tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7654778731039059106..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theoryLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61617652656177276502015-08-13T15:10:40.322-04:002015-08-13T15:10:40.322-04:00Skeptical Mind has just trotted out one of my favo...Skeptical Mind has just trotted out one of my favorite creationist tropes: "Science doesn't know everything, therefore science knows nothing." Do these people ever think for a moment before posting?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56305572111503354442015-08-13T14:41:31.994-04:002015-08-13T14:41:31.994-04:00Next time you go fishing, be sure take the four dr...Next time you go fishing, be sure take the four drachma coin out of the mouth of the first fish you catch so that you can pay your and jesus's taxes. LMAO<br /><br />Matthew 17:27<br />But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6373869394962022612015-08-13T14:17:02.561-04:002015-08-13T14:17:02.561-04:00"Since Behe is an Evolutionist so are his sup...<i>"Since Behe is an Evolutionist so are his supporters. You're not well versed in logic, are you?"</i><br /><br />First you make an obvious non-sequitur (and one based on a false premise), then you go on to ask whether I'm versed in logic. I need only laugh at this.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47297346253499594712015-08-13T13:05:36.026-04:002015-08-13T13:05:36.026-04:00liesforthedevil - Why do you lie for the devil? F...liesforthedevil - Why do you lie for the devil? For it seems like you write in support of IDCism. nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91336930511048031132015-08-11T05:47:21.668-04:002015-08-11T05:47:21.668-04:00Here's another one. It's about gene deleti...Here's another one. It's about gene deletions, gene duplications, and selection in regard to human populations:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150806160927.htm<br /><br /> The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54349961498372472822015-08-11T05:12:31.573-04:002015-08-11T05:12:31.573-04:00In case anyone is interested, this link is to an a...In case anyone is interested, this link is to an article I just came across that is about "adaptive radiation":<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150810091729.htm<br /><br />This one is about expanding the ToE:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150804202710.htmThe whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25877900255683255932015-08-09T18:57:23.391-04:002015-08-09T18:57:23.391-04:00What do you want me to do Mikkel?
Now you know wh...What do you want me to do Mikkel?<br /><br />Now you know why people like me tend to be "creationists" without religious affiliation?Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49543266581811359392015-08-09T18:37:28.383-04:002015-08-09T18:37:28.383-04:00Mikkel: "I see you're not familiar with t...<b>Mikkel:</b> "I see you're not familiar with the posters on Larry's blog. Liesforthedevil is not an "evolutionist" you nutbag(hence the name, he thinks evolution is a lie invented by satan), he's an ID creationist and he's infatuated with Mike Behe."<br /><br />Since Behe is an Evolutionist so are his supporters. You're not well versed in logic, are you?<br /><br />Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89744311373256460632015-08-09T18:35:15.989-04:002015-08-09T18:35:15.989-04:00Mikkel: I'm not joking, acceptance of natural ...<b>Mikkel:</b> I'm not joking, acceptance of natural selection, mutability, speciation, macro-evolution, and human evolution means Behe is a double agent working for Darwin.<br /><br />How do the facts NOT support such a conclusion?<br />Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52808653303422945572015-08-09T09:20:27.563-04:002015-08-09T09:20:27.563-04:00Since these papers touch on some of the topics in ...Since these papers touch on some of the topics in this thread and others here, I'm posting links to them and asking for comments about them:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277265/<br /><br />http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/97759813/evaluation-cold-shock-induced-cytotoxicity-genotoxicity-house-fly-musca-domestica<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20537067380773358502015-08-09T09:01:14.870-04:002015-08-09T09:01:14.870-04:00@liarsfordarwin
You can read? Who knew.@liarsfordarwin<br /><br />You can read? Who knew.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52238088711966858792015-08-08T17:10:52.281-04:002015-08-08T17:10:52.281-04:00aljones909
I've missed your response and then...aljones909<br /><br />I've missed your response and then I went away for few days fishing in beautiful Northern Canada. I didn't catch any real fish, but I fell in love with the Canadian north, more precisely with the northern Ontario, my grand children just corrected me.<br /><br />I've noticed that although evolution is supposed to be a fact, there seem to be different brands or what I call circles of opinion as to how evolution happened and so on, and so forth. What I'm worried about the science behind it. There can't be two ( 2 ) identical results to support 2 different issues.Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46878046434533015082015-08-08T14:17:55.333-04:002015-08-08T14:17:55.333-04:00It was a pricey book. I paid $100 at the time I bo...It was a pricey book. I paid $100 at the time I bought it years ago. I don't have reason to think there is a PDF of such an expensive academic book....<br /><br />It only gave me a few usable tidbits to describe evolutionary theory like the word GenomFart, the title of Chapter 3.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77515689277740892302015-08-08T12:07:16.082-04:002015-08-08T12:07:16.082-04:00To me Darwin knew there was more, his writings on ...To me Darwin knew there was more, his writings on plants indicate that as well. Further more there are a lot of smart people who never bought into strictly "random mutation" including Barbara McClintock (see here nobel speech). Here is a take on evolution being intentional (not ID) at the local level: http://www.intendedevolution.comPrice concioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08639092202136566094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72321123502259852952015-08-07T08:16:40.165-04:002015-08-07T08:16:40.165-04:00"Here we have an Evolutionist commenting on M...<i>"Here we have an Evolutionist commenting on Michael Behe. "</i><br /><br />I see you're not familiar with the posters on Larry's blog. Liesforthedevil is not an "evolutionist" you nutbag(hence the name, he thinks evolution is a lie invented by satan), he's an ID creationist and he's infatuated with Mike Behe. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38062325570045798592015-08-07T08:03:19.745-04:002015-08-07T08:03:19.745-04:00So it's a "presupposition of naturalism&q...So it's a "presupposition of naturalism" that a fast-running Lion will be better at catching Wildebeest, than a slower one? <br /><br />This is also a joke, right?Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76059740853933583722015-08-07T08:01:18.134-04:002015-08-07T08:01:18.134-04:00"In short: Behe is a double agent working for...<i>"In short: Behe is a double agent working for Darwin."</i><br /><br />Nah man, you can keep him. He's no use to us over here. xD<br /><br />By the way, you <i>were</i> joking right?Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58775451087174316762015-08-06T16:52:36.144-04:002015-08-06T16:52:36.144-04:00Moreover, ALL of the claims of evolutionary theory...Moreover, ALL of the claims of evolutionary theory are based on the presuppositions of Naturalism, so any "Christian" who accepts these claims is renouncing the Creator and His Son (quote marks justified).Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6081746031345823862015-08-06T16:44:47.466-04:002015-08-06T16:44:47.466-04:00In short: Behe is a double agent working for Darwi...In short: Behe is a double agent working for Darwin.Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36424129491192240322015-08-06T16:43:56.359-04:002015-08-06T16:43:56.359-04:00lutesuite: "Strictly speaking, thought, that ...lutesuite: <b>"Strictly speaking, thought, that does not mean that Behe does not accept all of the major concepts of evolution. What it does mean is that he believes that certain biological structures could only have come into existence thru the intervention of an "intelligent designer" or a "creator' (who he believes to be Jesus Christ). This means, in no uncertain terms, that Behe is a creationist."</b><br /><br />Beliefs as conveyed are subjective; Behe cannot produce any source that says God created certain phenomena. The Bible says God created every-thing.Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45699111899219683662015-08-06T16:37:17.553-04:002015-08-06T16:37:17.553-04:00The whole truth: "No, Behe does not accept &q...The whole truth: <b>"No, Behe does not accept "all the major evolutionary concepts as existing". All of the "major evolutionary concepts" of evolutionary theory (and the 'minor' ones too) do NOT include a designer-creator-assembler-guider-god. Behe injects his imaginary designer-creator-assembler-guider-god into his version of evolution in various, convenient ways. Altering evolutionary theory to include his chosen, so-called 'God' is not an acceptance of "all the major evolutionary concepts as existing". <br /><br />As has been pointed out to you numerous times, your creationist beliefs are not the same as every other creationist's beliefs. Anyone who believes in a 'creator' (aka designer, assembler, guider, director, god, unmoved mover, sky daddy/mommy, spirit, holy ghost, supernatural entity, etc.) is a creationist.</b><br /><br />The claims of Creationism do not include natural selection, mutability, speciation, macroevolution, and human evolution---all of which Behe accepts as existing, true. So Behe is an Evolutionist and a disingenuous "Creationist." Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53299681585844342122015-08-06T16:28:46.160-04:002015-08-06T16:28:46.160-04:00liesforthedevil: "Ray Martinez is a funny guy...liesforthedevil: <b>"Ray Martinez is a funny guy and whoever stands behind "him" hasn't done his homework or alternatively has been doing toooo much of substance abuse as latesute PSW from CAMH."</b><br /><br />Definitely something an Evolutionist would say.<br /><br />Ray (OEC, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)Ray Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971629710678567708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89582771983690586432015-08-06T09:54:05.549-04:002015-08-06T09:54:05.549-04:00Maybe this will help clarify one of the chief weak...Maybe this will help clarify one of the chief weaknesses of Behe's argument: In order for a strain of malaria parasite that is resistant to chloroquine to be detected by human beings, there is a sequence of several events that must occur. The occurrence of one of the combinations of mutations that leads to chloroquine resistance is but one of these steps, even though it is a necessary one. The entire sequence of events is relatively improbable to occur, and that is why the emergence of a new chloroquine resistant strain is something that is observed relatively infrequently.<br /><br />However, it does not follow from this that the probability of <i>each individual step</i> in that sequence is as low as that of the entire sequence as a whole. This should be blatantly obvious, yet somehow Behe overlooks this.<br /><br />He correctly cites a number from the literature regarding the estimated frequency with which chloroquine resistance is observed. But he incorrectly presents this as the frequency with which the necessary combination of mutations will occur. It's as if he correctly calculated the odds of a lottery ticket with the number 3473892756 being drawn, but said these were the odds of any number whose first digit is 3 being drawn.<br /><br />How stupid is that? And it's not even the only error he makes, but it's enough to sink his entire argument.<br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89728176118651957112015-08-06T06:36:23.746-04:002015-08-06T06:36:23.746-04:00But of course, Behe's explanation of the evolu...<i>But of course, Behe's explanation of the evolution of chloroquine resistance was dead wrong, as actually published empirical evidence showed. The real situation was well within reasonable probability, and in fact evolved independently several times, with several possible evolutionary pathways available to do so.</i><br /><br />See, that's a good example of what I was talking about. Behe's explanation was <i>not</i> incorrect, and his estimation of the frequency with which chloroquine resistant strains of malaria arise was accurate (Though it wasn't his; It was simply copied from a paper by Nicholas White.)<br /><br />Behe's error, rather, was in interpreting this figure as a calculation of the odds of <i>any</i> beneficial trait requiring two mutations arising by evolutionary processes. <br /><br />Larry wrote a series of posts dissecting Behe's claim in detail:<br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/08/michael-behes-final-thoughts-on-edge-of.htmlFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74149542482704386292015-08-05T22:50:41.995-04:002015-08-05T22:50:41.995-04:00"PZ Myers respond to M Behe chloroquine resis..."PZ Myers respond to M Behe chloroquine resistance arguments:<br /><br />"Fair enough; if you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination""<br /><br />But of course, Behe's explanation of the evolution of chloroquine resistance was dead wrong, as actually published empirical evidence showed. The real situation was well within reasonable probability, and in fact evolved independently several times, with several possible evolutionary pathways available to do so. <br /><br />lies, true to his handle, left out all that real life empirical science, and just presented the Behe made-up scenario which was never true. What a shame.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.com