Tuesday, March 22, 2016

How do you characterize these scientists?

We've been having a discussion on another thread about ID proponents. Are some of them acting in good faith or are they all lying and deceiving their followers?

I have similar problems about many scientists. I've been reading up on pervasive transcription and the potential number of genes for noncoding, functional, RNAs in the human genome. As far as I can tell, there are only a few hundred examples that have any supporting evidence. There are good scientific reasons to believe that most of the detected transcripts are junk RNA produced as the result of accidental, spurious, transcription.

There are about 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. I think it's unlikely that there are more than a few thousand genes for functional RNAs for a total of less than 25,000 genes.

Here's one of the papers I found.
Guil, S. and Esteller, M. (2015) RNA–RNA interactions in gene regulation: the coding and noncoding players. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 40:248-256. [doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2015.03.001]
Trends in Biochemical Sciences is a good journal and this is a review of the field by supposed experts. The authors are from the Department of Physiological Sciences II at the University of Barcelona School of Medicine in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. The senior author, Manel Esteller, has a Wikipedia entry [Manel Esteller].

Here's the first paragraph of the introduction.
There are more genes encoding regulatory RNAs than encoding proteins. This evidence, obtained in recent years from the sum of numerous post-genomic deep-sequencing studies, give a good clue of the gigantic step we have taken from the years of the central dogma: one gene gives rise to one RNA to produce one protein.
The first sentence is not true by any stretch of the imagination. The best that could be said is that there "may" be more genes for regulatory RNAs (> 20,000) but there's no strong consensus yet. Since the first sentence is an untruth, it follows that it is incorrect to say that the evidence supports such a claim.

It's also untrue to distort the real meaning of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which never said that all genes have to encode proteins. The authors don't understand the history of their field in spite of the fact they are writing a review of that field.

Here's the problem. Are these scientists acting in good faith when they say such nonsense? Does acting in "good faith" require healthy criticism and critical thinking or is "honesty" the only criterion? The authors are clearly deluded about the controversy since they assume that it has been resolved in favor of their personal biases but they aren't lying. Can we distinguish between competent science and bad science based on such statements? Can we say that these scientists are incompetent or is that too harsh?

Furthermore, what ever happened to peer review? Isn't the system supposed to prevent such mistakes?


128 comments :

  1. "Everybody knows" that the Central Dogma said "DNA makes RNA makes protein" (and by implication nothing else). As you have pointed out before, what everybody knows is plain wrong, but I'd call this superficiality and sloppiness,not deliberate dishonesty

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have the same problem with some other areas. But I know that they aren't acting in good faith.

    http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2016/03/12/sucralose-aspartame-mice/

    ReplyDelete
  3. They're incompetent. At least with respect to the specific subject matter they are attempting to review. That doesn't mean they are entirely without competence in their fields, but technically this qualifies as incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... and that may sound harsh, but sometimes the facts are unpleasant.

      Delete
  4. Larry,

    Have you read all the references they have cited including one of your favorites Mr. Mattick? ;-)

    My full text access doesn't work from my home today for some reason, so I can't judge the issue fully yet until I get to my office tomorrow.

    Something tells me though that there is enough evidence to make some knowledgeable scientist to rethink their stand on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the other thread:

    We all have biases and prejudices and they influence the way we do science. Because I live in a glass house, I'm reluctant to throw stones unless I'm absolutely convinced that someone is lying or being deliberately deceptive. Those people are IDiots. Jonathan Wells is one and so, I think, is Doug Axe. There are many non-scientist IDiots like Casey Luskin and David Klinghoffer.

    Lot's of other people fall into the category of acting in good faith while being very wrong. In some cases, it's like how Peter Medewar described Teilhard de Chardin, "[he] can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself."

    On most days I'm convinced that this applies to ID proponents like Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and Stephen Meyer and therefore, I think they are acting in good faith. On other days, I'm not so sure but the optimistic days outnumber the pessimistic ones.

    This has implications. It means that some ID proponents might actually be swayed by reason and facts. That's why I keep trying.


    First, thanks for the thorough explication of your views. I mostly agree. :-)

    Here's where I think I differ: I feel that Dr. Behe, though his arguments are relatively sophisticated, always has a pre-selected *non*scientific goal in mind (the necessity for God), and therefore he is not doing science in good faith, nor is he persuadable that evolution is correct (not even theistic evolution, which to my mind finds the presence of God in the beauty of life on Earth and the theory of evolution that provides such a wonderful explanatory principle for much of it, but does not look for holes in evolution to fill with God's necessary presence).

    Someone like Jim Shapiro, on the other hand, has an ego that loves the notoriety brought on by the heterodoxy of his positions, plus the confidence of having been correct, at least as he sees it, about other abilities of microbes in colonies that were not thought possible previously. But I don't see him as working fundamentally to justify superstition, which is how I view Behe.

    I don't know Denton's and Meyer's work well enough to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ID/YEC are never dishonest. These are public people seeking to persuade by making a case.
    In this and the other example given its simply the option people get things wrong in complicated subjects. these subjects are more intellectually demanding and people fail to keep up even after trying real hard.
    IF iD thinkers get stuck in some error its hard to get out. they must read the right correction and that well done. iF evolutionists get stuck in some error then they must also read the right correction and probably when relaxed.
    There is a list.
    They say everybody is interfered with by thier own bias in subjects they think and care about.
    The corrector must aim well. The corrector must accept someone is aiming at them.
    Somebody is wrong eh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "ID/YEC are never dishonest."

      You must not know very many of them. Was Gish just trying to make a case when he repeated his 'bullfrog' story even after admitting that it was in error?

      Delete
  7. I agree with the notion we all have biases and prejudices and they influence the way science is done.

    The authors of this study are interested in how epigenetics influence disease. This is apparently a new idea for the field and from the perspective of the people in that field it seems like it must be a radical shift in perspective. He is probably writing to a specific audience that is interested in dealing with cancer and this area probably holds great promise.

    Meller is an editor-in-chief of a peer reviewed journal, so I would assume he is acting in accord with norms.

    I know more about physics than I know about biology.
    When it comes to judging if someone is doing science in good faith, I would ask- “Did Einstein do science in good faith?”
    He claimed he wanted to ‘know the thoughts of god’. When those thoughts involved relativity, all was well. But when Bohr pointed out that god plays dice, Einstein objected.
    Did Einstein ever fully except the facts of quantum mechanics? I don’t think he did.
    If not, does that make him a bad scientist?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Larry has called me many times a liar. He does it out of desperation because i have unmasked his flawed world view and pet theory as what it is : One of the biggest lies humanity has been subjected to. Thats a common tactic used by atheists. Can't refute a proponent of ID/creationism on scientific ground, start name call him, amongst many other things, question his integrity and honesty.

    I wrote a list about what atheists SHOULD NOT DO when debating us :

    Most frequent responses given by atheists in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-atheists-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

    If you want to win a debate with a proponent of intelligent design like me, here a suggestion :

    Do not :
    try to attack my knowledge
    Nor my education, or ask for my credentials
    Nor my source.
    Neither argue that the argument is from ignorance ( its not )
    nor argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailled. Pseudo-science is the oposit )
    Nor attack the bible ( intelligent has nothing to do with the bible )
    nor make any explitic adhom ( it adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism more true )
    nor acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too )
    nor call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing )
    or suggest to peer review it ( the hostility of the scientific establishment towards intelligent design is well known )
    nor acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )

    What to do:
    1.Study if the premise is true. Take your time to actually understand what is presented to you.
    2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists
    3. Analyse if intelligent design is not a better explanation
    4. If you think , naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or
    5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well.
    6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is trivially easy to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about when you post those long "explanations" about some complex biochemical phenomenon. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are practicing the argument from ignorance.

      It's easy to show that your knowledge and background have not prepared you to contribute anything intelligent to this debate.

      I've explained the actual facts to you many times but you keep repeating your errors and steadfastly refuse to ever admit you were wrong. When you continue to repeat untruths as though they were true, you are lying.

      Some IDiots deserve respect and others do not. Just because there are some respectable ID proponents doesn't mean that all of you should be immune to disparaging remarks when you do something stupid. People like you deserve to be exposed as lying charlatans who will go to any lengths to discredit science.

      I'm happy to do my part in making sure that nobody trusts you as an authority on evolution.

      Delete
    2. I'm confused. How do you know El Shamah is a lying charlatan? Perhaps he has merely taken greater pains to deceive himself than, say, Michael Behe. I have never been able to find a foolproof means of distinguishing mendacity from delusion.

      Delete
    3. Laurence

      you have challenged me several times at my Facebook timeline, and even here at your blog. Each issue, when it comes to the details and real issues, and where the science actually points to, you were handwaving , just posting links, or calling me a liar. Happened several times. Nothing of your respose backs your acusation. But i am all ears. Please post right here ONE issue where you catched me lying, and where you were able to provide a more compelling explanation based on natural mechanisms. Just one. Lets see, who deserves its views to be respected.

      Delete
    4. LOL !!! Kudos to John Harshman!

      http://tinyurl.com/j8atnwk

      Delete
    5. John Harshman says,

      I have never been able to find a foolproof means of distinguishing mendacity from delusion.

      Me either. I do the best I can.

      Delete
    6. Elsamah isn't a liar, he's crazy. Crazily full of fear that his god isn't actually real. An enormous emotional bias is preventing him from ever understanding anything that threatens his god-belief. And his fear is driving him to swallow all the ID blather uncritically and regurgitate it unquestioningly.

      Just as theists will often retort that atheists don't believe because "they are afraid of God's judgement and that is why they somehow choose to not believe", in that very same way theists are biased to believe that their inner experiences are really from a God, because the belief is reportedly having such a positive influence on their life and emotional state.

      They believe God helps them win sports competitions, they believe God helps them during job interviews, they believe God helps them navigate traffic, find their car keys, have a few extra dollars to spare after next month's paycheck, screw with their rivals, that God loves them, that God protects them, that God offers and actually grants them eternal life, a purpose in life, a meaning to their existence, eternal happiness in a life that comes after they don't really die, justice against people who do wrong or evil against them, that God will bring them together with long-dead loved ones and so on and so forth.
      To theists, God-belief is the motherload of a highly welcome and intensely, emotionally motivated belief. Who wouldn't want there to be a God that did these things for them and gave them such powerful emotional experiences of love, comfort, peace, wonder and security? The simple fact is that the theist subject of inner spiritual experiences is under an even stronger and much more emotionally overwhelming bias, than the presumed fear of judgement of the non-believing atheist.

      After all as we are endlessly told by theists, life without God is empty, hollow, indifferent, dark and without meaning and purpose.

      Since it is the case that people delude themselves in ways that work in their favor, inner experience of God should particularly be approached with much more skepticism than other types of beliefs exactly because of how emotionally pleasing and attractive they are. Humans are easily fooled and the easiest to fool of all are ourselves. God-belief with it's many promises and rewards is exactly the kind of belief we should expect the subconscious of scared, confused, hungry and tired ground-apes to come up with, to make it's difficult, meaningless and dangerous existence bearable.

      Delete
    7. IMHO, I'd say Behe is more likely mendacious than ElShamah777. The reason being that ElShamah obviously had no background in the relevant sciences, nor the mental capacity to understand the them. Whereas Behe has studied biology at a PhD level, and moreover, has received extensive explanations from Larry regarding why his arguments are fallacious that even I, as a layman, can easily understand.

      Delete
    8. @Otangelo Grasso

      Last year you posted an article on Facebook about spliceosomes.

      You said ...

      There is no credible road map, how introns and exons, and the splice function could have emerged gradually. What good would the spliceosome be good for, if the essential sequence elements to recognise where to slice would not be in place ? What would happen, if the pre mRNA with exons and introns were in place, but no spliceosome ready in place to do the post transcriptional modification, and neither the splicing code, which directs the way where to splice?

      I posted a series of references on the evolution of the spliceosome from self-splicing Group II introns. The first reference was to Phil Sharp's original hypothesis called "Five Easy Pieces" in 1991 and the last was a critical review of the latest results by Ford Doolittle in 2014. Doolittle's paper contains lots of references to papers on the evolution of the spliceosome.

      Doolittle, W. F. (2014) The trouble with (group II) introns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(18), 6536-6537. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405174111]

      I can't find our discussion but here's a link to one version of your post.

      The awe inspiring spliceosome

      If you didn't delete the comments, perhaps you could find them on Facebook and post a link?

      The published references refuted your claim that there is "no credible read map" concerning the evolution of the spliceosome.

      You quibbled and refused to admit you were wrong.

      You also said in the same post that the spliceosome reaction was amazingly accurate. Your point was that such a precise mechanism could not have evolved but had to be created all at once or splicing would be inefficient.

      I gave you references to a number of papers proving that the splicing reaction is not particularly accurate. It makes many errors but the error rate is tolerable.

      You quibbled and refused to admit that you were wrong when you told your audience that the spliceosome reaction was highly accurate.

      Now you say,

      Each issue, when it comes to the details and real issues, and where the science actually points to, you were handwaving , just posting links, or calling me a liar.

      That's a lie. I pointed out several places where your statements were flat-out wrong or, at very best, extremely misleading. This was not just "handwaving." You are lying about what happened.

      You were trying to prove that the spliceosome could not possibly have evolved and I addressed that question directly by explaining the latest scientific hypothesis concerning the evolution of the spliceosome (with references). It's a very reasonable hypothesis with plenty of supporting evidence.

      After that exchange, do you, or do you not, believe that scientists have a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the spliceosome?

      Delete
    9. Hi Larry

      After that exchange, do you, or do you not, believe that scientists have a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the spliceosome?

      Yes, that was precisely one of the examples where YOUR OWN SOURCES and linkes refuted your claims, and i pointed it out to you. NONE of ANY of your sources were able to provide and show a reasonable roadmap of how the spliceosome could have evolved.

      Your reaction ? You just ran away from the debate..... LOL.

      That is imho one of the many OPEN QUESTIONS of evolutionary biology. I challenge you now to provide ONE, just one paper, which shows how the spliceosome evolved, and A DETAILLED, convincing way and mechanism.

      That is what i wrote in the article, which you thought you could debunk :

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2180-the-spliceosome-the-splicing-code-and-pre-mrna-processing-in-eukaryotic-cells#4002

      This is one more great example of a amazingly complex molecular machine, that will operate and exercise its precise orchestrated function properly ONLY with ALL components fully developed and formed and able to interact in a highly complex, ordered , precise manner. Both, the software, and the hardware, must be in place fully developed, or the mechanism will not work. No intermediate stage will do the job. And neither would snRNPs (U1, U2, U4, U5, and U6) have any function if not fully developed. And even if they were there, without the branch-point-binding protein (BBP) in place, nothing done, either, since the correct splice site could not be recognized. Had the introns and exons not have to emerge simultaneously with the Spliceosome ? No wonder, does the paper : " Origin and evolution of spliceosomal introns " admit: Evolution of exon-intron structure of eukaryotic genes has been a matter of long-standing, intensive debate. 1 and it concludes that : The elucidation of the general scenario of evolution of eukaryote gene architecture by no account implies that the main problems in the study of intron evolution and function have been solved. Quite the contrary, fundamental questions remains wide open. If the first evolutionary step would have been the arise of self-splicing Group II introns, then the question would follow : Why would evolution not have stopped there, since that method works just fine ?


      There is no credible road map, how introns and exons, and the splice function could have emerged gradually. What good would the spliceosome be good for, if the essential sequence elements to recognise where to slice would not be in place ? What would happen, if the pre mRNA with exons and introns were in place, but no spliceosome ready in place to do the post transcriptional modification, and neither the splicing code, which directs the way where to splice ? In the article : ‘JUNK’ DNA HIDES ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS, the author, Wang, observes that splicing "is a tightly regulated process, and a great number of diseases are caused by the 'misregulation' of splicing in which the gene was not cut and pasted correctly." Missplicing in the cell can have dire consequences as the desired product is not produced, and often the wrong products can be toxic for the cell. For this reason, it has been proposed that ATPases are important for ‘proofreading’ mechanisms that promote fidelity in splice site selection. In his textbook Essentials of Molecular Biology, George Malacinski points out why proper polypeptide production is critical:

      "A cell cannot, of course, afford to miss any of the splice junctions by even a single nucleotide, because this could result in an interruption of the correct reading frame, leading to a truncated protein."





      Delete
    10. ElShamah777,

      A simple search with google scholar found me 22,700 articles on studies about the evolution of the spliceosome. But giving you an explanation about them would take quite a long time, and would be useless anyway because you're not interested in answers. You just have the worst possible mind set for these discussions. So, if explanations came along, and if we explained to you how your perception of "irreducible complexity" doesn't work, it wouldn't matter. You would jst turn around and try and find another "puzzle," while, of course, ignoring any explanations given.

      So I'll save time and try and explain to you something more obvious and important. Not that I expect you to listen anyway, but here it goes:

      Your god is a fantasy. It doesn't matter how many puzzles you find around, which of course you'll find, your god will continue to be a fantasy. It's simply impossible for you to prove that your god exists. Your attempts at presenting puzzles only work as volcanoes worked for ancient peoples. Immersed in ignorance they thought that volcanoes were angry gods burning people around. Well, the spliceosome is your volcano. You think that because you don't know how it could possible evolve, it means that it didn't, and that this proves that your god is out there somehow. Sorry. It doesn't. Fantasies will remain fantasies regardless of the depth and spread of our knowledge and our ignorances.

      There you have it. Your god is a fantasy, your book of stories is a bunch of fantasies, and no amount of volcanoes will make your fantasies into anything else but the fantasies that they are.

      Do you understand at all? Every time you present your "puzzles" all you're telling us is that you're an ignorant fool who thinks that gods-of-the-gaps arguments have some real meaning. Some poor idiot who thinks that asking for details upon details about evolutionary histories will make all of the scientific endeavour collapse and your god be transformed into a reality. That will not happen because your ignorance, your wishes, and your stupidity cannot change reality. Not one bit.

      This is why Larry is telling you that you don't contribute to the discussion, because you're doing nothing but braying like the donkey that you are.

      Delete
    11. photosynthesis

      go ahead. The challenge goes to you as well. Please explain how the spliceosome evolved. If you think i am close minded, show at least to the audience here that you have a case, and that my position does not deserve respect. Waiting.....

      Delete
    12. Turnabout is fair play. Please present to us how the spliceosome was designed and how the design was realized.

      Delete
    13. ElShamah777,

      You're not getting it. Your position does not deserve respect regardless of what's known about the evolution of the spliceosome. You hold to an obvious fantasy, that you call "God," by means of your ignorance about spliceosomes, or about anything else you might think could not possibly evolve. That's simply pathetic.

      Anyway, if you really want to learn, there's 22,700 articles for you to read. Once you see that you're too incompetent to understand those articles, go get an actual education.

      Delete
    14. So dodging my challenge. Thought so. You are a good pupill of Larry. Congrats !!

      Delete
    15. William Spearshake

      How exactly did God create things ? what process was involved ?

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1794-how-exactly-did-god-create-things-what-process-was-involved

      Delete
    16. ElShamah777,

      Your link doesn't answer William Spearshake's question. It only proposes God did it with no evidence whatsoever in support. In fact, it says explicitly this proposal can only be believed through faith:

      "Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything."

      Delete
    17. ElShamah777,
      Dodging? You've got around 22,700 articles to read and it's me who's dodging? Ha!

      Delete
    18. Photosynthesis

      Google evolution falsified. You've got around 541000 articles to read that evolution has been falsified. I win.

      Delete
    19. ElShamah777,
      I know you're stupid, but you should try a bit better to conceal the fact. I take your answer to mean that you really don't care about the spliceosome, other than as an example of your primitive volcano-god mentality, and that you rather distract with an infantile google search that you didn't even care to check yourself.

      Delete
    20. photosynthesis

      name calling your oponent, your world view becomes more compelling. Got it.

      Delete
    21. ElShamah777,

      Name calling your opponent? You're not even my opponent. You're just a clown, and all I'm trying to do it get you to understand why. I'm trying to help you.

      You have to first think why I see what you're doing as nothing but a volcano-god out of the spliceosome. Your god is far from being a choice in any matter about explanations. Why so? You might ask. because we're grown-ups, not primitive tribes dealing with unknown and misunderstood volcanoes. Dismissing evolution because you cannot imagine a plausible scenario for spliceosome evolution, even when presented with several scenarios, won't help your case. You'll remain stupefied by your own ignorance, and we will still see you as a superstitious clown. Puzzles are just that, puzzles. If we had no answers to the spliceosome, we would still regard your supposed answer as the superstition that it is. Evolution is not the problem. Your superstitious mentality is. Even if by some miracle all the mechanisms we have discovered about how evolution operates were insufficient to explain how something evolved, that wouldn't mean that a superstition, let alone your particular superstition, is an answer. It would just mean that we still needed to study more to understand how nature works. That's it. Remember, that people didn't have an explanation for the volcano didn't mean that the volcano was a supernatural being, or the product of some supernatural being. It just meant that people didn't know how volcanoes arose.

      Do yourself a favour and think this time around.

      Delete
    22. Photosynthesis

      oh look. The good caring soul is trying to help me. How nice.

      Same. I am trying to help you. Please read:

      Most frequent responses given by atheists in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-atheists-in-a-debate



      Delete
    23. El, you insult people, you ridicule people, you call people liars, you don't listen nor read, you don't want to learn. Time and time again people show the flaws in your logic, the flaws and fallacies in your online *ahem* tome of *ahem* knowledge. And your only response is to continue with ridicule, insults and ultimately lies.

      You use and abuse Galileo's gambit almost to perfection, but you forget one very important thing (and I quote)
      The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy; users of the fallacy are Galileo wannabes) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right.
      People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand.

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    25. Ed

      the only way proponents of naturalism have to show they are most probably right, is to provide better explanations of why their proposed causal mechanism might have more creative power than a mind. So far, the more science advances, the more the evidence shows their proposal utterly fails.

      Its hard to give up a beloved world view. Any dog that is biting a bone, if you show him a juicy peace of meat, will immediately give up the bone and catch the meat. Not so atheists. You can show them in the most eloquent and clear manner, why ID fits far better the evidence, they still keep to their fairy tales. Go figure.....

      Delete
    26. El,

      Describe one instance where ID/creationist theory better fits the evidence, and explain what element of ID/creationism provides a better explanation.

      Delete
    27. ElShamah777,

      "the only way proponents of naturalism have to show they are most probably right, is to provide better explanations of why their proposed causal mechanism might have more creative power than a mind."

      You've got it backwards. I don't have to prove that natural phenomena are better "causal mechanisms than a mind," just because I might not know how a volcano forms. If someone wants me to believe that the volcano is the product of a mind, the person has to prove that there are minds that can do such a thing. How do these minds operate? As far as we can see, minds are the products of natural phenomena, not the other way around. Minds need food, a physical brain, a running physical-biochemistry, and they respond and depend on their environment. We never see minds floating around and popping things into existence. We're therefore left with having to explain the volcano by studying how nature works. Considering a magical mind would be mere superstition founded on nothing but ignorance and poor thinking.

      Really, ES777, if you applied only one hundredth of the skepticism you apply to natural phenomena to your superstitions, you would incline towards nature. No doubt about it. But somehow your standards are nowhere to be seen when it comes to those superstitions.

      "So far, the more science advances, the more the evidence shows their proposal utterly fails."

      The more science advances the more we understand how natural phenomena operate and produce what we see. Focusing on details, or on still-to-be-solved items, won't make science collapse into superstitious bullshit like yours. Superstitions remain superstitions regardless of our level of knowledge and ignorance.

      "Its hard to give up a beloved world view."

      You're an excellent testimony for this claim. You cannot renounce your beloved worldview, no matter how ridiculously superstitious it is.

      "Not so atheists. You can show them in the most eloquent and clear manner, why ID fits far better the evidence"

      You fail to see that no matter how much we might not know about the intricate workings of such and such molecules and cells, your "answer" is still superstitious. "ID" cannot "fit better" the evidence because there's nothing going for an intelligent designer other than superstitions, all based on the very same kind of "evidence": ignorance about how natural phenomena have produced something. Once upon a time the volcano, once thunder, today, for you, the spliceosome.

      Show us those minds that need no nature first to just exist. Show us those minds in the act of creating spliceosomes. Show us evidence of the tools they used, and of how those minds manage to function without those very same spliceomomes working on their brains genetics. Show us that it is possible for minds to exist without the whole natural phenomena that minds require to exist.

      See? You have a huge load of very problematic superstitions with no other foundation but your imagination. Mere fantasies. And you still think that you present _eloquent_ evidence that ID fits the evidence better? You must be out of your mind.

      Delete
  9. ElShamah, after your comedy routine you forgot #7, "Don't forget to tip your waiters." :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Remember the immortal words of William Dembski:

    "Will you be having fries with that?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Question to ElShamah777

    Have you ever heard of Poe's Law?
    http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/43581491.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  12. Faith versus Science. Every year two groups conduct tours down the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon tours (a creationist outfit) and a tour sponsored by the NCSE (national center for science education). The creationist tour is led by a young earth creationist and he explains how the layers observed were carved by the Great Noah Flood. The NCSE tour covers the same Grand Canyon but describes it in modern geological terms.

    My take is that the creationist is a nut. He's wrong. He's wrong by so many data points as to be ridiculous. However, he does his tour in "good faith." He believes it. Science doesn't matter.

    So, what do we do about this guy? Do we say that he's wrong but he's doing "science" in good faith? Do we ignore him? Do we castigate him for being an IDiot profiting off the gullible?

    Of course, I always go for laughter which is how I'd treat Stephen Meyer, Head Clown of the Disco Tute. But, I'm a rude American, what do I know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's crazy and should be institutionalized. Fundamentlist religious faith held in spite of evidence to the contrary is a mental health disorder. Reality denial is a disease of the mind and the sufferer deserves help and treatment. This assumes he's been made aware of the evidence of course. Ignorance is not a disorder unless it becomes deliberate.

      Delete
    2. "The creationist tour is led by a young earth creationist and he explains how the layers observed were carved by the Great Noah Flood."

      Not quite. He explains that the layers were flood deposits, but the canyon itself was the result of a later event. If the river is low enough as you approach Lake Mead, you can get a glimpse of very young, thin layers contrasted with the very thick, ancient ones. http://variableinterests.blogspot.com
      -
      "The NCSE tour covers the same Grand Canyon but describes it in modern geological terms.”

      Yes, modern enough, but not particularly descriptive. Layers hundreds of feet thick deposited over millions of years, and then abrupt changes in color and composition for millions more, and so on. Very impressive if you’ve been formally educated in how to not think straight, or ask questions.

      Delete
    3. Ah, so it isn't just biology you are clueless about. Good to know.

      Delete
    4. Yep, no weak sauce with txpiper, he is the whole YEC bundle!

      txpiper, what is your favored explanation/excuse for why radiocarbon dating and other forms of dating via radioactive half-life shouldn't be believed?

      Delete
    5. Fundamentlist religious faith held in spite of evidence to the contrary is a mental health disorder.

      Please show reasonable inference based on the scientific evidence that life most probably came from non life, and that biodiversity and different body plans are best explained through natural mechanisms.

      If you can't, how about you make a self exame, and check if the acusations you throw towards ID proponents do not actually apply to yourself ?

      Delete
    6. All that has been done to death. You currently have like 10 entire threads on theleagueofreason.org dedicated to people patiently trying to present and explain these things to you, another >10 on rationalskepticism.org (where you continued to make sockpuppets over a period of at least 5 years, including but not limited to the nicknames "Jireh", "Coroama" and others I can't even remember any more), many more posts on theskepticalzone.org, your very own thread on the panda's thumb discussion forums (where you consistently refuse to answer questions or define the terms you use) etc. etc.

      The evidence has been provided and even explained to you literally hundreds of times. You don't somehow prove it hasn't simply because you are capable of pretending so by repeatedly asking for things that have in fact been provided to you. Rather, what you are proving is that you are one of those mentally ill people I talk about. One of those sick people who are so intensely emotionally biased by your religion it is preventing you from understanding or critically analyzing conflicting information.

      I'm serious, you need help. You are ill, sick, unhealthy. Something has happened to your mind and your thoughts and it is affecting your ability to reason rationally, openly and logicall. I'm absolutely serious, you are not well.

      As you keep telling us, you believe life under atheism is empty, hollow, indifferent, dark and without meaning and purpose. And you believe God will save you from death, injustice, suffering and loss of meaningful personal relationships. These beliefs are affecting your ability to think and reason rationally. It is no wonder you are so utterly afraid of even allowing yourself to consider evidence rationally when so powerful an emotional bias is blinding your thoughts.

      Delete
    7. Mikkel

      So no science to back up your belief system ?

      Thats what i was expecting.

      Pathetic.

      Delete
    8. You need help Otangelo. You aren't well. Your fundamentalism has become detrimental to your ability to reason. Seek help.

      Delete
    9. Yawn. All you have left are personal attacks. Noted.

      Delete
    10. "txpiper, what is your favored explanation/excuse for why radiocarbon dating and other forms of dating via radioactive half-life shouldn't be believed?"

      The assumptions.

      What is your favored explanation/excuse for soft tissues lasting for 68 million years?

      Delete
    11. "Yawn. All you have left are personal attacks. Noted"

      Allow me to quote myself from before when you asked for all that stuff:
      All that has been done to death. You currently have like 10 entire threads on theleagueofreason.org dedicated to people patiently trying to present and explain these things to you, another >10 on rationalskepticism.org (where you continued to make sockpuppets over a period of at least 5 years, including but not limited to the nicknames "Jireh", "Coroama" and others I can't even remember any more), many more posts on theskepticalzone.org, your very own thread on the panda's thumb discussion forums (where you consistently refuse to answer questions or define the terms you use) etc. etc.

      The evidence has been provided and even explained to you literally hundreds of times. You don't somehow prove it hasn't simply because you are capable of pretending so by repeatedly asking for things that have in fact been provided to you. Rather, what you are proving is that you are one of those mentally ill people I talk about.

      So no, all I have left is not just personal attacks. Rather, everything ever explained to you still exists on the internet, in all the fora and discussion boards where you have asked for it.

      But rather than regurgitate it all here for the 200th time, you should just go read it again. Everything you asked for has been provided. On theleagueofreason.co.uk, rationalskepticism.org, theskepticalzone.com, on this blog, on facebook, on pandasthumb.org and countless other places. It's still there, it's not gone. Pretending it hasn't been provided to you is all you're doing.

      Delete
    12. ""txpiper, what is your favored explanation/excuse for why radiocarbon dating and other forms of dating via radioactive half-life shouldn't be believed?"

      The assumptions."

      The assumptions can be tested. And they have. No, there has not been an increased rate of decay in the past because that much radiation in such a short amount of time would have vaporized the entire planet. Literally.

      That's it, that's a young earth proven false right there. The Earth can't be young, it's physically impossible.

      "What is your favored explanation/excuse for soft tissues lasting for 68 million years?"
      It didn't last 68 million years, it heavily decomposed at all levels along the way. Besides, the explanations are given in the very papers that report soft tissue remnants in those 68 million year old fossils. Cold, lack of oxygen, presense of stabilizing minerals, little to no water present, sterility of the cores of the bones and so on.

      Delete
    13. Mikkel,

      you stick your head in the sand like a Ostrich and see no evidence, where there is overwhelming evidence that points to ID. You sing victory without reason. I have provided better explanations based on ID on EVERY subject. You are a good pupill of Larry : He screams LIAR, LIAR, but when it comes to put the cards on the table, and refute my claims, sudden silence. But i give it that Larry at least is not a covard like PZMyers, which banned me from his blog and justified it with cheap excuses. He did not give me even the pleasure to kick his ass. What a pitty.

      Delete
    14. ElSham- you do not believe in ID because you see evidence for it. You see evidence because you believe in it.

      Delete
    15. "you stick your head in the sand like a Ostrich and see no evidence, where there is overwhelming evidence that points to ID."

      All your so-called "evidence that points to ID" is based on misrepresentations and misunderstandings. You uncritically swallow everything you read in the pro-ID literature partically because you don't understand it very well. I have personally demonstrated some of these things to you.

      "You sing victory without reason. I have provided better explanations based on ID on EVERY subject."

      You have not even given ANY explanations. All you have done is asserted, based on your own misunderstandings and the misrepresentations of the charlatans in the ID-movement, that evolution can't do X and that it was designed. Nothing about how, or why or when. Simply saying "it was designed" is not an explanation.

      "You are a good pupill of Larry : He screams LIAR, LIAR, but when it comes to put the cards on the table, and refute my claims, sudden silence."

      This is nothing short of outright delusional. He explained using references your own misunderstandings of the matters in multiple subjects. You just close off your mind when he does so and mindlessly copy-paste quotemines, misreprsentations and oversimplified pupular-press articles quotes ad nauseam.

      "But i give it that Larry at least is not a covard like PZMyers, which banned me from his blog and justified it with cheap excuses. He did not give me even the pleasure to kick his ass. What a pitty."

      So in addition to being delusional, you are also a child. I think you have too much pride invested in this subject, that's how it reads when you start your childish blather about how you "kick ass" and "i have unmasked his flawed world view and pet theory as what it is : One of the biggest lies humanity has been subjected to". Those are nothing but silly self-gratifying statements. The kind of thing a child would say.

      Delete
    16. "ElSham- you do not believe in ID because you see evidence for it. You see evidence because you believe in it."

      Exactly. This is how ID-proponents chielfy operate. They already believe in designer-God very intensely, and since this belief means so much to them, everything is ad-hoc interpreted in light of that belief. The "evidence" is invented in their own heads through a mix of misunderstandings produced by reading religious propaganda and all sorts of convoluted after-the-fact rationalizations.

      Delete
    17. El, El, El, the hole you keep digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.
      "I have provided better explanations based on ID on EVERY subject. "

      No you haven't provided any explanation in favor of ID. The one trick pony you come up with every... single... time... is 'X is too complex, thus it can't have evolved, thus ID' .
      Your burning hatred for anything remotely sciency is clear to everybody, except to yourself obviously. And while many people on many fora/ blogs/ boards have shown you the errors in your thinking and logic, you persist in your religious fundamentalism and reject everything which might contradict your religious beliefs.

      Delete
    18. Mikkel,

      “The Earth can't be young, it's physically impossible.”

      Pardon me for noticing, but I don’t think you’re particularly good at identifying things that are physically impossible. Don’t lose touch with your scriptures about the space particles and deep sea vents. Have any of the clerics really settled down on the origin of ribosome and replication enzymes?
      -
      “It didn't last 68 million years, it heavily decomposed at all levels along the way.”

      Nice try, but I don’t think you’re quite out of the woods with that. This story might help you along:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html

      Delete
    19. What is your favored explanation/excuse for soft tissues lasting for 68 million years?

      You mean you've already forgotten the last time you blathered this and I responded with several peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the explanations given had been critically reviewed and eventually confirmed independently?

      Delete
    20. Mikkel

      how about you do better than your professor, and actually refute my claim that there is no compelling naturalistic explanation of how the spliceosome evolved ? That would actually add something meaningful to the debate.

      Your personal attacks are utterly irrelevant to me and everyone else, and do not add anything meaningful.....

      Delete
    21. "No, there has not been an increased rate of decay in the past because that much radiation in such a short amount of time would have vaporized the entire planet. Literally."

      Well, I haven't seen calculations that it would have vaporized the Earth, but even the RATE group admits that Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND) is the only hope for a young Earth but would have melted Earth's surface and killed Noah & crew with radiation from the 40K in their bodies. See http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=16688 .

      Delete
    22. "Pardon me for noticing, but I don’t think you’re particularly good at identifying things that are physically impossible. Don’t lose touch with your scriptures about the space particles and deep sea vents. Have any of the clerics really settled down on the origin of ribosome and replication enzymes?"

      No, because they aren't clerics. Rather than pretend to know, they simply say "we don't know, let's try to find out with science". Unlike your actual clerics who really do believe on faith that they know.

      "Nice try, but I don’t think you’re quite out of the woods with that. This story might help you along:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html"


      Unlike you, I actually read the journal publications, not popular-press articles. What I said is absolutely correct.

      Delete
    23. "how about you do better than your professor, and actually refute my claim that there is no compelling naturalistic explanation of how the spliceosome evolved ? That would actually add something meaningful to the debate."

      Nobody cares what a religious lunatic like yourself finds "compelling". You have already been given references to the literature that explains how the spliceosome originated and evolved. The only thing you have left now is to continue to blather about how you don't happen to find it personally compelling.

      Nobody cares.

      "Your personal attacks are utterly irrelevant to me and everyone else, and do not add anything meaningful..... "

      I don't care whether they are irrelevant to you. But they DO add something meaningful, because they happen to explain why it is you are impervious to logic and evidence. That's because ultimately you don't actually care about logic and evidence, you don't believe because of reason or science, you believe what you do because of an intense emotional bias. You are afraid of what life will be like if your God does not exist, you believe it will be empty, hollow, indifferent, dark and without meaning and purpose. So your primary motivations for your beliefs are fearful emotional biases, not logic or evidence. No amount of evidence or logical argument can change the mind of somebody so afraid and emotionally biased as you are.

      Delete
    24. judmarc,

      “You mean you've already forgotten the last time you blathered this and I responded with several peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the explanations given had been critically reviewed and eventually confirmed independently?”

      No, I don’t recall those peer-reviewed scientific publications. Can you summarize their critical reviews and independent confirmations? You do understand that a collection of like-minded screwballs agreeing on something asinine doesn’t make it true, right?

      Maybe you haven’t been keeping up:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-K7_H27Wq4

      http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109_muscle.html

      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00675

      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-soft-tissue-remnants-discovered-in-archaeopteryx-fossil/

      This is very tentative, but, as with junk DNA, it is probably not a good idea to draw conclusions quite yet:
      http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/pregnant-t-rex-found-may-contain-dna-160316.htm

      Delete
    25. If fragments of that DNA is intact enough to be sequenced, and if it really comes from extinct Dinosaurs, evolutionary theory predicts it should be most similar to modern birds.

      What does ID predict? Nothing. The designer could have chosen to design that DNA with any sequence it likes.

      Delete
    26. So if and when that DNA is ever sequenced, and it phylogenetically placed as closest to the ancestors of modern birds, what is you ad-hoc excuse going to be?

      Delete
    27. That's an important point: ID can be used to explain any outcome, while evolution does not.

      Delete
    28. Nobody cares what a religious lunatic like yourself finds "compelling".

      You have still not learned the basics. Wow....


      Most frequent responses given by atheists in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-atheists-in-a-debate

      Delete
    29. @El: are you actually going to present evidence in favor of ID, because you insist on using your one trick pony: "X is too complex, X can't have evolved thus goddidit"?

      Delete
    30. Ed

      let me know when you have taken your blinkers off.

      Delete
    31. “Herewith we report a new finding of morphologically preserved blood-vessel-like structures enclosing organic molecules preserved in iron-oxide-mineralized vessel walls from the cortical region of nothosaurid and tanystropheid (aquatic and terrestrial diapsid reptiles) bones.”
      -
      These bone-bearing limestones occur in Gogolin and Żyglin in Upper Silesia, southern Poland…The age of the Gogolin Formation (formerly Gogolin Beds), as specified on the basis of lithostratigraphic, biostratigraphic and more recent magnetostratigraphic data, has been dated as Early/Middle Triassic, 247.2 Ma (an absolute age, according to the IUGS International Chronostratigraphic Chart…”

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151143

      The '.2 Ma' is a nice touch, don’t you think?

      Delete
    32. In other words, the only "preserved" thing is the morphology, as in the shape, of the cells that make up the tissues. All the individual molecular components are heavily decomposed. Notice how the iron-oxides are present, which are known to contribute enormously to organic preservation.

      This is all perfectly consisten with the age of the material.

      Delete
    33. The most astonishing thing about preserved remnants of soft tissue in fossils is the tremendous coincidence that it was only discovered once we had the technology to detect it.

      Just think of it ---- almost 200 years of fossil collecting and no evidence of soft tissue until the technology of the past decade or so. If had been there all the time, I wonder why nobody discovered it before.

      BTW, if soft tissue can't preserve, then what is oil?

      Delete

    34. “Notice how the iron-oxides are present, which are known to contribute enormously to organic preservation.”

      You must be referring to the experiment where blood vessels were soaked in an iron-rich blood solution and still recognizable after two years. I’m not sure how that would extrapolate into 247 million, but you can’t very well piss away a whole religion over minor details. If it was a billion it wouldn't make a nickel's worth of difference.

      ===

      "if soft tissue can't preserve, then what is oil?"

      Actually, there are ideas, but they are not 100% sure what it was before it was it was transformed into petroleum.

      Delete
  13. I honestly think that people like Meyer and Behe believe what they are saying. It takes a special type of self delusion, but it is honest. As is the case with someone as bizarre as Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus). But it is when you are talking about people at the fringe of the ID movement where the willful and intentional lying and misrepresentation comes into play. OK, Mullings is also at the fringe, but he is a special case.

    People like Arrington lie, misdirect, and misrepresent. And they know it. But to them, the ends justify the means. Or, in short, they are just sick, sad, vindictive little men. And they are all men.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is a famous essay by philosopher Harry Frankfurt called "On Bullshit". He describes bullshit as the making of claims without caring whether they are true or not, while lying is the deliberate stating of an untruth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. it is when you are talking about people at the fringe of the ID movement where the willful and intentional lying and misrepresentation comes into play.

    Please show where Mullings lied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ElShamah777-
      You claim many evolutionary scientists are liars.
      Your evidence does not match the claim.
      You seem very sensitive to the accusation when applied to you or someone you know, yet you throw it at others without any apparent thought.
      Are you aware of these things?

      Delete
    2. You claim many evolutionary scientists are liars.

      Do i ? Where ?

      Delete
    3. "Please show where Mullings lied."

      http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    4. Yep. And thats a lie too, isnt it ?

      The truth is, nobody has murdered more people than atheists. 1

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2314-the-truth-is-nobody-has-murdered-more-people-than-atheists

      Delete
    5. ElShamah777-
      On March 23, 2016 at 10:38 Am you posted a statement-
      “i have unmasked his flawed world view and pet theory as what it is : One of the biggest lies humanity has been subjected to.”

      I am suggesting you have called a lot of scientists liars with this claim.

      Delete
    6. it is when you are talking about people at the fringe of the ID movement where the willful and intentional lying and misrepresentation comes into play.

      Not unless you consider Dr. Behe to be at the fringes. He testified at the Dover trial that you could look high and low and would not find any evidence to contradict his view that the human immune system was irreducibly complex, i.e., that it could not have evolved because a functioning immune system was impossible without all the human immune system's steps. Opposing counsel placed a foot-high stack of over 60 books and peer-reviewed articles showing functioning immune systems with fewer steps in other animals in front of Dr. Behe and asked him if that was still his testimony. Dr. Behe said in response that all this evidence would still not be good enough to cause him to change his view that the human immune system was irreducibly complex.

      Thus Dr. Behe acknowledged under oath in open court a willful refusal to change his representation that the human immune system is irreducibly complex despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

      Sorry El, but your facile statements really count for nothing next to Dr. Behe's own court testimony.

      Delete
    7. Judmarc: Dr. Behe acknowledged under oath in open court a willful refusal to change his representation that the human immune system is irreducibly complex despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

      Shall we have a look what Behe said about IC of the immune system, shall we ?


      The immune system, and irreducible complexity

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2322-the-immune-system-and-irreducible-complexity

      Darwins black box, page 97

      Although great strides have been made in understanding how the immune system works, we remain ignorant of how it came to be. None of the questions raised has been answered by any of the thousands of scientists in the field; few have even asked the questions. A search of the immunological literature shows ongoing work in comparative immunology (the study of immune systems from various species). But that work, valuable though it is, does not address in molecular detail the question of how immune systems originated.

      Perhaps the best efforts at doing that so far have been in two short papers. The first, by Nobel laureate David Baltimore and two other prominent scientists, is tantalizingly entitled «Molecular Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System.» But it's hard to live up to such a title in just two pages. The authors point out that for any organism to have an immune system akin to that seen in mammals, the minimally required molecules are the antigen receptors (immunoglobulin and TCR), the antigen presentation molecules (MHC), and the gene rearranging proteins. (Immunoglobulins are antibodies. TCR molecules are akin to antibodies.) The authors then argue that sharks, which are very distantly related to mammals, appear to have all three components.

      But it's one thing to say an organism has a completed, functioning system, and another to say how the system developed. The authors certainly realize this. They note that immunoglobulin and TCR genes both require RAG proteins for rearrangement. On the other hand, RAG proteins require specific recombination signals to rearrange immunoglobulin and TCR genes. (RAG is the component that rearranges the genes.) They make a valiant stab at accounting for the components, but in the end, it is a hop in the box with Calvin and Hobbes. The authors speculate that a gene from a bacterium might have luckily been transferred to an animal. Luckily, the protein coded by the gene could itself rearrange genes; and luckily, in the animal's DNA there were signals that were near antibody genes; and so on. In the final analysis the authors identify key problems with gradualistic evolution of the immune system, but their proffered solutions are really just a disguised shrug of their shoulders.

      I have looked at three features of the immune system—clonal selection, antibody diversity, and the complement system—and demonstrated that each individually poses massive challenges to a putative step-by-step evolution. But showing that the parts can't be built step by step only tells part of the story, because the parts interact with each other. Just as a car without steering, or a battery, or a carburetor isn't going to do you much good, an animal that has a clonal selection system won't get much benefit out of it if there is no way to generate antibody diversity. A large repertoire of antibodies won't do much good if there is no system to kill invaders. A system to kill invaders won't do much good if there's no way to identify them. At each step we are stopped not only by local system problems, but also by requirements of the integrated system.

      Now, how about you refute Behe's argument, and provide a complelling explanation, how the immune system evolved ?

      I give it for granted, you will not be able to provide a compelling explanation......

      Delete
    8. "I give it for granted, you will not be able to provide a compelling explanation."

      Conclusion first, arguments later. That's all you ever do. What part of "we have concrete examples from real biology of living organisms with simpler immune systems than the human one" is beyond your understanding?

      Delete
    9. No, my conclusion is exactly what it says : the conclusion.

      It does not matter how simple you will go :

      An antibody-diversity system requires several components to work.

      The first, of course, is the genes themselves.

      The second is a signal identifying the beginning and end of gene segments. In modern organisms, each segment is flanked by specific signals that tell an enzyme to come along and join the parts together. This is like a sentence that reads «The quick brcut here [fjwkw]cut hereown fox jumps over the lacut here [Ifybnek sy] cut herezy dog»—as long as the beginning and ending are present, the cell knows to keep it together.

      The third component is the molecular machine that specifically recognizes the cutting signals and joins the pieces in the right order. In the absence of the machine, the parts never get cut out and joined. In the absence of the signals, it's like expecting a machine that's randomly cutting paper to make a paper doll. And, of course, in the absence of the message for the antibody itself, the other components would be pointless.

      The need for minimal function reinforces the irreducible complexity of the system.

      :=))

      Delete
    10. It does not matter how simple you will go :

      An antibody-diversity system requires several components to work.


      Yah, and God had to create chickens because without chickens you can't have eggs and without eggs you can't have chickens. Checkmate!

      Gawd, you really are an IDiot, aren't you?

      When people with no relevant education and little imagination start arguing from personal incredulity (which is somehow never exercised on things like virgin births and strolls across bodies of water), nothing is safe from the self-assured doubts of small-minded people.

      Delete
    11. "No, my conclusion is exactly what it says : the conclusion. "

      Thank you for demonstrating you did not understand the point.

      "An antibody-diversity system requires several components to work. (...) The need for minimal function reinforces the irreducible complexity of the system. "

      Yes it does, and such a system can still evolve. One component at a time. Evolutionary theory unavoidably predicts that there should come to exist irreducibly complex structures that require all their components to work. That's because they start out with different, non-critical functions and are gradually changed until they become necessary. Evolution absolutely predicts and requires that such systems should exist.

      Delete
    12. Mikkel

      put once forever in your head that a irreducible complex system cannot evolve by definition. I have explained this more than once to you, but you keep insisting in the same fallacy.

      An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned."In the quote above, Behe notes that there is a fundamental quality of any irreducibly complex system in that, "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” Behe elaborates upon this definition saying"An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-irreducible-complexity

      Delete
    13. "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional."

      Then your definition begs the question by asserting that precursor steps are nonfunctional. As I have explained to you at least 20 times. Literally at least 20 times. You cannot just DEFINE something to be impossible to evolve because then you assume that the precursor systems all have the same function as the end-system and are therefore nonfunctional because they lack parts, rather than have different functions before they become the extant system.

      Delete
    14. The IDiot argument goes like this ...

      1. Feature X cannot possibly have evolved.
      2. Therefore, evolution cannot explain everything.
      3. Therefore, gods exist.

      Sometimes they dress it up a bit with ...

      1. Irreducibly complex features cannot evolve, by definition.
      2. Feature X is irreducibly complex.
      3. Therefore, evolution cannot explain everything.
      4. Therefore, gods exist.

      The logic is the same in both cases.

      IDiots are inherently incapable of seeing why this argument is not convincing. It's because they are stupid.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. "Refute, if you can."

      Okay, here goes: Premise 9 begs the question. Question-begging is a logical fallacy. It means you are assuming what you are trying to prove. It means you never proved it, you just claimed it to be so.

      Here's what's wrong with defining irreducible complexity as an argument (ignoring your fallacious definition and going instead with Behe's latest version):
      The components didn't do originally what they do now.

      There you go. All of your blather outright refuted.

      Delete
    19. Ok, Larry, i just made a screenshot of my post, which you removed, and will do another one right after i will post this one.

      Remove this one again, and another screenshot will be done with the removal of this one again.

      Please explain now why you do not permit me to respond in a adequate manner..... and vandalize me response.

      Delete
    20. ElShamah777,

      "Please explain now why you do not permit me to respond in a adequate manner....."

      It's not a matter of permission, you're unable to respond in an adequate manner because you have the mentality of a very immature child.

      Delete
    21. Ok, Larry, i just made a screenshot of my post, which you removed, and will do another one right after i will post this one.

      I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't delete any of your posts recently. You are welcome to post as long as you keep on topic.

      Delete
    22. Well, thats very strange. I published the same 3 posts twice, and they were removed, right afterwards. Two to Mikkel, and one to you.



      Delete
    23. Larry

      your above post is a typical misrepresentation and attempt of ridicularize the way proponents of ID formulate their arguments. I know you love to make fun of us, but take care in order not to backfire.

      Compare what you wrote to how i formulate my arguments:

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2276-two-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-intelligent-design

      Delete
    24. I posted a answer to Mikkel, and it was removed again.

      Delete
    25. Mikkel

      you are wrong.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2067-there-is-no-selective-advantage-until-you-get-the-final-function?highlight=function

      A cell is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. For what reason would natural processes produce the machines like for example Ribonuclease P, which processes pre-tRNA, which contains additional tRNA sequences at both the 5’ and 3’-ends and need to be removed ? For what reason would natural processes produce tRNA which are required inside the Ribosome , the central molecule in the translation process ? ( lets mention that the very own factories that are made through them, make these enzymes and proteins..... Catch 22..... ) P Ribonuclease P would have no function by its own. tRNA has no function by its own. The Ribosome has no function by its own. These individual parts exercise only their function, if interlocked and working in a interdependent way together. Supposing everything would start through natural processes, how could these machines arise separately, in a stepwise fashion, if they do not have any use by their own ? Its not that we can argue that we simply don't know yet. What we do know, permits us rationally to infer, that naturalistic explanations are entirely inadequate to explain the phenomena in question. A initial blueprint is required, where the whole process is pre-programmed, which is the case in the genome, where all the information to build a cell is stored, and the whole process has to start all at once. That seems to be best explained through a intelligent designer.

      Delete
    26. ES777 won't get this, but I find it useful to think of the evolution of protein-producing ribosomes, tRNA, etc., the other way around.

      When trying to understand the evolution of these features, what would we start with? Probably RNA or something similar. We observe that RNA and its precursors can form spontaneously under conditions that would have existed in patches on early earth. We observe that RNA itself can catalyze its own replication. We observe that RNA itself can catalyze the production of small proteins. Left to itself, whole process is inefficient, of course, and the proteins made are (mostly) of no particular use to the RNA.

      Let the system run for a while. Certain RNA's become more frequent, the ones that replicate themselves most efficiently. These may be ones that produce little proteins or little RNA fragments that help the replication process.

      As replication by RNA (and eventually DNA) continued, sequences increased in numbers if they produced proteins (or RNA's) that caused the RNA (or DNA) to replicate more efficiently. That repeated process is enough to lead to efficient chemicals we call ribosomes, tRNA's, polymerases, etc., though not quickly or directly. No need to invoke plans or design, just repeated small improvements. The current version of these systems are astonishingly complex, but their evolution started with a simple system plus repeated changes.

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

      Delete
    28. El:
      "
      Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa."

      Since when do PC's reproduce? Do they split down the middle? Or do the male and female PC's go for it when the employees are at home?
      If they don't reproduce, then the analogy of PC's with biological systems fail. Utterly. And once again this is another failed attempt at 'X is too complex, X can't have evolved, thus goddidit'.

      Delete
    29. Ed

      logical fallacy. What does one thing have to do with the other ?

      And if you think the fact that cells reproduce helps your case, you are redundantly wrong.

      DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes

      Delete
    30. I saw your post and responded to it. I don't know what happened to your post, it said "post removed by the author" after it disappeared, which implies you somehow managed to delete your own post.

      Delete
    31. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    32. "We observe that RNA and its precursors can form spontaneously under conditions that would have existed in patches on early earth."

      No, you do not observe any such thing.

      Delete
    33. Mikkel

      one answer was divided in two posts. After the first part was deleted, i deleted the second, it made no sense without the first part. I deleted 3 posts. Several posts disappeard. Strange.

      I responded to your objection. chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen 5
      A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"

      Paul Davies, the fifth miracle page 53:
      Pluck the DNA from a living cell and it would be stranded, unable to carry out its familiar role. Only within the context of a highly specific molecular milieu will a given molecule play its role in life. To function properly, DNA must be part of a large team, with each molecule executing its assigned task alongside the others in a cooperative manner. Acknowledging the interdependability of the component molecules within a living organism immediately presents us with a stark philosophical puzzle. If everything needs everything else, how did the community of molecules ever arise in the first place? Since most large molecules needed for life are produced only by living organisms, and are not found outside the cell, how did they come to exist originally, without the help of a meddling scientist? Could we seriously expect a Miller-Urey type of soup to make them all at once, given the hit-and-miss nature of its chemistry?

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2179-the-cell-is-a-interdependent-irreducible-complex-system

      Delete
    34. Once again, Otangelo Grasso (ElShamah777) has begun spamming my blog with lengthy comments containing re-posts of material he has already posted on the various forums he controls. The comments contain links to his various websites.

      I just deleted one of those posts a few minutes ago. This was the first one of his posts I've deleted in several months.

      I just checked my spam filter on Blogspot and found seven (7!!) more comments that he attempted to post yesterday. All of them contained lengthy rehashes of stuff he had already posted on his blogs and forums. All of them contained links to the original posts.

      I did not post those comments.

      From now on, I'm going to delete every single comment from Otangelo Grasso (ElShamah777) that contains rehashed material from one of his blogs or websites unless it happens to be strictly relevant to the topic of conversation.

      The next time he spams my blog he will be banned forever.

      Otangelo Grasso has a reputation for spamming forums and blogs with lengthy comments and he has been banned from many sites because of this unethical behavior. I don't want to ban dissenting voices on Sandwalk but he may leave me no choice.

      If he disappears, it will not be because he disagrees with me. It will be because he continues to spam after repeated warnings.

      Delete
    35. ElShamah777 wrote:

      "Larry

      your above post is a typical misrepresentation and attempt of ridicularize the way proponents of ID formulate their arguments. I know you love to make fun of us, but take care in order not to backfire.

      Compare what you wrote to how i formulate my arguments:

      [link-to-some-bullshit-blog]"


      And guess what the link presents? Examples that look exactly like what Larry summarized.

      Delete
    36. Larry

      i have not "spammed" your blog. I have answered to the various inquiries and arguments of the other posters here with precise, scientifically fundamented answers.

      I have not "various forums". I have just ONE forum where i collect scientific , philosophic, and religous information, which leads in my view to the God of the bible as the creator of our existence. ( I have the same in portuguese and german ) which i use less.

      The comments link just to ONE, namely reasonandscience, because that is the place where i collect all relevant information.

      So it was your spamfilter that deleted the post. There were seven, because i re-posted the same answer twice, and was deleted twice.

      I agree there should be a certain limit do keep on topic. But you might observe that it is common to change subject by all posters of your blog, so to blame me is unjustified.

      There is nothing unethical to answer to a poster with external sources, and cite authors that are experts of the relevant fields in question.

      Unenthical it is what you do all the time : Namely mock, try to ridicule and name call proponents of ID as IDiots, as liars etc.

      Actually, once more you where not able to sustain your acusation that i lied , through the example of the spliceosome. After i refuted your claims, you did not retract from your acusation, but remained silent. THAT is unethical.

      You misrepresented and tried to ridicularize the way IDer's formulate their arguments. That's unethical as well, and under the line of what someone should expect from a university professor.

      If i disappear, it is because you are not better than PZMyers and Jerry Coyne.

      Delete
    37. If i disappear, it is because you are not better than PZMyers and Jerry Coyne.

      amongst other reasons.

      Delete
    38. El,

      Describe one instance where ID/creationist theory better fits the evidence, and explain what element of ID/creationism provides a better explanation.

      I don't want links, just give me an example here.

      Delete
    39. Otangelo Grasso (ElShamah777)says,

      So it was your spamfilter that deleted the post. There were seven, because i re-posted the same answer twice, and was deleted twice.

      I really don't want to quibble about this but, just for the record, your comments were never posted so they weren't deleted. They may have appeared on your monitor when you submitted them but that just indicates that you "submitted" them, not that they actually got posted.

      Some of your other comments WERE deleted but that seems to be your fault for deleting your own comments.

      Delete
    40. Chris
      the universe has a beginning, therefore a cause. That cause could not have a cause, otherwise there would be infinite regress, which is impossible. From nothing, nothing comes. The cause had to be a eternal, non-physical, conscious, personal agent. The physical laws point to a law giver. The universe, the four fundamental forçes, the solar system and the earth are finely tuned for life, therefore a finetuner. Life comes only from life. The cell is a irreducible interdependent extremely complex factory where a minimal gene set had to arise all at once, a stepwise evolutionary manner is not possible. The soft and hardware of the cell had to emerge all at once. Complex, specified information, and a translation system as there is in the cell, the genetic cipher, and the best possible genetic code amongst millions is best explained through a creator. Biodiversity is due to several epigenetic mechanisms which origin are best explained through a intelligent agency. And so are morality, the hability of speech, consciousness, and logic.

      Delete
    41. El,

      That's philosophy, not science. You have no way to independently verify you base premises.

      With regard to your thesis about the cell, it sounds superficially logical, but it is a straw man argument. I haven't heard any scientist saying the first cell arose de novo and complete. Only religious ideas require complex, fully formed structures to appear all at once through some supernatural fiat.

      In any case, retreating to the origin of life is not what I am asking you. One can always backpedal to events so deep in history that there will always be doubt as to exactly how things arose. Arguing from ignorance is not what I am getting at.

      If ID/creationism wants to provide a scientific alternative to the diversity of life on planet Earth, it will have to compete with many decades of empirical research supporting evolutionary theory from many different scientific disciplines.

      You have a lot of catching up to do, and you will have to build your case one little brick at a time. If ID/creationist theory is useful, it must make predictions. Or else, testable hypotheses must come from its theoretical framework. And then ID/creationist proponents must test them with real scientific experiments. The answer you have provided above is only a heuristic framework, basically an opinion without any evidence to support it. If ID/creationism wants to be taken seriously in the scientific realm, it is time for its proponents to start doing the '99% perspiration' part of scientific discovery.

      So, once again, take a naturalistic explanation for some biological process, and explain how some hypothesis/prediction of ID/creationist theory fits the facts better.

      Delete
    42. El,

      You could not refute my claims in a lengthy post, much less a concise and fact oriented post. If you could, you would have done so.

      Minnich knocked out individual proteins of the flagellum of a species of bacterium, and found that it rendered the flagellum nonfunctional. If you think this proves that the only alternative is that an intelligent being designed the flagellum of that species of bacterium, you are mistaken. If a surgeon arthroscopically removes the pancreas of someone they will die. If someone cuts off your hands and feet, it will be nigh impossible for you to sign checks as you have thus far in life. This is no proof that an intelligent designer designed you.

      "Minnich produced relevant experimental data which confirmed a prediction made by intelligent design, and he used this research to support intelligent design in the courtroom."
      No he didn't. Minnich proved that if you remove a part of a currently functioning complex system, you can break it. This is no proof of "intelligent design". You haven't even made a unique prediction based on ID/creationist theory, so how can we know Minnich tested it? If the hemoglobin gene of almost any vertebrate is erased, they will die (unless you're a member of the Channichthyidae family of fishes, in which case even hemoglobin can't prove 'irreducible complexity').

      You are still stuck in trying to tear down evolutionary theory, rather than designing experiments to verify/falsify whatever predictions/hypotheses your ID/creationist theory makes. The idea that "irreducibly complex" systems can evolve naturally can be modeled easily. What you need to do is make a prediction that is unique to ID/creationist theory. Provide >positive< evidence for your theory.

      Delete
    43. "We observe that RNA and its precursors can form spontaneously under conditions that would have existed in patches on early earth."

      No, you do not observe any such thing.


      I suppose you're a little bit correct in one sense: We know it doesn't even take conditions as receptive as the early Earth to produce the precursors of RNA (amino acids). They've been found in chunks of rock falling to Earth from space (meteorites). So normal basic chemistry even in the unfriendly vastness of space is quite sufficient to make the building blocks of life.

      The last time real scientists thought there might be something separate, special and apart about organic chemistry was at the start of the 19th century. Perhaps it's time you learned a little science from the past couple hundred years.

      Delete
    44. ElShamah777,

      "the universe has a beginning, therefore a cause."

      No. So far cosmologists are not in agreement about an actual beginning, and a beginning doesn't entail a "cause," just an event. Cause/effect is a primitive way of thinking. A mental model that hasn't been the way we try and understand phenomena for a long time. I wasn't taught a single thing in terms of cause/effect. I heard about these only in elementary school, then no longer.

      "That cause could not have a cause, otherwise there would be infinite regress, which is impossible."

      Or maybe timelessness is something our limited brains are not able to understand. Maybe overall phenomena are not about independent items called causes and effects. Maybe it's all just shit happening according to the way nature works. In other words, all part and parcel with "the fabric of the cosmos."

      "The cause had to be a eternal, non-physical, conscious, personal agent."

      Nonsense. Conscious personal "agents" are biological in nature. None of them is known to be eternal or non-physical. They're completely dependent on the very stuff you're trying to explain.

      "The physical laws point to a law giver."

      The physical laws point to humans conceptualizing natural phenomena and calling their conceptualizations "laws."

      "The universe, the four fundamental forçes, the solar system and the earth are finely tuned for life, therefore a finetuner."

      If the universe has to be finely tuned for life to exist, then a "finetuner" could not have existed before the universe was finely tuned.

      Etc, etc, etc.

      Delete
  16. "Please show where Mullings lied."

    Try some reading comprehension. It is an amazing thing. I said that Gordon Mullings (dba KairosFocus) is so delusional that he thinks that he is telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "There are about 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. I think it's unlikely that there are more than a few thousand genes for functional RNAs for a total of less than 25,000 genes..."

    along with


    "... Central Dogma of Molecular Biology..."



    The above, along with the C-value paradox are the ultimate proof that DNA has nothing to do with morphogenesis.

    Those who deny this ultimate fact are required to prove in detail how the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology; DNA makes RNA makes proteins can generate morphogenesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh, heh... you picked the wrong blog to sound knowledgeable about molecular biology by incorrectly describing the Central Dogma.

      Delete
  18. I can tell you Esteller is less competent than he appears to be. Without going into specifics, my lab I used to work in had personal engagement with him in which, as a peer reviewer, he rejected a paper of ours under ridiculous scientific grounds saying our findings were not significant. We resubmitted the paper to a different journal which today has over 100+ citations, with a multitude of papers afterwards corroborating our findings and data.

    ReplyDelete