RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Behe's response, Keep comments unsupported by evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,21:04   

Behe Doesn't Get HIV

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

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,08:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,21:04)
Behe Doesn't Get HIV

Beautiful comment Wes!

Thanks for the straight line, I have great snarky comments just waiting to evolve into full-blown belly-laughs, but my professionalism and modesty prevents me from shooting fish in the barrel.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,09:23   

Anyone see Behe on the Colbert Report last night?

Here's my take, with the video.

Behe on Colbert Report

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:21   

He was poor. That physical analogy wasn't the same; Einstein had a new theory that was experimentally proved. Behe has "I don't know how 'Darwinism' explains this.."

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2007,10:21)
He was poor. That physical analogy wasn't the same; Einstein had a new theory that was experimentally proved. Behe has "I don't know how 'Darwinism' explains this.."

He was much worse than poor.  He mainly giggled and shifted in his seat with a loony grin on his face, failing to utter a single complete sentence about anything.  He fumbled incoherently through his IC mousetrap BS, but nobody who didn't already know his spiel would have known what he was trying to say, let alone what his argument would prove if it were valid.  I think Colbert took it easy on him because he was so pathetic.  Too bad it wasn't the Daily Show, Jon Stewart would have made him look a lot more foolish.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:54   

Is it just me or does Colbert seem to know the fallacy behind the mousetrap analogy?  It's hard to tell with his character and what-all but he seemed more non-plussed than usual.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:00   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 03 2007,10:54)
Is it just me or does Colbert seem to know the fallacy behind the mousetrap analogy?  It's hard to tell with his character and what-all but he seemed more non-plussed than usual.

Colbert clearly knows. He spewed Behe's talking points in a way that made them look ridiculous.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:04   

Quote (JAM @ Aug. 03 2007,12:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 03 2007,10:54)
Is it just me or does Colbert seem to know the fallacy behind the mousetrap analogy?  It's hard to tell with his character and what-all but he seemed more non-plussed than usual.

Colbert clearly knows. He spewed Behe's talking points in a way that made them look ridiculous.

I don't know, I got the feeling he didn't really go after him like he does other guests.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:34   

Dudes, if being on ***THE COMEDY NETWORK*** is the best that ID can manage to do, then it is, indeed, well and truly dead, dead, dead, dead.

Poke it with a fork.  It's done.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2007,17:54   

Behe got a good review from a freelance writer in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

 
Quote

The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.


Actually, Behe's argument isn't serious because it is shallowly researched and tendentious. Behe uses numbers, but his argument is not, itself, quantitative in any substantive sense. It's the same old "evolution is too improbable" guff popular in antievolution ever since Paley.

Evolutionary science does not need to take note of reheated antievolution leftovers.

Certainly the antievolution advocates have ignored wholeswaths of biological knowledge in order to cast aspersions at what little they do note. How honest was that?

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 20 2007,11:30

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

    
JohnW



Posts: 2313
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,11:28   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 19 2007,15:54)
Behe got a good review from a freelance writer in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

?  
Quote

The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.


Actually, Behe's argument isn't serious because it is shallowly researched and tendentious. Behe uses numbers, but his argument is not, itself, quantitative in any substantive sense. It's the same old "evolution is too improbable" guff popular in antievolution ever since Paley.

Evolutionary science does not need to take note of reheated antievolution leftovers.

Certainly the antievolution advocates have ignored what swaths of biological knowledge in order to cast aspersions at whole little they do note. How honest was that?

But it all works wonderfully well for his target audience, i.e. believers who know little about science, but who might be swayed by a sciency-sounding justification for creationism. ?It's all about drawing fence-sitters into the creationist camp, not establishing ID as science.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
stevestory



Posts: 9021
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,12:44   

I like to reread things. I read a lot and have a bad memory but if I reread things they stick with me. So I'm rereading Dawkins's review of Behe's latest book, and this stands out.

Quote
I had expected to be as irritated by Michael Behe's second book as by his first. I had not expected to feel sorry for him. The first-- Darwin's Black Box (1996), which purported to make the scientific case for 'intelligent design' --was enlivened by a spark of conviction, however misguided. The second is the book of a man who has given up.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007....ei=5070

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 01 2007,13:46

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,20:48   

Somebody screwed up at Amazon. Behe's response to ERV allows commenting.

Get over there and get busy!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,21:27   

I'm betting "closed and deleted"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,21:52   

And so the c*nsorship begins:



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,21:57   

Abbie has responded, wisely directing readers to visit her website.

Please vote on her comment as adding to the discussion. There is a comment rating system over at Amazon, and somebody had put in a negative vote on Abbie's comment. That's kind of brazen given that we'd only be seeing Behe discussing anything because of her initial posting on HIV.

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

    
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,06:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2007,21:52)
And so the c*nsorship begins:


Nononono 'author' was me!  I tried to put a hotlink to my blog, but Amazon doesnt let you do that, so I had to put the short version :)

But just wait-- He will close em ;)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,09:27   

Can I get a copy of the Dembski / man in mask audio, Abbie?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:08   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,21:04)
Behe Doesn't Get HIV

Because of condoms or abstention?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:13   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 12 2007,11:08)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,21:04)
Behe Doesn't Get HIV

Because of condoms or abstention?

I think this may be the sole case where ignorance actually contributed to that outcome.

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

    
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:15   

Right now there are seven comments under Behe's notresponse, all of them anti-Behe.  This can't last much longer.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:16   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 12 2007,11:08)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,21:04)
Behe Doesn't Get HIV

Because of condoms or abstention?

Given that he has 9 children, I would suggest monogamy.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:42   

Comment are open again at Behe's Amazon blog site:


Behe Amazon Blog

Instead of "Add a Comment" the button should read "Kick Me."

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:51   

The comments there are funny. Shame nothing is new, just old recycled "arguments"
Quote
To give an idea how impossible "simple" life is for naturalistic blind chance, Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for just one of any of the numerous types of "simple" bacterial life found on the early earth to be one in 10^40,000 (that is a one with 40 thousand zeros to the right). He compared the random emergence of the simplest bacterium on earth to the likelihood "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 therein".

I'm convinced. Convinced Philip Cunningham is an IDiot anyway. His profile notes none of his reviews have had a positive vote!
Quote
It is easily demonstrated mathematically that the entire universe does not even begin to come close to being old enough, nor large enough, to accidentally generate just one small but precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein (out of the over one million interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences that would be required to match the sequences of their particular protein types) in that very first living bacteria.


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:12   

Hi OldMan.

I tried to post the following but I haven't bought anything from Amazon under this name.  I suggest this wouldn't be a recycled argument and might provide for putting Behe in an interesting position to answer.  If anyone wants to copy and paste (or put it in your own words) be my guest....


Dr. Behe,

Taking advantage of the ability to comment here, I wish to publicly ask you something that has bothered me.  You have focused on the microscopic level to suggest that randomness is insufficient to explain observations.  It is obvious that you are dealing at a level of detail that involves quantum mechanical effects.  Experiments have shown quantum effects aren't random.  Why was there so little discussion of quantum physics in your book Edge of Evolution when many scientists have been linking quantum physics to life processes.  For example, Stapp, Patel and those at Berkeley lab who, this year, demonstrated photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical mechanism.

Both you and Abbie Smith could be correct.  Her observations could be correct and your analysis visa-vie randomness could also be correct.  Random Mutation would turn out to be impotent if, in fact, non-random quantum effects are fundamental to life at the microscopic level.

I would have thought you and CSC fellow, Henry F. Schaefer III, would have discussed something like this.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:25   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:12)
Hi OldMan.

I tried to post the following but I haven't bought anything from Amazon under this name.  I suggest this wouldn't be a recycled argument and might provide for putting Behe in an interesting position to answer.  If anyone wants to copy and paste (or put it in your own words) be my guest....


Dr. Behe,

Taking advantage of the ability to comment here, I wish to publicly ask you something that has bothered me.  You have focused on the microscopic level to suggest that randomness is insufficient to explain observations.  It is obvious that you are dealing at a level of detail that involves quantum mechanical effects.  Experiments have shown quantum effects aren't random.  Why was there so little discussion of quantum physics in your book Edge of Evolution when many scientists have been linking quantum physics to life processes.  For example, Stapp, Patel and those at Berkeley lab who, this year, demonstrated photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical mechanism.

Both you and Abbie Smith could be correct.  Her observations could be correct and your analysis visa-vie randomness could also be correct.  Random Mutation would turn out to be impotent if, in fact, non-random quantum effects are fundamental to life at the microscopic level.

I would have thought you and CSC fellow, Henry F. Schaefer III, would have discussed something like this.

TP,

That's gibberish. You don't even get Behe's thesis right. He's claiming that mutation rates aren't sufficient, not that randomness isn't sufficient. Moreover, virtually every time he uses the term "random," he does so to obfuscate, not to illuminate.

Behe's lies and obfuscations about HIV have no connection to quantum mechanics.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:27   

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 12 2007,18:25)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:12)
Hi OldMan.

I tried to post the following but I haven't bought anything from Amazon under this name.  I suggest this wouldn't be a recycled argument and might provide for putting Behe in an interesting position to answer.  If anyone wants to copy and paste (or put it in your own words) be my guest....


Dr. Behe,

Taking advantage of the ability to comment here, I wish to publicly ask you something that has bothered me.  You have focused on the microscopic level to suggest that randomness is insufficient to explain observations.  It is obvious that you are dealing at a level of detail that involves quantum mechanical effects.  Experiments have shown quantum effects aren't random.  Why was there so little discussion of quantum physics in your book Edge of Evolution when many scientists have been linking quantum physics to life processes.  For example, Stapp, Patel and those at Berkeley lab who, this year, demonstrated photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical mechanism.

Both you and Abbie Smith could be correct.  Her observations could be correct and your analysis visa-vie randomness could also be correct.  Random Mutation would turn out to be impotent if, in fact, non-random quantum effects are fundamental to life at the microscopic level.

I would have thought you and CSC fellow, Henry F. Schaefer III, would have discussed something like this.

TP,

That's gibberish. You don't even get Behe's thesis right. He's claiming that mutation rates aren't sufficient, not that randomness isn't sufficient. Moreover, virtually every time he uses the term "random," he does so to obfuscate, not to illuminate.

Behe's lies and obfuscations about HIV have no connection to quantum mechanics.

JAM,

Shhhhhh! Encourage him to post it. Quantum woo clashing with ID woo should have hilarious consequences.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:45   

Hi All,

Listen to Louis, he might be on to something.

I agree with Richard Dawkins' review that Dr. Behe's Darwin's Black Box had a spark of conviction that Edge of Evolution does not.

I know I won't have a hard time convincing many people here that Edge of Evolution wasn't very convincing from a science point of view.  It appears Behe didn't even attempt to make a convincing scientific case, he offered no alternative, no hypothesis.

BTW, how many people know who Henry F. Schaefer III is?

Why haven't we heard more of Schaefer's scientific hypotheses?

I don't have access to Amazon comments.  Would someone who does please ask the question for me?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:54   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:45)
Hi All,

Listen to Louis, he might be on to something.

I agree with Richard Dawkins' review that Dr. Behe's Darwin's Black Box had a spark of conviction that Edge of Evolution does not.

I know I won't have a hard time convincing many people here that Edge of Evolution wasn't very convincing from a science point of view.  It appears Behe didn't even attempt to make a convincing scientific case, he offered no alternative, no hypothesis.

BTW, how many people know who Henry F. Schaefer III is?

Why haven't we heard more of Schaefer's scientific hypotheses?

I don't have access to Amazon comments.  Would someone who does please ask the question for me?

Why would anyone here want to help you promote your off-topic quantum navel-gazing?  If you want to ask Behe a question, all you need to know is here.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:59   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:45)
Hi All,

Listen to Louis, he might be on to something.

I agree with Richard Dawkins' review that Dr. Behe's Darwin's Black Box had a spark of conviction that Edge of Evolution does not.

I know I won't have a hard time convincing many people here that Edge of Evolution wasn't very convincing from a science point of view.  It appears Behe didn't even attempt to make a convincing scientific case, he offered no alternative, no hypothesis.

BTW, how many people know who Henry F. Schaefer III is?

Why haven't we heard more of Schaefer's scientific hypotheses?

I don't have access to Amazon comments.  Would someone who does please ask the question for me?

Considering that I did research with Fritz Schaefer from 1987-1991, I think I know him better than anybody else here.

Looking for consciousness to be a quantum effect is not going to work, because there is no way to have a specific superposition of individual particle wave functions in the brain.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
  196 replies since June 13 2007,07:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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