tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6094376250866230944..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Michael Behe in Toronto: "Evidence of Design from Biology"Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28256906222020362832013-03-20T16:44:23.842-04:002013-03-20T16:44:23.842-04:00Also The Badlands Guardian gives me goosebumps.Also <a href="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5269/5655928111_686fd49346_z.jpg" rel="nofollow">The Badlands Guardian</a> gives me goosebumps.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65821812734511306662013-03-20T16:36:44.818-04:002013-03-20T16:36:44.818-04:00No Piotr, Jesus in a dogs bum beats all of those.
...No Piotr, <a href="http://www.sleeptalkinman.com/images/jesusInDogsArsehole.jpg" rel="nofollow">Jesus in a dogs bum</a> beats all of those.<br /><br />The Cheeto Jesus, aka <a href="https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1156374712/cheezus.jpg" rel="nofollow">Cheezus Crust</a>, is good too.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84324821448298031042013-03-20T16:13:23.198-04:002013-03-20T16:13:23.198-04:00Not to mention the God eggplant and the garage-flo...Not to mention the <a href="http://dumpendebat.net/picture_library/godplant.jpg" rel="nofollow">God eggplant</a> and the <a href="http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/08/10/jesus_smudge.jpg" rel="nofollow">garage-floor Jesus smudge</a>.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41477572700195459232013-03-20T15:33:12.305-04:002013-03-20T15:33:12.305-04:00I never understand the IDiot argument that protein...I never understand the IDiot argument that protein binding sites cannot evolve by random mutation.<br /><br />Every molecular biologist knows that if you pick a random amino acid on the surface of your protein of study, and mutate it to some other amino acid, there's a pretty good chance that your protein molecules will stick together. <br /><br />Just by mutating one amino acid, how often does it happen that the mutant protein sticks to itself? Judging from the complaints I hear from many experimentalist friends, I would guess that that happens maybe at least one quarter of the time. Maybe a third.<br /><br />What do you all think, if any of you are experimentalists?<br /><br />The thing is, the overwhelming majority of those cases ARE NEVER PUBLISHED, because in the great majority of cases, molecular biologists don't WANT the protein molecules to stick together. So that stuff never gets published in the literature, and there is, so far as I know, no "big database of mutations that cause proteins to bind to themselves." Maybe there should be.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52566481650855085502013-03-20T15:02:39.159-04:002013-03-20T15:02:39.159-04:00Yes, the famous Marlene Dietrich, I mean Virgin Ma...Yes, the famous Marlene Dietrich, I mean Virgin Mary, grilled cheese!SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34755983133626759542013-03-20T11:38:08.923-04:002013-03-20T11:38:08.923-04:00As an example of seeing more evidence for my view ...As an example of seeing more evidence for my view all the time, I just finished reading this:<br /><br />http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/601.html<br /><br />(Cosma Shalizi showing that Bayesian statistical methods are a subset of the mathematical model of natural selection.)(Written in 2009, but new to me, hence new evidence.)<br /><br />Of course, we tend to see evidence that supports our views and perhaps ignore evidence that doesn't, but the sheer rolling tidal wave of similarities one can find impresses me. Working at General Electric helped, from Edison's 1000 trials of light-bulb filaments to "the cat that invented Lexan(TM)". For another example, what's the most powerful simulation technique used to come up with more efficient jet-engine designs? Answer, Monte Carlo analysis.<br /><br />In my original comment I said IDer's need to understand both intelligence and design better before they start theorizing. For example, how do we know that a super-computer running Monte Carlo trials on jet-engine parameters is not "intelligence"? What if that is exactly what our 100 billion synapses are doing in the background as we speak?<br /><br />What if consciousness is like the CEO (take Jack Welch--please!) sitting high up in his penthouse office, thinking he makes things happen by sheer will, while in the background 250,000 employees scramble to try to find ways to implement his directives. (Such as "Be number 1 or number 2, or get out [of the business]." Which got us out of strong early positions in computers and the internet--don't get me started on Welch--"Straight From The Gut" indeed, but from the wrong end.)<br /><br />To finish on a humbler note, what do people see as evidence that the (granted, much faster) thinking of humans is qualitatively different than the slow, era-long thoughts of evolution? (Somebody mentioned different goals, but don't all our goals to be rich and famous or useful come from the evolutionary drives to survive and reproduce?)<br /><br />JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54498358930270816102013-03-20T10:57:39.431-04:002013-03-20T10:57:39.431-04:00SRM says,
Witness the beautiful quartz crystal wi...SRM says,<br /><br /><i>Witness the beautiful quartz crystal with its pleasing colour and perfect facets. Surely designed! </i><br /><br />Good example but surely diamonds are better. Quartz crystals have flaws but the best diamonds are perfect.<br /><br />Have you thought about the probability that trillions and trillions of carbon atoms would come together in just the right order to create a diamond? That's proof of design if there ever was one.<br /><br />But the best proof of design, by far, is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4034787.stm" rel="nofollow">Virgin Mary's face on a grilled cheese sandwich</a>. Design is the only possible explanation for that. <br /> Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13588780652305558162013-03-20T10:37:59.189-04:002013-03-20T10:37:59.189-04:00lutesuite says,
Sam Harris (not ours, the other o...lutesuite says,<br /><br /><i>Sam Harris (not ours, the other one) on the use of mockery and ridicule:</i><br /><br />That's great. I'm going to steal it and post it. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29960775259872006762013-03-20T08:46:41.384-04:002013-03-20T08:46:41.384-04:00SRM and Rumraket, I think you both make excellent ...SRM and Rumraket, I think you both make excellent points. I concede that there is a place for the type of rhetoric that RD engages in.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58883195836985238642013-03-20T08:39:09.770-04:002013-03-20T08:39:09.770-04:00By definition, there will be those among us who wi...By definition, there will be those among us who will take offense at any imaginable disagreement, no matter how couched in courteous mannerisms and how respectful the discourse. <br /><br />The simple fact is that Richard Dawkins is effective, he has an audience, he makes "deconverts". Okay, his methods aren't for you, well too bad. <br /><br />I've seen similar arguments elsewhere to what you're making here Andy, about style and discourse. On another forum, a member tried to tell me that pointing out contradictions and the evil deeds of god in the bible don't work, they don't reach religious people. But that's simple false, they do IN FACT reach religious people, there are countless testimonies from people for whom exactly that approach worked. For whom having these things pointed out explicitly made them think about it and ultimately made them reject otherwise deeply held beliefs they never dared challenge. <br /><br />For some people, they're part of a homogenous community, they never get to really hear the tough voice of dissent. Then along comes someone like Dawkins, and however much of a disrespectful asshole you think he is, he makes sense. It works for plenty of people. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85709033935276398522013-03-20T07:36:14.257-04:002013-03-20T07:36:14.257-04:00Another problem of detecting design in nature: Wit...Another problem of detecting design in nature: Witness the beautiful quartz crystal with its pleasing colour and perfect facets. Surely designed! A lump of limestone - eh, not so much!<br /><br />As for evil, the sorry state of the universe (for those that would hope and believe otherwise) can be summed up with two words: Shit happens. It is the best we can hope for to have our lives attended by more pleasant events than bad, and we can do certain things that make bad things less likely to happen. But otherwise luck be it bad or good plays an enormous role. <br /><br />Of course, you can't tell that to someone who is a lone survivor of a crash or who has otherwise narrowly escaped a bad event. They are most likely to attribute their fortune to jesus or another god, or a saint or angel. As for the many who will die today by accident or disease (i.e. bad luck)...no chance for them to approvingly ponder the intercessory effect of gods, saints, and angels.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4431084567206585392013-03-20T07:19:37.030-04:002013-03-20T07:19:37.030-04:00Sam Harris (not ours, the other one) on the use of...Sam Harris (not ours, the other one) on the use of mockery and ridicule:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1rEsiOs4Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63147635554599357882013-03-20T07:02:05.284-04:002013-03-20T07:02:05.284-04:00pejorativepejorativeSRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80088671110067481722013-03-20T06:58:49.031-04:002013-03-20T06:58:49.031-04:00how many times in your life have you willingly giv...<i>how many times in your life have you willingly given up something that was tremendously important to you (as religion is to believers) because someone smugly dismissed it, insulted and ridiculed you</i><br /><br />Not sure I accept your idea. People may well react with revolt and entrenchment when their most cherished ideas are criticized but the worse the sting the more likely they are to wonder how and why such contrary ideas exist. It is likely to lead to a re-examination and at least slow modification of one's beliefs.<br /><br />Contrast that with the seemingly preferred "non-strident, non-militant" approach - which basically means say little or nothing at all to challenge cherished bullshit. This is the strategy that has protected religion from criticism for generations and created a situation where it is normal to believe in unbelievable things without evidence.<br /><br />I imagine the impact of so-called stridency and militantism has been significant, hence the perjority terms strident and militant by those threatened. SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76213740096331586762013-03-20T01:19:28.386-04:002013-03-20T01:19:28.386-04:00JH asks, 'Would you agree that sometimes mocke...JH asks, 'Would you agree that sometimes mockery and ridicule are appropriate?'<br /><br />John, I am not sure, when considering mockery, ridicule, satire, etc., that 'appropriate' is even an issue. By its very nature, there will be some who don't find it 'appropriate'. Gulliver's Travels would hardly have seemed appropriate to the British aristocracy. '1984' would not have seemed appropriate to the western European communists who were still calling Stalin 'Uncle Joe', and Stephen Colbert's roasting of George Bush is still considered to have been wildly inappropriate for the setting by many Republicans.<br />So people who choose to ridicule and mock don't even think about, nor should they, propriety (in most cases).<br />Perhaps the better question would be to ask how effective mockery and ridicule are in specific instances. Richard Dawkins, in the eyes of many religious people, has pretty much made himself a poster child for 'all that is wrong' with atheism by way of his uncompromising rhetoric. He is using his stature and position as a scientist to pursue a non-scientific agenda, and is going about it so zealously that I feel that it IS, in some ways, a misuse ('abuse' is your word) of his position as a scientist, and thus science. So, I don't feel that his mockery and ridicule is being particularly effective.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20082427130387200572013-03-20T00:52:32.054-04:002013-03-20T00:52:32.054-04:00You have to explain the problem. Just saying "...You have to explain the problem. Just saying "if you don't get it then you don't get it" is a copout. Would you agree that sometimes mockery and ridicule are appropriate? So far you've said nothing to indicate that Dawkins is doing anything wrong, and certainly not that he's abusing science.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56236517272333393032013-03-19T21:15:37.915-04:002013-03-19T21:15:37.915-04:00John, here is Dawkins imploring a clearly delighte...John, here is Dawkins imploring a clearly delighted audience to 'mock' and 'ridicule' religion. This has absolutely nothing to do with science or being 'merely engaging'<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQUandyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16622066937121126672013-03-19T20:53:03.529-04:002013-03-19T20:53:03.529-04:00Well, Jim, I really liked what you wrote, like I s...Well, Jim, I really liked what you wrote, like I said on the other thread. And I thought it added something in relation to DAK's comment, so I picked up on it. I don't know if you're the first to think of it or best to describe it either, but you do an excellent job, and provide me with food for thought.<br />So, thanks back. :)andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57368692407337017032013-03-19T20:40:11.216-04:002013-03-19T20:40:11.216-04:00John, here is something else for you not to get:
...John, here is something else for you not to get:<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU<br /><br />It's short, so please watch it. Then you can explain to me how he is "merely engaging on the subject".<br /><br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87651651087539383172013-03-19T20:29:54.544-04:002013-03-19T20:29:54.544-04:00John, if you don't get it then you don't g...John, if you don't get it then you don't get it. You're his audience.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48387418206586238822013-03-19T20:13:40.545-04:002013-03-19T20:13:40.545-04:00Andy: You must explain why those titles are the eq...Andy: You must explain why those titles are the equivalent of screaming, because I don't get it. Why are they objectionable? Was I supposed to gasp in shock at those revelations? Now I'm pretty sure that Dawkins has never considered believers to be his audience. But anyone with doubts might be; he's trying if anything to reach those who might be receptive to his message; and I don't see what anything you have mentioned is going to do to drive those away. <br /><br />As for "why doesn't he do that instead", it's a false dichotomy. If you care so much about the world, why don't you quite your job and devote every waking moment to your favorite cause? At the very least this seem irrelevant to the subject of Dawkins as perverter of science.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86018553039197207182013-03-19T20:09:30.980-04:002013-03-19T20:09:30.980-04:00NE asks, "why be a scientist unless I aimed a...NE asks, "why be a scientist unless I aimed at the knowledge I produce to help us know at least a little bit better?"<br /><br />I think that's a very excellent reason.<br />Let me ask you a question as corollary as well: how many times in your life have you willingly given up something that was tremendously important to you (as religion is to believers) because someone smugly dismissed it, insulted and ridiculed you, and presented the thing that is important to you in such a one-sided and negative way that you didn't recognize it?<br /><br />I'm guessing the answer is none. People tend to let go of deeply held beliefs that they have outgrown through a lengthy process of self examination. Most of the harshest criticism needs to come from inside us, as new ideas sweep away the old. Try to externalize that, and retrenchment and defensiveness result. I don't see the rhetoric of Dawkins, et al facilitating that self examination. It's too pushy and one sided.<br /><br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78953015905283844072013-03-19T19:47:36.523-04:002013-03-19T19:47:36.523-04:00...last line, 'companies', rather...last line, 'companies', ratherandyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18138263603774535702013-03-19T19:42:01.276-04:002013-03-19T19:42:01.276-04:00John, gosh, where to start?
That he had a series ...John, gosh, where to start? <br />That he had a series about religion called 'The Root of All Evil?"<br />That he and Krauss have a movie out now called 'The Unbelievers'?<br /><br />Dawkins has completely lost the audience of believers through such behavior. His audience is people who 'love science'. So, if he REALLY wants to make the world a better place, given that he has lost the ear of people of faith and has a huge following among science lovers, I think he should use the huge spotlight that he insists upon to urge all graduates of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology depts., etc. to refuse to accept jobs in the weapons industry or from jobs that have a horrid record on the environment. Why doesn't he do that instead?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50120081957460369812013-03-19T18:37:40.499-04:002013-03-19T18:37:40.499-04:00No one knows what is to be cognitive. We have only...No one knows what is to be cognitive. We have only groundless beliefs and opinions. The roots of the intelligence could hide in the cell.<br /><br />The universum is full of intelligent laws, the laws of physics.<br /><br />Why should the cell be devoid of them? <br /><br />Says IC-idiot (intelligent cell idiot)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com