots of questions still unanswered about our universe but neither your chosen, made up, so-called 'God' and associated fairy tales nor any other made up, so-called 'God' and associated fairy tales will ever be a real answer.

      Please think about it. Religion is a crippling ball and chain.

      Delete
    22. The Whole Truth, You (and I) don't get to define who is a "real" Christian and who is not. There are many different approaches to being Christian. Some Christians believe that the Bible is the a complete and perfect history text and rule book. Many don't.

      This business of defining "real" Christianity is best left to that annoying kind of Christian who is certain he/she has the one and only real version and everybody else is going to hell. We have more productive things to argue about.

      Delete
    23. Barbara said: "Many don't."

      Then they're not christians. They have made up their own religion using conveniently selected bits and pieces of the bible and whatever else they feel like including or excluding.

      I agree about there being an "annoying kind of Christian who is certain he/she has the one and only real version and everybody else is going to hell." The thing is, they're all like that.

      Delete
    24. The Whole Truth: Well, this would come as news to the thousands upon thousands of members of the more liberal, protestant Christian churches.

      Delete
  30. Dear unknown,

    you obviously have issues with reading, here's what Larry wrote:
    "However, Behe has failed to demonstrate that his hypothetical, "beyond the edge," pathways were followed, so there's no evidence to support his claim that gods are the only possible explanation. In all the cases that he has proposed, there are perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations that are well within the realm of possible mutations."

    This is as open as possible, I mean it's on the internet, Prof. Behe can respond to it. Heck, he can even log on to this blog and respond here.

    Anyway your 'arguments' are like a vinyl record with a scratch on the surface, the needle keeps jumping back to the 'no evidence no evidence' bit. Do you expect, if you repeat it often enough, that what is false, ie. Behe has produced evidence to backup his claims, will become true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, that's seems like an obvious point. But I've never thought of it before, and I also can't recall it often being raised in response to Behe's "arguments".

      To reword it slightly: Behe is constantly asking for scientists to recount the precise pathway by which such and such biological structure evolved. But his claims are based on assuming that those structure arose thru a specific pathway that he himself proposes. He then (usually correctly) demonstrates that that pathway could not have actually occurred.

      But then he takes the very weird step of saying that that pathway is. nonetheless, the one that occurred. And since he has proven that that pathway is impossible, then the "fact" that it occurred is an example of a supernatural miracle.

      He somehow omits the step where he demonstrates that the impossible pathway is in fact the one that occurred. Weird.

      Delete
    2. "He somehow omits the step where he demonstrates that the impossible pathway is in fact the one that occurred. Weird."

      Behe uses a modified version of Quests (and every creationists) shtick "yeah, so you say evolution is true , well YOU show me a fish turn into a bird and migrate to Africa". The Q version is an argument way of into the realms of the absurd. The Behe version does sound quite reasonable, you would need some knowledge to be able to refute it. At the end of the day, it's nonetheless the same argument: old wine in new packaging.

      Delete
    3. Hey, JoeG-Quest, did I miss the part where you explained what "outside space and time" meant and how it interacts with "inside" space and time?

      And, two, you're a rum guy, right? Just curious.

      Delete
    4. Beal,

      If you don't get the basics and the fundamentals of physics and the universe, nobody will be surprised here...
      You should probably stop using rum... If you don't use rum.... the alternative in your case would probably not hurt if you begin to use rum... Maybe, by some miraculous accident, one day, you will get one subject that is being discussed on this blog... In the mean time Beal, try to experiment with rum on or off... and don't forget the "totters" because we all know what they are and we all need them....Beal..

      Regarding your question about my rum fondness I always respond the same way as Eddie Murphy did in the movie "Trading Places"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFOdtweVWI

      1:05 mark

      "...I do not drink... it is against my religion..."

      Delete
  31. I'm sure your have a ton of papers the SPECULATE how that happened

    Whereas there are various religious books that already claim to know. I'm sure that in the rest of your life you've learned that those who claim to know ("This investment can't lose!") are always correct, whereas you should never pay attention to those who merely speculate ("I don't know, could be a scam").

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well, all the big mouth boys have been put to rest... I guess they didn't know who they were dealing with.. but this is just the beginning... hihihi... they can't not only replicate what their god-dumb luck did to create life and them... they don't even know how the dumn luck did it... which means only one thing... they have to worship the dumb luck because they can't figure out how the hell the dumbness figured out what they haven't been able to...LMAO!!!!!
    YOU'RE WELLCOME MORONS!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. BREAKING NEWS!!!
    A HELLVOLUTIONSTS UNDERSTANDS EVOLUTION... there is also a very, very slight possibility that another hellvolutionost understands it 1% the same way...

    Go figure a religion that is based on what each individual thinks and not on what supposed evidence should ...
    Welcome to the world of magical science of hellvolution...you can claim whatever hell you want... nobody will question your beliefs because there is no evidence either way LMAO!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hellvolutionsts and hellvolutionost? You're a funny guy Quest. Some times. :)

      Delete
    2. Rum,

      People tell me that a lot that I'm a funny guy.... I'm very enthusiastic... But this blog has confused me... I just can't believe that some pretty smart and educated people can be so naive.... Maybe they want to be naïve... or maybe they can't see things the same way I do.... It's possible but I always hope they will be able to see the reality... because to me it is not necessarily simple... but obvious....

      Delete
  34. Well, one nice thing about Quest; he sure makes me appreciate Robert Byers! : )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barbara,

      You forgot to answer my question...? Please tell me you did forget and not just decided to ignore it....

      Delete
  35. Quest breaks out the all-caps. Evolution is doomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The all-caps and the major league incoherence....

      Delete