METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
- Status
From bob:
I have no problem with the argument from authority maxim. I just think it borders on being ludicrous to think that you have significant arguments that have escaped the notice of 80,000 professionals. But hey, if you really think you are that gifted, I am not one to dissuade such delusions.
redfern said:
My only "gift" is that I like to read widely on the subject of Origins, and that I have learned that 2 + 2 = 4.
Yes, there are 80,000 professionals, but there are probably 10,000 sub disciplines.
And I would be willing to wager that few of those 80,000 have ever heard of the papers cited in the article which I posted exerpts from.
And those few who have heard are keeping it to themselves, because they still hold out hope that the implications of those studies will be nullified somehow in the future. Why? Because those few know that if the studies are not wrong then their precious past publication history is in shambles: i.e. macroevolution is not true, it never happened.
BTW, what's your excuse for the fact that you never heard of these studies before? They have been published and known for almost a decade !
Lord Vader
New member
rest snipped...bob b said:
Wouldn't it have been easier to just paste the link:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_smu1992.htm
Lord Vader said:
Yes, but many evolutionists here never bother to read a link posted by a creationist. It's harder for them to ignore it when I post most of the paper.
BTW, had you ever heard these findings about proteins before? And now that you know, why do you still believe that "random mutations plus natural selection" can cause macroevolution?
From bob:
I have no hesitation in believing that a fair number of highly reasonable, intelligent, and honest scientists have read far more deeply than you on the subjects surrounding evolution.
Reading “widely” does not assure good reading. And I presume your addition example is your way of inferring that you can think and reason.
I have no hesitation in believing that a fair number of highly reasonable, intelligent, and honest scientists have read far more deeply than you on the subjects surrounding evolution.
I hope you are not inferring that only 8 (80,000 / 10,000) scientists are qualified to make informed judgments on the evidence for evolution. I know more than that myself. You are right that there are many specialties. That doesn’t stop science from designing spacecraft that require the integration of detailed knowledge from hundreds of specialties.
I must confess I have not read carefully this entire set of postings, so I don’t know which article you are referring to. I will try to take some time to backpedal through the posts.
You have the gift of discerning people’s motives? My experience has been that people who pretend to that gift are usually projecting their own weaknesses onto others.
see above.
Come back redfern when you have read about how few amino acid sequences actually produce working proteins, and then tell us again why you believe that "random mutations plus natural selection" can be a mechanism to cause macroevolution.
"... all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. "
"... all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. "
Last edited:
Johnny said:
Lord Vader found it and posted the link I few postings ago.
But Johnny,
How did you like the "kicker"?
"... all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences."
Any comment? If that were true would you abandon macroevolution?
I doubt it.
things are more complex than creationists can stand..
things are more complex than creationists can stand..
So what? This only shows that "viable" proteins are indeed spread across a discrete spectrum, not a continuous one. Which is pretty much common sense, and it doesn't invalidate evolution nor the natural selection pressure with its way of remodelling genomes over [long] time.
However I think that the biggest problem with this kind of anti-evolutionist rants with scientific pretensions (a la Behe, Bob Enyart, bob b et al.) stems from their overconfident assumption that they know precisely how genomic mutations would have taken place according to the damned natural selection model - hence they know perfectly how to calculate the associated probabilities! They typically employ a simple probabilistic mutation model (and even worse, they even have the nerve to suggest that's the same model that evolutionists propose!) and then exploit its very design weaknesses to show how improbable evolution is.
Basic advice when you feel the itch of spewing numbers/probabilities just to serve your [oh so obvious] confirmation bias: don't jump at computing such numbers if you don't know how to safely account for at least the essential factors in play. (It seems that the know-it-all pompous attitude of religious people tends to extend into whatever field of science they chose to parasitize). Oh, one might argue that the same basic advice would apply to Dawkins, but it doesn't: he didn't shove some (im)probabilities down your throat, he just proposed a simple illustration of a theory -- a model, an analogy. The complex factors involved in the actual natural process (e.g. the driving selection pressure steering the formation of the valid phrase) were never quantified -- and nobody can really factor those in properly now.. But the model remains sound.
On the other hand, Behe et comp. seem to have a overly simplistic idea about how mutations could have taken place in genomes across many generations. They generally assume that all or most mutations are localized and small (point mutations, or exon shuffling at most) and they observe [correctly] that most such small mutations are useless or even harmful. So they're mostly clinging to the latter observation and happy to run away with it. So what?
There are many ways in which mutations happen or could happen. Not all of them are local or with direct translational effect (i.e. directly resulting in a different protein) -- what about mutations happening in the regulatory regions of the genome?
Of course we don't know everything about how mutations happened during long evolutionary history, but some mechanisms are already observed out there -- including ways to compensate for harmful point mutations and thus provide a basis for adaptive evolution. Take for example gene duplication -- genes get copied within the genome and one copy of can get "safely" mutated - not only point-based, but even at a larger scale, by recombination (cross-over, fusion, etc.) - and the resulting mixed phenotype is quickly naturally "tested" for viability. Then there can be a random/or selective loss or inactivation of whole genes (e.g. the loss of the original gene after a duplication-change which resulted in a "better" variant). There could also be duplications/fusions of entire genomes (followed by massive changes/reorganizations of the genes) - see the polyploidy in angiosperms and other species.. There are also translocations - transfer/swapping of [sometimes big] chunks of one chromosome to non-homologous chromosomes. And so on. There are likely more we haven't even discovered yet.
Of course these mutation events may be rare but consider that:
1) such events took place over a long period of time, so the effects could have gotten highly cumulative
2) we just cannot assess the contribution of all possible factors that could have prompted such mutations and especially their frequency during the whole evolutionary history (e.g. who is to say for sure that for a good while back then there wasn't, say, a lot more radiation out there, prompting an increased ration of duplication/translocation events in the genomes? etc.)
The bottom line is: the evolutionist paradigm still sounds more reasonable than all the fairy tales we read in the Bible and other "holy" books.. Admittedly, it is more complex and it has many more 'unknowns' than the simpleton biblical recipe. And, yes, most creationists just can't stand that.
things are more complex than creationists can stand..
bob b said:
So what? This only shows that "viable" proteins are indeed spread across a discrete spectrum, not a continuous one. Which is pretty much common sense, and it doesn't invalidate evolution nor the natural selection pressure with its way of remodelling genomes over [long] time.
However I think that the biggest problem with this kind of anti-evolutionist rants with scientific pretensions (a la Behe, Bob Enyart, bob b et al.) stems from their overconfident assumption that they know precisely how genomic mutations would have taken place according to the damned natural selection model - hence they know perfectly how to calculate the associated probabilities! They typically employ a simple probabilistic mutation model (and even worse, they even have the nerve to suggest that's the same model that evolutionists propose!) and then exploit its very design weaknesses to show how improbable evolution is.
Basic advice when you feel the itch of spewing numbers/probabilities just to serve your [oh so obvious] confirmation bias: don't jump at computing such numbers if you don't know how to safely account for at least the essential factors in play. (It seems that the know-it-all pompous attitude of religious people tends to extend into whatever field of science they chose to parasitize). Oh, one might argue that the same basic advice would apply to Dawkins, but it doesn't: he didn't shove some (im)probabilities down your throat, he just proposed a simple illustration of a theory -- a model, an analogy. The complex factors involved in the actual natural process (e.g. the driving selection pressure steering the formation of the valid phrase) were never quantified -- and nobody can really factor those in properly now.. But the model remains sound.
On the other hand, Behe et comp. seem to have a overly simplistic idea about how mutations could have taken place in genomes across many generations. They generally assume that all or most mutations are localized and small (point mutations, or exon shuffling at most) and they observe [correctly] that most such small mutations are useless or even harmful. So they're mostly clinging to the latter observation and happy to run away with it. So what?
There are many ways in which mutations happen or could happen. Not all of them are local or with direct translational effect (i.e. directly resulting in a different protein) -- what about mutations happening in the regulatory regions of the genome?
Of course we don't know everything about how mutations happened during long evolutionary history, but some mechanisms are already observed out there -- including ways to compensate for harmful point mutations and thus provide a basis for adaptive evolution. Take for example gene duplication -- genes get copied within the genome and one copy of can get "safely" mutated - not only point-based, but even at a larger scale, by recombination (cross-over, fusion, etc.) - and the resulting mixed phenotype is quickly naturally "tested" for viability. Then there can be a random/or selective loss or inactivation of whole genes (e.g. the loss of the original gene after a duplication-change which resulted in a "better" variant). There could also be duplications/fusions of entire genomes (followed by massive changes/reorganizations of the genes) - see the polyploidy in angiosperms and other species.. There are also translocations - transfer/swapping of [sometimes big] chunks of one chromosome to non-homologous chromosomes. And so on. There are likely more we haven't even discovered yet.
Of course these mutation events may be rare but consider that:
1) such events took place over a long period of time, so the effects could have gotten highly cumulative
2) we just cannot assess the contribution of all possible factors that could have prompted such mutations and especially their frequency during the whole evolutionary history (e.g. who is to say for sure that for a good while back then there wasn't, say, a lot more radiation out there, prompting an increased ration of duplication/translocation events in the genomes? etc.)
The bottom line is: the evolutionist paradigm still sounds more reasonable than all the fairy tales we read in the Bible and other "holy" books.. Admittedly, it is more complex and it has many more 'unknowns' than the simpleton biblical recipe. And, yes, most creationists just can't stand that.
Lord Vader
New member
bob b said:
What does that mean?
OK, bob, I am sorry you had some trouble following that. Since my position was clear from the beginning, no wonder you have no interest to get my point -- while you had all the time (and the interest 
) in the world to follow (and embrace) Behe's whiny proteomic confusion (or perhaps you just copied and pasted it here).
)
I clearly wrote only that "it sounds more reasonable". (Your typical dogmatic approach simply doesn't fly in this field, get used to it already: science just doesn't work the same way as religion). There is also a lot of evidence about the genetic mechanisms that I was "ranting" about in my previous post, evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Where is your similar evidence supporting your competing theory "of Creation by supernatural means"? (or whatever you guys call it these days, 'Intelligent Design' perhaps?)
Really, I would love to see any proof that supernatural exists AND that it was/is the cause of Creation, the origin of life, etc. If you really loved science as you seem to boast, you should know that controlled experiments CAN be designed to prove that the supernatural was the cause and/or the driving force of the whole creation.. Please do so. I am not afraid of truth. If biblical Creation really happened, if that's the truth - I will surely embrace that -- but just please prove it to us, or at least make an effort to make it sound somewhat reasonable.
Until then, please don't waste your (and our) time barking at the wrong tree (science). (True, by doing that you're still going to impress those many simpleton believers which happen to be even less knowledgeable than you about the basic claims of evolution science)
) in the world to follow (and embrace) Behe's whiny proteomic confusion (or perhaps you just copied and pasted it here)... but at least we're still trying to find out, yes. That is, we haven't succumbed to epistemological cowardice or to "blessed" intellectual impotence (you know, despising the "wisdom of the world" while praising an incomprehensible imaginary one that takes care of everything for you, on a "need to know" basisbob b said:
)Not at all. Show me where I wrote that? I am an agnostic and I work with [scientific] theories, looking at the evidence supporting them.
I clearly wrote only that "it sounds more reasonable". (Your typical dogmatic approach simply doesn't fly in this field, get used to it already: science just doesn't work the same way as religion). There is also a lot of evidence about the genetic mechanisms that I was "ranting" about in my previous post, evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Where is your similar evidence supporting your competing theory "of Creation by supernatural means"? (or whatever you guys call it these days, 'Intelligent Design' perhaps?)
On the contrary: PLEASE, please do give us any evidence about HOW YOU THINK IT REALLY HAPPENED! Please, any kind of positive evidence that you can provide on the subject supporting the consistent and meaningful theory that you happen to espouse. Show us Holy Spirit in action, perhaps risen Jesus giving life to rocks miraculously, or perhaps a concert of Christian prayers causing apparent abiogenesis in controlled experiments -- whatever you can provide!
Really, I would love to see any proof that supernatural exists AND that it was/is the cause of Creation, the origin of life, etc. If you really loved science as you seem to boast, you should know that controlled experiments CAN be designed to prove that the supernatural was the cause and/or the driving force of the whole creation.. Please do so. I am not afraid of truth. If biblical Creation really happened, if that's the truth - I will surely embrace that -- but just please prove it to us, or at least make an effort to make it sound somewhat reasonable.
Until then, please don't waste your (and our) time barking at the wrong tree (science)
. (True, by doing that you're still going to impress those many simpleton believers which happen to be even less knowledgeable than you about the basic claims of evolution science)
bob b said:
No only to those who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis which does not necessarily mean a rejection of God. But many have made that point here before. A point that you continue to ignore, as you continue to ignore any accurate statements which interfere with bob b's personal theology and interpretation of science and the real world.
- Status