RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4928
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:09   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,04:50)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.

Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?

No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....

What was it 42 days at Dover?

Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

Yes don't get me wrong I'm on your side.

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.

That's why I thought of asking them to explain how we got from 16 alleles in Noahs ark to 700+ if Behe's work is right.

These guys are not pushing ID they're pushing "evolution doesn't/can't work"


There is a history here.

From Judge Overton's ruling in McLean v. Arkansas:


The approach to teaching "creation science" and "evolution-science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.

The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism (22) which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a).

The IDC advocates think that by settling for simply saying, "Not evolution" and leaving off "therefore, God" that nobody will notice that they are using the exact same approach (and arguments) as did the creation scientists before them. It hasn't worked, as demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. DASD in 2005.

Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]