METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[snowy]

You have got to be kidding me. Evo is "more reasonable"?

Yep, that's what we got so far. Do you have a better one?
I ask you (and bob b) again: do you have a more reasonable theory? Please share it with us. With arguments and supporting evidence, of course (at least try to make it a real science if you really want it to compete with scientific evolutionism).

And, bob b -- you're wrong again in your rash assumptions: I don't reject GOD, for I can't a priori reject something I don't know anything about. God is for me just another unconfirmed hypothesis, some wishful thinking with practically no supporting evidence. That is, weaker than any [scientific] theory so far. (Oh sure I reject the biblical god, especially the Old Testament one, no problem -- because we know enough about that primitive deity to infer that he simply can't be "The" God, if there is one..)

 

[redfern]

From Bob:

It means, if true, that macroevolution is as extinct as the dodo bird.

Since macroevolution was only psuedo-science anyway, nothing lost.

Macroevolution is dead: long live real science.

Since ones of bob’s mantras is to repeat things like this over and over, he won’t mind if I do likewise. Here is a sampling of who disagrees with him (and has a wee bit more knowledge of the subject than him):

Academy of Science of St. Louis
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Anatomists
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Association of Physics Teachers
American Astronomical Society
American Crystallographic Association
American Geological Institute
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Chemists
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Physiological Society
American Scientific Affiliation
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
American Society for Investigative Pathology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Human Genetics
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Society of Plant Taxonomists
Association for Women in Science
Association of American Geographers
Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology Chairs
Association of College and University Biology Educators
Association of Southeastern Biologists
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
Clay Minerals Society
Crop Science Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Foundation for Neuroscience and Society
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
Geological Society of America
Georgia Academy of Science
Indiana Academy of Science
Iowa Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
National Academy of Sciences
National Association of Biology Teachers
National Research Council,
National Science Teachers Association
Nebraska Academy of Sciences
New Mexico Academy of Science
New York Academy of Sciences
Ohio Academy of Science
Paleontological Society
Phi Sigma (Biological Honors Society)
Phycological Society of America
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology)
Sigma Xi --The Scientific Research Society
Society for Developmental Biology
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Economic Geologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Plus whatever part of the 80,000+ scientists represented by the surrogate “Steve’s” at the NCSE are not included in the above

Who to beleive, 80,000 + active professional scientists, or a retired systems engineer?

Juiias says:

But how can you say that when he is a "science lover'. He says he is so he must be. The Bible says it is all true so...

Bob is the $3 bill of the world of science. See how much the next counterfeit $3 bill you find buys you.

 

[Yorzhik]

I had a dog named snowy once. It ran away... wait... snowy, is that you? If it's you snowy I see you still try to pick fights with dogs at least 50 times your size. Watch out though, the truth always plays to the death while that Labrador probably didn't kill you because it thought you were a toy.

Yep, that's what we got so far. Do you have a better one?

snowy, if your explanation doesn't just border on preposterous, but jumps squarely across that border to the middle of insanity, then you don't hold on to the explanation until another one comes along. You reject that ridiculous notion and refrain from replacing it.

You don't have to be a creationist, just, at least, stay within the realm of reason and reject evo.

And beyond that, you can both reject evo because of the SLoT and you can accept an intelligent designer because of epistemology.

 

[bob b]

From Bob: Since ones of bob’s mantras is to repeat things like this over and over, he won’t mind if I do likewise. Here is a sampling of who disagrees with him (and has a wee bit more knowledge of the subject than him): Who to beleive, 80,000 + active professional scientists, or a retired systems engineer?

Juiias says: Bob is the $3 bill of the world of science. See how much the next counterfeit $3 bill you find buys you.

I tend to go with the evidence, which apparently most of the 80,000 haven't even seen yet because it is still the "Trade Secret of Microbiology".

But if you people wish to go with "the crowd" as Galileo's opponents did, then it is your funeral.

In my case I have two reliable "witnesses", 1) God's Word, and 2) scientific evidence.

 

[Jukia]

I tend to go with the evidence, which apparently most of the 80,000 haven't even seen yet because it is still the "Trade Secret of Microbiology".

But if you people wish to go with "the crowd" as Galileo's opponents did, then it is your funeral.

Amazing response, absolutely amazing.

 

[bob b]

Amazing response, absolutely amazing.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

 

[redfern]

From Bob:

I tend to go with the evidence, which apparently most of the 80,000 haven't even seen yet because it is still the "Trade Secret of Microbiology".

To pretend to credibility, a retired engineer alludes to evidence that he must know of that the 80,000 professionals he opposes are unaware of. This level of personal egotism is nothing short of astounding.

But if you people wish to go with "the crowd" as Galileo's opponents did, then it is your funeral.

Wow, is a belief in evolution a death sentence? A funeral? Oooohhh

In my case I have two reliable "witnesses", 1) God's Word, and 2) scientific evidence.

So Zeus has actually spoken to you? Wow, better listen, he gets mean if you cross him. You will see macroevolution in real-time when he changes you into a squid.

The evidence you allude to, is this the same evidence that you are privy to that the mislead 80,000 don’t have? OOOOH.

 

[snowy]

If it's you snowy I see you still try to pick fights with dogs at least 50 times your size. Watch out though, the truth always plays to the death while that Labrador probably didn't kill you because it thought you were a toy.

Oh my, was this a threat? Would you perhaps want to add a side of 'eternal hellfire' to that? Since you're just playing around with empty, unsubstantiated threats, that might just fit.

Come on, do you have any argument to bring to the party, or just barking hard pretending to sound like a, what.. Labrador?

snowy, if your explanation doesn't just border on preposterous, but jumps squarely across that border to the middle of insanity, ..

So that's all you got, just name calling -- shouting that all these dumb scientists paying attention to the theory of evolution are in fact all insane? Great "argument", indeed. Believe me, "flattery" won't get you anywhere . And hey, it seems to me that many of the good Christians out there also believe in at least a "guided" macroevolution -- now tell me, is it nice to call your brothers nuts? (..Bad Labrador, bad.. )

..then you don't hold on to the explanation until another one comes along. You reject that ridiculous notion and refrain from replacing it.

And go with what, instead? Chanting Maranatha and just faking some vague interest for the inner workings of this life?! How is that motivating anyone toward the true exploration of this world, if they are so focused on grabbing a good seat in the next one?

And beyond that, you can both reject evo because of the SLoT and you can accept an intelligent designer because of epistemology.

(sorry, I'm new here, what's that SLuT again?). And did you by any chance mean "accept an intelligent designer because of.." the demise of epistemology, in the blessed wake of intellectual resignation?
Well, show me the evidence for your truth and we'll go from there. Blind faith in some aloof designer is just not my style so far.

 

[Jukia]

(sorry, I'm new here, what's that SLuT again?). And did you by any chance mean "accept an intelligent designer because of.." the demise of epistemology, in the blessed wake of intellectual resignation?
Well, show me the evidence for your truth and we'll go from there. Blind faith in some aloof designer is just not my style so far.

Yorzhik seems to be one of the people here who hangs his hat on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SloT). Something to do, I think, with information theory. I gave up trying to get my head around that argument a long time ago since I fail to see how the Second Law raises any real issues given, you know, the sun. But we all learn new things from time to time.

 

[SUTG]

(sorry, I'm new here, what's that SLuT again?).

He probably meant the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is a bad argument that mentions the SLoT going around the Christian websites. They keep stockpiling these horrible arguments hoping that a bunch of them will, in the long run, be equivalent to a single good one.

 

[bob b]

To pretend to credibility, a retired engineer alludes to evidence that he must know of that the 80,000 professionals he opposes are unaware of. This level of personal egotism is nothing short of astounding. Wow, is a belief in evolution a death sentence? A funeral? Oooohhh So Zeus has actually spoken to you? Wow, better listen, he gets mean if you cross him. You will see macroevolution in real-time when he changes you into a squid.

The evidence you allude to, is this the same evidence that you are privy to that the mislead 80,000 don’t have? OOOOH.

Calm down before you burst a blood vessel.

First of all I was not only in engineering, I was also a member, and later headed up, something called Operations Research, a profession usually reserved for scientists of many different kinds who work on very large scale problems, such as Fleet Air Defense and in WWII, the overall strategies for strategic bombing, submarine warfare, etc.

Second, engineering has as many fields and subdisciplines as does physics, biology or any other science. For example, John Maynard Smith, one of the "giants" in the field of evolution was trained and worked as an aeronautical engineer during WWII.

Third, many scientists specialize and by this means are able to get to the bottom of the details in their very complex field. They read the popular science magazines but would not have the time to read every journal article in the hundreds of different journals published every month.

Fourth, the ramifications of an article are not always readily apparent from the title or even its detailed content.

Fifth, the ramifications and "pieces" were only assembled by a scientist, Michael Behe, not highly regarded by other scientists because he is connected to the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design oriented organization.

For all these reasons it would not be surprising if less than .01% of the 80,000 had ever even heard of the "rariety of good proteins" problem. Those that have are undoubtedly not happy about it and are working behind the scenes to try to come up with reasons why macroevolution can still work. Until they come up with something they will certainly not be trying to publicize what they undoubtedly believe is only an "apparent" problem.

 

[redfern]

From Bob:

Calm down before you burst a blood vessel.

I know it isn’t polite to laugh at the disadvantaged. I will try, to <snicker snicker> behave.

First of all I was not only in engineering, I was also a member, and later headed up, something called Operations Research, a profession usually reserved for scientists of many different kinds who work on very large scale problems, such as Fleet Air Defense and in WWII, the overall strategies for strategic bombing, submarine warfare, etc.

So Military Generals and strategic planners are the ones that should be most qualified to judge the credibility of evolution. This is getting richer and richer.

Second, engineering has as many fields and subdisciplines as does physics, biology or any other science. For example, John Maynard Smith, one of the "giants" in the field of evolution was trained and worked as an aeronautical engineer during WWII.

Are you admitting that your title of “engineer” means that in fact you were pigeonholed into a narrow specialty?

Third, many scientists specialize and by this means are able to get to the bottom of the details in their very complex field. They read the popular science magazines but would not have the time to read every journal article in the hundreds of different journals published every month.

So? The question is whether you have knowledge that has escaped the notice of specialists in the fields you dispute. Remember it is those very scientists that wrote the very articles in the journals you mention. They attend conferences, confer with colleagues, and have access to numerous technical sources that you probably don’t even know exist.

Fourth, the ramifications of an article are not always readily apparent from the title or even its detailed content.

Not even to the authors who wrote them, and lecture on their specialties to their colleagues?

Fifth, the ramifications and "pieces" were only assembled by a scientist, Michael Behe, not highly regarded by other scientists because he is connected to the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design oriented organization.

Michael Behe has some credibility – in his narrow specialty. But unfortunately he has embarrassed himself by doing just what you do, allowing his religious motivations to pretend to expertise in fields where he is not an expert. Astrology, anyone?

For all these reasons it would not be surprising if less than .01% of the 80,000 had ever even heard of the "rariety of good proteins" problem.

Let’s see, .01% of 80,000 is 8 people. I would be glad to bet that more people than that in biology at the university near me know about a whole lot about protein structure. The “rarity” you allude to is just another of Behe’s “irreducible complexity” ideas dressed up in a new suit. The best it does is say “we don’t currently know how many of these things evolved.” Some people need the emotional placebo of substituting “God did it” in place of every scientific “We don’t know.” Sorry to hear you are no more mature than that.

Those that have are undoubtedly not happy about it and are working behind the scenes to try to come up with reasons why macroevolution can still work.

Yeah, it you can’t prove your opponents wrong, demonize them, make them out to less than honest, bad people, people who hide sordid secrets from others. In historical settings, this strategy was very effective at inciting crowds and even armies to unwarranted orgies of bloodshed and carnage. Something you like to apply here in your own small way?

 

[Johnny]

For all these reasons it would not be surprising if less than .01% of the 80,000 had ever even heard of the "rariety of good proteins" problem.

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[snowy]

I like this SLoT

I like this SLoT

He probably meant the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is a bad argument that mentions the SLoT going around the Christian websites. They keep stockpiling these horrible arguments hoping that a bunch of them will, in the long run, be equivalent to a single good one.

Thanks, SOTG and Jukia for the clarification.
So they're still playing this old card around here? And still not getting it..
Man, it feels like traveling back in time, in the 19th century or so.. Is this where America is heading ?

 

[Jukia]

Thanks, SOTG and Jukia for the clarification.
So they're still playing this old card around here? And still not getting it..
Man, it feels like traveling back in time, in the 19th century or so.. Is this where America is heading ?

But somehow the new synthesis is to connect the Second Law with information theory if I have read a # of prior posts correctly. The argument that mutations, natural selection, evolution etc cannot add information to a genome and therefor to an organism due to the Second Law. If my understanding of some of the earlier comments I apologize but that is what I got out of bits and pieces.
And your question "Is this where America is heading?" No, a large portion is already there. See the thread glorifying recent polls which indicate that Americans have limited knowledge of evolution etc.

 

[bob b]

You've got to be kidding me.

You, for one, did not respond to it. Why?

 

[snowy]

methinks it's still a probability weasel..

methinks it's still a probability weasel..

The argument that mutations, natural selection, evolution etc cannot add information to a genome and therefor to an organism due to the Second Law.

Unless I missed some posts (which is possible), I understood that bob b's thrust in this thread was mostly on his misapplication of probability coupled with his misunderstanding of mutation extent/frequency -- and he's still going at that, look how he's nauseatingly reciting Behe's "protein chasm" mantra around here in every thread .

 

[Jukia]

Unless I missed some posts (which is possible), I understood that bob b's thrust in this thread was mostly on his misapplication of probability coupled with his misunderstanding of mutation extent/frequency -- and he's still going at that, look how he's nauseatingly reciting Behe's "protein chasm" mantra around here in every thread .

I am recalling comments on other threads that seemed to beat the Second Law to death. I never could quite understand the issue. Always seemed pretty clear to me, hard to invoke the Second Law when there is this rather large source of energy astronomically close by.

 

[Yorzhik]

Oh my, was this a threat? Would you perhaps want to add a side of 'eternal hellfire' to that? Since you're just playing around with empty, unsubstantiated threats, that might just fit.

No threat. There's just consequences for bad thinking. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Come on, do you have any argument to bring to the party, or just barking hard pretending to sound like a, what.. Labrador?

We're getting to that.

So that's all you got, just name calling -- shouting that all these dumb scientists paying attention to the theory of evolution are in fact all insane? Great "argument", indeed. Believe me, "flattery" won't get you anywhere . And hey, it seems to me that many of the good Christians out there also believe in at least a "guided" macroevolution -- now tell me, is it nice to call your brothers nuts? (..Bad Labrador, bad.. )

Actually name calling are labels I usually reserve for people. For explanations they are just labels. And if you would read more carefully, you would see that I called the idea of evolution preposterous first and then I use the pejorative "insane" to refer to the same idea. This is common in English writing to use a less accurate synonym if the same word could be used a second time in the same sentence.

And I wouldn't call my Christian evolutionist brothers nuts. "Nuts" is too strong and doesn't carry enough precision. I might call them "nutty concerning evolution" or if the context were clearly focused on theistic evolution I would call them stupid (and that would be name calling).

And go with what, instead?

No, I clearly stated you should (at least at this point) go with nothing. That's what "refrain from replacing it" means.

snowy continues:

Chanting Maranatha and just faking some vague interest for the inner workings of this life?! How is that motivating anyone toward the true exploration of this world, if they are so focused on grabbing a good seat in the next one?

That is a different subject. I suppose you can start a new thread about that but I don't know if I would have time to post in it.

(sorry, I'm new here, what's that SLuT again?).

Sorry, as pointed out in later posts, SLoT is short for "Second Law of Thermodynamics".

snowy continues:

And did you by any chance mean "accept an intelligent designer because of.." the demise of epistemology, in the blessed wake of intellectual resignation?

Ah, no. It was an unsubstantiated claim, but many discussions start with those.

And I mean that if you look into the study of knowledge, you'd come to the conclusion that a God would have to exist, and with just that much understanding you could even begin to understand some of God's nature.

Of course, that is philosophy and not science so it is another topic. I only added it because I don't go for the blind faith argument for believing in God.

snowy continues:

Well, show me the evidence for your truth and we'll go from there. Blind faith in some aloof designer is just not my style so far.

You'll have to walk before you can run. We'll get to that later, maybe, but first things first. Does absolute truth exist?

 

[Yorzhik]

Thanks, SOTG and Jukia for the clarification.
So they're still playing this old card around here? And still not getting it..
Man, it feels like traveling back in time, in the 19th century or so.. Is this where America is heading ?

Actually, I haven't found my particular version of the argument using the SLoT on the internet yet. I search for it every once in a while though just to see if anyone else has come to the same conclusion, though.