RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,07:06   

DS said  
Quote
Professor Behe can’t respond to this for at least a week so let’s give him a hand by fisking it. Please keep your comments topical, focused, and well supported by evidence arguing against the reviewer’s conclusions.


So I thought I'd create a thread to discuss Behe's response, if any ever arrives.

The above quote was posted on the 9th June 2007 and so a week is this coming saturday the 16th.

I look forwards to Behe attempting to defend all the various aspects of his "work" that have been demolished so far in reviews.

--------------
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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,10:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 13 2007,07:06)
So I thought I'd create a thread to discuss Behe's response, if any ever arrives.

The above quote was posted on the 9th June 2007 and so a week is this coming saturday the 16th.

I look forwards to Behe attempting to defend all the various aspects of his "work" that have been demolished so far in reviews.


It looks like me you are going to enter the ATBC record books by creating The World's Shortest Thread!

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,11:20   

Quote (J-Dog @ June 13 2007,10:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 13 2007,07:06)
So I thought I'd create a thread to discuss Behe's response, if any ever arrives.

The above quote was posted on the 9th June 2007 and so a week is this coming saturday the 16th.

I look forwards to Behe attempting to defend all the various aspects of his "work" that have been demolished so far in reviews.


It looks like me you are going to enter the ATBC record books by creating The World's Shortest Thread!

No, I believe that title belongs to AFDave and the thread that contained the empirical evidence for his position on the global flood etc.
But I don't mind coming in a close second.

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:24   

Quote
Keep comments unsupported by evidence


seriously, this will be the longest thread ever.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2007,04:17   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,20:24)
Quote
Keep comments unsupported by evidence


seriously, this will be the longest thread ever.

No it won't

Louis

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2007,12:21   

"explain the logic underlying that conclusion"

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,03:11   

Evidence free remember. Therefore:

Shan't!

Louis

P.S.



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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,12:53   

"well it's certainly not contaminated by cheese..."

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,12:57   

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Louis

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:02   

Ahem... I don't think Behe's going to be replying.

Hello?  Dr. Behe?  Anybody Home?  Hello?

--------------
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:08   

Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,12:57)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Louis

Would you like to come back to my place, bouncy-bouncy!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,06:26   

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI
Quote
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?


yeah, whatever you say Behe.... I'm quite sure Judge Jones saw right through you and your little game.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,06:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,06:26)
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?

No ad hominem arguments in Behe's rebuttal, no sir... No projection, either.

--------------
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

   
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,07:52   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 26 2007,06:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,06:26)
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?

No ad hominem arguments in Behe's rebuttal, no sir... No projection, either.

Indeed.  It was the part you highlighted in bold that caused the circuit breaker on my irony meter to trip.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,08:28   

Quote (snoeman @ June 26 2007,07:52)
 
Indeed.  It was the part you highlighted in bold that caused the circuit breaker on my irony meter to trip.

Well, that is a good bit. But even more hilarious is this statement "If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?"

IIRC, it was Behe, and not Coyne, who had an opportunity to explain the problems with "Darwinism" to the judge. And failed spectacularly.

--------------
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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,11:26   

The bad wording, and bad arguments make me think that this screed was written by DI hack Casey Luskin, not Behe.

--------------
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

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,11:59   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 18 2007,16:08)
Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,12:57)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Louis

Would you like to come back to my place, bouncy-bouncy!

My nipples explode with delight!

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,13:57   

I've been thinking for a while now of creating a bot-style website where every controversy known to man is answered by quotes from Monty Python.

It would be very "woody".

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,14:40   

Quote
I've been thinking for a while now of creating a bot-style website where every controversy known to man is answered by quotes from Monty Python.

It would be very "woody".


Controversy...CONTROVERSY....No, it's quite tinny.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,14:51   

Well, you've got to come to terms with these things ... seemly ... prodding ... vacuum ... leap ... controversy...

Caribou, gorn!


*uh, for part time Python fans...

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/woodytin.htm

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,15:10   

All right then, you cheeky buggers.  Let's cannonize them all straightaway.  

Meanwhile, back on target, the link is a metaphor I believe for Behe and his crowd getting Pwned by us here.  I get to be John Cleese!  And yes, that isBehe falling on his bum!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzeeaEsIFLs

Ahem.  Louis, Richard & Assorted Brits:  - Please read and edit where applicable. Thanks awfully.

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,15:18   

meh, I see the creos identifying the "masters" as darwinists and the beleaguered students as themselves.

creo motto number 3:

Never, EVER, pass up the opportunity to play the victim.

IOW, they would be more than happy to co-opt this to portray themselves as victims to the evil darwinists.

*shrug*

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,15:27   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,15:18)
meh, I see the creos identifying the "masters" as darwinists and the beleaguered students as themselves.

creo motto number 3:

Never, EVER, pass up the opportunity to play the victim.

IOW, they would be more than happy to co-opt this to portray themselves as victims to the evil darwinists.

*shrug*

Are you saying we shouldn't trip them up then?

Oh, do come on now!  Not even once?  Let's have fun and let them enjoy playing the victim, just like their Lord & Savior on the cross!  

"Hey Peter, I can see your house from up here!" - JC or Brian, I forget who said it.

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,15:51   

Quote

Are you saying we shouldn't trip them up then?


not at all.  I'd say quite an enjoyable venture.

just be prepared for a lot of crying "foul", followed by lots of running to mommy with cries of "the big mean nasty evil atheists bounced me on my ass, mommy!"

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,09:24   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,06:26)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI
 
Quote
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?


yeah, whatever you say Behe.... I'm quite sure Judge Jones saw right through you and your little game.

Funny - I noticed that comments are disabled.  Shouldn't be surprised - these people's idiocy can only prosper when they can control the debate.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,05:06   

Over at redstaterabble I read
 
Quote
As you might imagine, the Discovery Institute's Logan Gage doesn't like Dawkin's review (they don't like Miller or Coyne's either). In a long howl of anguish posted on the Evolution News and Views blog, Gage denies that Behe has stepped back, but never bothers to mention Behe's acceptance of natural selection and common descent.

The howl is found here
Now, how dishonest is this - the bolded line below (taken from the howl!)
 
Quote
Dawkins also says that Behe’s claim that the bacterial flagellum will not work properly without all of its parts is “without justification.” Unfortunately for Dawkins, knockout experiments have been done, and so this assertion is not without justification. For example, Scott Minnich, microbiologist at the University of Idaho, testified at the Dover Trial about his knockout experiments which found that the flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its 35 or so genes. Judge Jones ignored this testimony, and so does Richard Dawkins. Why doesn’t Dawkins know the relevant science?


Would this be the same Scott Minnich that wikipedia notes as
 
Quote
a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

?
If it was, i'm sure it was an honest slip that it was not mentioned. After all, honesty and integrity are what the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture is all about! ha. His name is mentioned only once in the article, in the quote I pasted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Minnich

EDIT: After a little more research (teh google) It appears that the quote is even more dishonest then it first appears.
From PT
Nick Matzke posted Entry 2712 on November 10, 2006 03:45 AM.  
Quote
I actually think Minnich was referring to the royal we here, as in “we scientists”, not his own lab, since to my knowledge he hasn’t personally done all of those knockouts (which were all originally done in the 1970s and 1980s in diverse labs).

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/casey_luskins_s.html

So  
Quote
testified at the Dover Trial about his knockout experiments


is simply not true! I stand to be corrected of course, but somehow I suspect I'm right and that Minnich has not done all 35 tests! Yet the Disco people are now claiming that he did and that the results support ID!

Amazing. FTK, this is how your "scientists" (gotta love those scare quotes, you've got me addicted!) do research!

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,05:48   

Quote

For example, Scott Minnich, microbiologist at the University of Idaho, testified at the Dover Trial about his knockout experiments which found that the flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its 35 or so genes.


Minnich did testify that he did the work:

Quote


Q. Break down for us further this concept of mutagenesis, and I believe you have a slide --

A. Sure. All right. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can't. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that's involved in function of the flagellum, they can't swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques.

Q. Do you have some examples employing this particular concept of the flagella?

A. I do, in the next slide. Hopefully this will cut to the chase and show you what we're talking about. This is an organism that my students and I work on. This is a petri dish about 15 millimeters size, filled with this soft auger food source for the organism. It's soft in the sense the organisms can swim in it, but it has some rigidity that they just don't slosh around. Now, each one of these areas showing growth were inoculated with a toothpick of cells, the wild type parent here. So this is yersinia enterocolitica, a good pathogen, double bucket disease if you ingest it.

Q. That's the center?

A. Yeah, that's the center, okay? So it can swim. So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.

Q. I'm sorry, just so we're clear on the record, the two you're talking about on the bottom left, the first one was the bottom left and the second one was the bottom right?

A. Right.

Q. Where you took away a portion of the flagella?

A. We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene.

One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.



I don't know whether Minnich's knockout studies in particular have been published. From the testimony, it is unclear whether Minnich did knockout work on anything but Yersinia enterocolitica.

As the Matzke and Pallen review paper notes, though, there are all sorts of bacterial flagella out there, and a protein knockout in one that disables function does not necessarily do so in another,  the bacteria don't all rely on the exact same proteins in their flagella, and various proteins used in flagella can be shown to be related to proteins doing other jobs in bacteria. Once you account for the ways in which a protein may not be necessary to function or able to be co-opted from other functions in the ensemble of all studied bacterial flagella, you are down to two proteins without currently known antecedents that are necessary to flagellar function. One wonders why Logan Gage isn't up on *that*.

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

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,05:37   

thanks for the additional clarification Wesley.
---------------------------------------------------

On this thread Sal says  
Quote
If you don’t answer, consider yourself univited to this thread as well.


Now, the thing is, knowing UD as well as we do, if no answer is forthcoming then that can mean that the poster is unable to answer because the do not know the answer or they've been banned already and the IDiots can pretend that they won that one.

It's worth reading that thread for JAM's comments  
Quote
There is no evidence to support his claim.
and he makes a dozen or so reasonable points and Sal is reduced to asking  
Quote
Did Behe argue that a malarial strain will have CQ resistance if and only if it has the 76 and 220 mutations that confer resistance?


I mean, asking what exactly Behe said rather then addressing the points themselves is going to get Sal where exactly? Even if JAM concedes the point, so what? What about the other points JAM makes?

Sal, i've just got one thing to say to you!

Answer, or consider yourself univited to the reality based community!

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,05:44   

On that same thread Jerry gives us all a chuckle!
Quote
Maybe you do not understand the process of Neo Darwinism. It eliminates not creates alleles.


it's funny that the title of the thread is "Ken Miller, the honest Darwinist" when the comments show the rank dishonesty of the people trying to cast aspersions in the first place!

--------------
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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,20:20   

Just heard that Behe is scheduled to be on Stephen Colbert tonight.

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
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: 4360
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: 10071
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: 4465
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: 2200
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: 8825
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: 2777
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: 10071
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: 10071
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: 4465
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: 10071
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: 1006
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: 4465
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: 1006
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: 1000
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: 1006
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: 1234
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

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,13:07   

Hi Tracy,

Thank you for your reply.

I'm not interested in trying to argue for or against the hypothesis in this thread.  I am more interested in what Fritz Schaefer would be telling his fellow fellows at DI and why they might not think it would be politicially correct.

Could you offer your opinion on whether Fritz Schaefer would likely agree with Patal that DNA uses quantum superposition in performing its function?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,14:46   

To Smokey (JAM?),

I think that was an excellence comment on Amazon.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,14:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 12 2007,11:51)
I'm convinced. Convinced Philip Cunningham is an IDiot anyway. His profile notes none of his reviews have had a positive vote!

Given his level of ineptness (posting the same comment three times), verbal diarrhea, and fixation on genetic entropy, I hypothesize that Philip Cunningham is the real name of our old pal, Bornagain77 (aka Bond, James Bond).

Interestingly, all of his comments on the Behe blog have now been masked; enough negative votes made the Amazon admins take notice of the verbose redundant off-topic stupidity that characterizes BA77.

--------------
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

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,15:41   

Hi All,

I managed to get my comment up (bought Battlestar Promo for $0.00).

I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down.  I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones.  It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,03:17   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,21:41)
Hi All,

I managed to get my comment up (bought Battlestar Promo for $0.00).

I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down.  I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones.  It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

I don't vote on these things. I like to see how they evolve without interference from me. It's usually funnier that way.

;-)

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Did you deal with the decoherence problem at all? I must confess to not having read closely, so if you have and I missed it it's entirely my fault.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,04:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,15:41)
I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down.  I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones.  It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

Wow.  TP is really desperate to get eyes on his woo.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,05:38   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 12 2007,14:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 12 2007,11:51)
I'm convinced. Convinced Philip Cunningham is an IDiot anyway. His profile notes none of his reviews have had a positive vote!

Given his level of ineptness (posting the same comment three times), verbal diarrhea, and fixation on genetic entropy, I hypothesize that Philip Cunningham is the real name of our old pal, Bornagain77 (aka Bond, James Bond).

Interestingly, all of his comments on the Behe blog have now been masked; enough negative votes made the Amazon admins take notice of the verbose redundant off-topic stupidity that characterizes BA77.

A google seems to confirm that. Marvelous.

All I need to do now is find his home address and phone number, and, er, hang on, no, sorry, that's the other blog :0)

--------------
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. 13 2007,08:16   

Hi Keiths,

In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is my method for fighting the ID Movement.

Polarizing all issues plays into the hands of ID's PR strategists, IMO.

To Louis - I will restate my understanding of the status of bioquantum mechanics on another thread.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,09:50   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 13 2007,08:16)
In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is my method for fighting the ID Movement.

Polarizing all issues plays into the hands of ID's PR strategists, IMO.

Trying to argue against woo with by compounding it is not likely to have the results you think it will.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,18:30   

Behe is taking a pounding on the Amazon book site.  No response from him at all.

However, how can he respond since he's wrong in the first place?

No wonder he doesn't engage in scientific forums.  He wouldn't survive the first question.

Add to that Dembski's disembowelment at the hands of art students at OU and ID is not only on the ropes, it's KO'ed.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2007,20:04   

From the "Please sit down and keep quiet" department, a commenter at Amazon named A. Canfil Jr. (who is critical of Behe) asks,
Quote
Can you spell "ad hominen," Dr. Behe?


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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,17:05   

News flash. Philip Cunningham (aka bornagain77) has bailed out of the discussion of Behe's latest opus on Amazon. It is a standard litany, dragging in the notions of persecution,  inability to see the evidence, and general thumbsucking.

Definitely worth a read.

--------------
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

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,18:06   

Ugh had a killer test today, but I finally have a little time to work on my response to Behe.

Working Title: "Michael Behe: Liar, Lunatic, or LiLo?"

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,18:56   

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 15 2007,18:06)
Ugh had a killer test today, but I finally have a little time to work on my response to Behe.

Working Title: "Michael Behe: Liar, Lunatic, or LiLo?"

Uh... I vote for All Of The Above!  (Except he's the pre-rehab LiLo without the restraints).  Does that make Dembski Dina?

--------------
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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,19:06   

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 15 2007,18:06)
Ugh had a killer test today, but I finally have a little time to work on my response to Behe.

Working Title: "Michael Behe: Liar, Lunatic, or LiLo?"

???

I don't get it....but then what the hell do I know...I'm a blonde creationist...it can't get much worse than that.

Are you saying that Behe is, like, evolving into Lilo or what?  I'm thinking there is something sexist about this title....I'm offended!!  Nah, not really...there's not much that offends me. OBVIOUSLY.

Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.  Don't worry though... in the end, if you get stuck, you can always pull the Dave switcharoo.  Just stomp your feet like a 2-year old and say, "Well...so what if you're right and Darwinism sucks...show me a prediction that ID can make...what is the mechanism for ID??!   I know you're wrong, but so am I!"  

[Down, Dave....just teasing, big guy.]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,19:39   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,19:06)
Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.  Don't worry though... in the end, if you get stuck, you can always pull the Dave switcharoo.  Just stomp your feet like a 2-year old and say, "Well...so what if you're right and Darwinism sucks...show me a prediction that ID can make...what is the mechanism for ID??!   I know you're wrong, but so am I!"  

[Down, Dave....just teasing, big guy.]

No problem. But I don't understand why you call it a "switcharoo"; I've been pretty consistent in asking those questions of every stubborn born-again creationist I've encountered (including you, dear). I'll just keep asking those questions until somebody answers them in a coherent fashion. Then we can have a real scientific discussion, which is what I (and a lot of folks here) really have been hoping for!

Does it bother you that nobody, not even Behe, has been able to answer those simple questions yet?

No, I suppose not.

--------------
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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,19:58   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 15 2007,20:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,19:06)
Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.  Don't worry though... in the end, if you get stuck, you can always pull the Dave switcharoo.  Just stomp your feet like a 2-year old and say, "Well...so what if you're right and Darwinism sucks...show me a prediction that ID can make...what is the mechanism for ID??!   I know you're wrong, but so am I!"  

[Down, Dave....just teasing, big guy.]

No problem. But I don't understand why you call it a "switcharoo"; I've been pretty consistent in asking those questions of every stubborn born-again creationist I've encountered (including you, dear). I'll just keep asking those questions until somebody answers them in a coherent fashion. Then we can have a real scientific discussion, which is what I (and a lot of folks here) really have been hoping for!

Does it bother you that nobody, not even Behe, has been able to answer those simple questions yet?

No, I suppose not.

Even the exceedingly christian Dave Heddle tried to explain to her that ID doesn't make predictions and isn't science. She didn't listen to him, so there's little chance she'll listen to you.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,20:08   

Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again?  I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,20:08   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:06)
Carry on Abbie....can't wait to see your response to Behe.

I can't wait either, especially since Behe was a sexist jerk to her.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,20:46   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:08)
Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again?  I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

Well, I certainly don't want to be responsible for anybody's nightmares; that's DaveScot's job.

new avatar = Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

--------------
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

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,22:25   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 15 2007,20:46)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:08)
Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again?  I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

Well, I certainly don't want to be responsible for anybody's nightmares; that's DaveScot's job.

new avatar = Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Whew....thanks!  I'll, no doubt, sleep much easier tonight. :)

Hey, but wait a second...doesn't the owl imply wisdom... the "wise old owl"?

Hmmm....how long are you going to keep this one?  I'm not sure I'm terribly thrilled with it either. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,00:47   

Not content with being trashed on a book website, Amazon, Behe wrote a letter to Science whining about the unfavorable review given "Edge" by Sean Carroll.

With breathtaking inanity Behe lays out his complaint which Carroll completely smashes.  Apparently, it's Behe's modus operandi to ignore the literature, a la Kitzmiller.  I guess there's not much biochemistry published in church bulletins.

Carroll concludes with this paragraph, bolding mine:

If, as Behe now seems to imply in his Letter, he is a greater proponent of cumulative selection than I gave him credit for, why would he, with so many available examples, characterize it as "rare"? It is because cumulative selection is fully capable of producing what he claims Darwinian evolution cannot do. The minimization of cumulative selection and the complete disregard of a massive literature surrounding protein interactions are crucial to Behe's entirely unfounded conclusion that "complex interactive machinery … can't be put together gradually" (p. 81) and must therefore be designed.

Science 12 October 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5848, p. 196

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,02:19   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 15 2007,20:08)
Oh, hey Dave, when are you going to change your avatar again?  I don't like that one....it's a very militant looking bird, and it scares me....I had a nightmare about it last night. :(

Are you entering the "second youth" phase FTK? You sound like a 12 year old.

--------------
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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,15:55   

Oh Noes!!!!111111

Dippy Joe G is in on the act:

http://www.amazon.com/gp....JBKJ6AV

--------------
"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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,16:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 17 2007,15:55)
Oh Noes!!!!111111

Dippy Joe G is in on the act:

http://www.amazon.com/gp....JBKJ6AV

It must be fustrating for pool ole Joe.
Quote
 Joseph Gallien says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]


--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,17:04   

Joe reaches way down the barrel and brings out the typo defense?
Quote
As for "Dna"/"RNA" in HIV seeing that is was clearly spelled out of page 15 perhaps page 139 was an over-looked typo.


wow.

--------------
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. 18 2007,13:39   

Note, even though the Amazon site says comments are disabled, they aren't.  Here is my comment to Behe's reply to Korthof...

Korthof's opening sentence is...

"Readers interested in 'Intelligent Design Theory' will be disappointed."

Korthof explains...
"But, there is no design theory in this book. There are a bunch of observations and suggestive allusions to a theory. But not a coherent treatment of design theory. Even 'nonrandom mutation', which is an important part of Behe's design claims, occurs only 3 times in contrast to 'random mutation' which occurs 171 times. Is it really unfair or unreasonable to expect in this book a coherent description of design theory after more than 10 years since his Darwin's Black Box?"

Korthof sums up nicely why my expectations resulted in disappointment when I read through the Edge of Evolution.

Dr. Behe, many times you have suggested the key to understanding is at the microscopic level. Yet you refrain from exploring the obvious non-random mechanism available from quantum physics.

Why?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,14:15   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 18 2007,13:39)
Dr. Behe, many times you have suggested the key to understanding is at the microscopic level. Yet you refrain from exploring the obvious non-random mechanism available from quantum physics.

Why?

Behe has a hard enough time with biology and the chances are he knows next to nothing about physics, but I'll bet that he can recognize a crank when he sees one.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,16:37   

Cool:

http://cs.felk.cvut.cz/~xobitko/ga/

--------------
"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: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,21:13   

Nortee Behe:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007....ng.html

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,13:24   

Dang, Rich Hughes beat me to it. I came over here specifically to post that.

ERV's blog is one of the best out there. Her going after Mike Behe is like sending the 10th Mountain Division against a jaywalking grandma.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,13:27   

She has a wonderful malicious streak, too!

Go Abby!

--------------
"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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,15:32   

Behe is going to lose his shirt over this... and from his picture on the Amazon site, I think that's a good thing.

BEHE:
I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
I sleep all night and I work all day.

UD-ERS:
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

BEHE:
I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
And have buttered scones for tea.

UD-ERS
He cuts down trees. He eats his lunch.
He goes to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays he goes shopping
And has buttered scones for tea.

He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

BEHE:
I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars.

UD-ERS:
He cuts down trees. He skips and jumps.
He likes to press wild flowers.
He puts on women's clothing
And hangs around in bars?!

He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

BEHE:
I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie,
Just like my dear Papa.

UD-ERS:
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra?!

[talking]
What's this? Wants to be a girlie?! Oh, My!
And I thought you were so rugged! Poofter!...

[singing]
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

He's a lumberjack, and he's okaaaaay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

--------------
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

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,16:12   

Contrary to the observations of drive-by Creationists, Im not a bitch.

Im a brat.

I emailed Cristian Apetrei and told him Behe was misrepresenting his work.  I hope he responds :)


Oh dont act so surprised-- Im a little sister, for petes sake.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,17:09   

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 19 2007,16:12)
Contrary to the observations of drive-by Creationists, Im not a bitch.

Im a brat.

I emailed Cristian Apetrei and told him Behe was misrepresenting his work.  I hope he responds :)


Oh dont act so surprised-- Im a little sister, for petes sake.

 
Quote
Im not a bitch.

Im a brat.


Is there a difference?



[runs like the wind as she feels the breath of the hounds of hell fast at her heels]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,20:00   

There's some truly awesome tard from ba77. He conflated "six orders of magnitude" with "six-fold."

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,20:07   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,17:09)
Quote (ERV @ Oct. 19 2007,16:12)
Contrary to the observations of drive-by Creationists, Im not a bitch.

Im a brat.

I emailed Cristian Apetrei and told him Behe was misrepresenting his work.  I hope he responds :)


Oh dont act so surprised-- Im a little sister, for petes sake.

 
Quote
Im not a bitch.

Im a brat.


Is there a difference?



[runs like the wind as she feels the breath of the hounds of hell fast at her heels]

Meow! Meow! Meow!

There.  FTK I fixed it for you.

--------------
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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,20:14   

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 19 2007,20:00)
There's some truly awesome tard from ba77. He conflated "six orders of magnitude" with "six-fold."

Cool!  And when called on it, he replies: "Your arguing over very trivial points of increased efficency, trying to prove "Hey look this might be increased complexity in a minor part of a existing system, so Behe is wrong!""  

My bolding, just to highlight the trivial error...

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,20:16   

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 19 2007,21:00)
There's some truly awesome tard from ba77. He conflated "six orders of magnitude" with "six-fold."

didn't he also demonstrate an inability to use algebra last week? He's the perfect ID mark.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2007,23:27   

I think Batshit77 is on our side.

He regularly posts his "12 reasons" that are the worst non-sequiturs in a long time and writes "theism" instead of "ID' whilst linking to YEC websites. Magic!

Sleeper agent Batshit77, I salute you.

--------------
"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

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2007,12:20   

Quote
There's some truly awesome tard from ba77. He conflated "six orders of magnitude" with "six-fold."


That's an 8 cDmb error!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2007,13:18   

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

just a thought.

--------------
"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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2007,16:47   

On Behe's latest blog post, BA77 tards out when asked to provide a testable ID hypothesis that generates predictions that would be different from those of evolutionary theory.  
Quote
The Theistic postulation for ID would postulate that the human genome will be found to have a interwoven dependent complexity of information in the genome that will severely tax, if not surpass, man's ability to completely understand it!

Whereas, Evolution requires much of the genome to be non-functional and also to be independent of interdependent complexity so as to be flexible to changes required for the evolutionary scenario.

Since further work in ENCODE is going to test this very hypothesis I have outlined for each hypothesis, Is that a specific enough testable hypothesis for you?


--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2007,12:52   

Smokey nails Cunningham/BA77 for plagiarizing.

All Science So Far!

--------------
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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2007,18:04   

Ouch.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,10:03   

Over at Amazon, Ian Musgrave dismantles Behe's reply to ERV.

Can you spell "pwned"?

Apparently, neither can I. ;)  But it is definitely what happened there.

--------------
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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,10:19   

I hope most people can follow Abbie's argument. It's very entertaining to watch her stomp him.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,10:46   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 22 2007,10:03)
Over at Amazon, Ian Musgrave dismantles Behe's reply to ERV.

Can you spell "pwned"?

Apparently, neither can I. ;)  But it is definitely what happened there.

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....ts-open

Via PT

--------------
"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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,11:51   

On the "how does the actor act?" thread at UD, Joe G continues his dishonesty after fleeing the Amazon blog.  
Quote
Over on Amazon (Dr Behe’s blog) a biologist claimed that carpenters, plumbers and electricians have specific mechanisms. However if I give 5 carpenters, 5 plumbers and 5 electricians a job to do it is very likely that each will do it differently. IOW there isn’t one mechanism for carpentry, one for plumbing and one for electricians. They have a job and they do it per the specifications.

The "biologist" happens to be me. Here's what I actually wrote.  
Quote
Joe

Design is WHAT you want to do. A mechanism is HOW you do it. Your encyclopedia definitions point that out very well. A design is a formulation or a plan. A mechanism is "methods, procedures, processes". Thanks for proving my point.

If you can't understand this, or still think it is not the case, please tell me how a design for your house can, by itself, generate the house without involving intervening mechanical stages. Do you want to cower under a blueprint (design) when winter weather comes? Or would you rather involve carpentry, plumbing, and electrical work (mechanisms) to build a house that is a lot more substantial than that blueprint?

Did I write that there is "one mechanism" for each of these trades? No, I used them as examples of actual mechanistic processes, which are necessary to get from the blueprint (design) to the house (living things).

If the IDiots couldn't put words in your mouth, they couldn't  "argue" at all. Pathetic.

Joe, if you are reading this, please come back to the Amazon site instead of hiding behind DT's skirts at UD. It would be a pleasure to kick your heinie again.

--------------
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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,12:13   

I don't think you want Joe to come back; I really don't.  I'm not sure he's smart enough to feed himself cereal in the morning.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:02   

Joey really has no idea how much of an asshole he makes himself out to be, does he?

"Cetaceans are much more than a loss of hind-limbs. There should be at least 50,000 intermediates."

Looks like somebody has been listening to DI philosopher-idiots again...

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:28   

Quote (slpage @ Oct. 24 2007,14:02)
Joey really has no idea how much of an asshole he makes himself out to be, does he?

"Cetaceans are much more than a loss of hind-limbs. There should be at least 50,000 intermediates."

Looks like somebody has been listening to DI philosopher-idiots again...

Are you questioning the validity of his 50,000 intermediate stages?

I am sure he could show us the sciencey and mathy sounding numbers he used to achieve this level of total consciousness.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,06:39   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 24 2007,12:13)
I don't think you want Joe to come back; I really don't.  I'm not sure he's smart enough to feed himself cereal in the morning.

Joe hasn't come back yet, and I predict he won't. He can't control the conversation there, and it is too public a place for him to be comfortable with getting smacked around by all the other commenters.

Behe has a new post on his Amazon site; comments are open. This one is all about theology.

All Science So Far!

--------------
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

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,06:54   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,18:09)
[runs like the wind as she feels the breath of the hounds of hell fast at her heels]

That's not the breath of the hounds of hell, it's the rest of us collectively yawning in boredom.

--------------
"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"

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,07:17   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2007,06:54)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,18:09)
[runs like the wind as she feels the breath of the hounds of hell fast at her heels]

That's not the breath of the hounds of hell, it's the rest of us collectively yawning in boredom.

Indeed, with FiK's sterling example, we have the standard by which to distinguish 'brats' from 'bitches'.  FtK is not a brat.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,17:31   

I don't have anything to add to the discussion.

I'm just following Shirley around today (cue Pigpen singing "Good morning, li'l schoolgirl")...

Don't worry, Shirley.  It's only for today.  And just 'cause I'm in need of hugs.

Tomorrow's Friday.  I'll feel better (aka "The TGIF Effect").

And I'll follow afdave around instead...

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,18:01   

Trust me, I'm lots more fun than antiFactDavie.
I'm better looking, more honest, considerably less insane, kinder to animals, indeed, with respect to davie-doodles, I remain fitter, happier, more productive.
But then so is your average corpse...
;-)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,11:34   

Behe's latest Amazon post is a classic.

All Science So Far!

--------------
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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,11:40   

Behe also says in that post
Quote
Even if God purposely designed the malarial parasite, He may not have decreed that a particular infected mosquito would bite a particular person on a particular day, or that a particular tiger would eat some one in particular.


Behe - it's the "designer" not "god" you fool.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,12:04   

BA77 (aka Philip Cunningham) has re-emerged from under the UD rock to comment again on Behe's latest blog post. He has been joined by another creo named JF Stanley.

Come on over and join the fun!

--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,17:33   

BA77 bloviates on at Behe's latest Amazon atrocity. Not only does he reinvoke his notion from UD that "melanin=information" and more melanin= more information, he parades his ignorance and mendaciousness proudly.    
Quote
Many times, naturalists parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species ( Horse & Donkey; Grizzly Bear & Polar Bear; Various Insects etc.. etc..) as stunning proof of evolution. Yet, the hard evidence of exhaustive experimentation indicates that the information for variation was already "programmed" into the parent species's genetic code and the sub-species, or what is sometimes known as the pure breed, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species.

Bad news for those bears being only subspecies now...

--------------
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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,23:58   

Nick Matzke adds to Behe's latest humiliation

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,06:10   

Over at Behe's Amazon blog, Philip Cunningham (aka BA77), has left the building (again).    
Quote
I'm sure when you find the conclusive evidence of the limit being violated many people will want to see it....until you find this evidence I'm going on to other things,,,I'm sure I'll see you later...so take care...and I wish you well!


--------------
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

   
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,16:33   

Jesus, everyone recalibrate their irony filters for Behe's latest (arguing that Miller adopts "Darwinism" for theological reasons, and is thus a stealth closet ID supporter):
Quote

My own view (which Miller spectacularly fails to grasp) is that, as a scientist, one is obliged to look at the evidence of nature dispassionately and nonjudgmentally. If the coherence and complexity of the malaria parasite point to its purposeful design by an intelligent agent, then that’s where the data point.  As a scientist, one is not allowed to pass judgment on the morality of nature. To reject the weight of evidence because it shows the universe to be something unpalatable is to betray science.

Let's not forget the endless bleating from UD and the DI that "Darwinism leads to Nazism," "ooh, look, Dawkins says that the universe is meaningless, which is a horrible thing to say, which means he doesn't love his children and likes fascism" and infinite other permutations of the is-ought fallacy...

But, predictably, they just love it at UD.

--------------

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,16:43   

Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 30 2007,16:33)
Jesus, everyone recalibrate their irony filters for Behe's latest (arguing that Miller adopts "Darwinism" for theological reasons, and is thus a stealth closet ID supporter):      
Quote

My own view (which Miller spectacularly fails to grasp) is that, as a scientist, one is obliged to look at the evidence of nature dispassionately and nonjudgmentally. If the coherence and complexity of the malaria parasite point to its purposeful design by an intelligent agent, then that’s where the data point.  As a scientist, one is not allowed to pass judgment on the morality of nature. To reject the weight of evidence because it shows the universe to be something unpalatable is to betray science.

Let's not forget the endless bleating from UD and the DI that "Darwinism leads to Nazism," "ooh, look, Dawkins says that the universe is meaningless, which is a horrible thing to say, which means he doesn't love his children and likes fascism" and infinite other permutations of the is-ought fallacy...

But, predictably, they just love it at UD.

This is the same lame Amazon Behe blatherfest from whence Philip Cunningham (aka bornagain77) was sent packing yesterday (see my post above). I wonder if he will reminisce at UD about his triumphs over the Darwinists on that comment thread. Maybe they can give him some better ideas so that he lasts a bit longer in his next venture outside the UD crib.

--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,17:16   

Yay! Joe g is back in action on Behe's blog. The dumbest IDiot in the entire galaxy is parading his ignorance on a prime-time venue.

All Science So Far!

--------------
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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,13:42   

Behe attempts to rebut Nick Matzke's EoE review in Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Here is part 1. He promises two more to follow.

No mention of the name of the author of the review, and thus no ad hominem arguments until the second paragraph  
Quote
Like almost all reviews by Darwinists, this one begins with a genuflection to the Dover trial, where a former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Board-appointed-judge...

Comments are open; have fun.

--------------
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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,14:02   

God that is a tardfest.

Why don't batshit77's nannyfilters kick in over there?

JAM you are one crazy dude.  I don't have the tard tolerance you do buddy.  Hats Off!!!



--------------
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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,14:47   

Behe opines:

Quote
Even if God purposely designed the malarial parasite, He may not have decreed that a particular infected mosquito would bite a particular person on a particular day, or that a particular tiger would eat some one in particular. In the case of the tiger (designed or not), for example, a human’s fate might depend on when he decides to go for a walk, which route he takes, etc., etc. Nature and human life would still be chockful of contingency and freedom.


Gosh that makes so much sense.  The designed the malaria parasite but it's not his fault if you become infected with it.  You should have never lived in Africa in the first place, dolt!  

It never ceases to amaze me how so many christians like Behe can ignore and/or rationalize obvious moral issues brought on by this religious nonsense.  When held to even the most marginal moral code, God/the inteligent designer is a very sick and perverted bastard.

"Hey god made the malarial parasite but he didn't force you to live in Africa!  You should count your blessings!"

I think it was Camus who said something close to when a christian sees an innocent child whose eyes have been burned out they must either abandon their faith or burn their own eyes out.  I think he was on to something.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,20:09   

Hang on a minute.

Behe is describing what God does or does not, can or can not do.

How does Behe know this?  Or even suggest it?

Like Behe's entire Life's Work this comes under the heading of Making Stuff Up.

Behe can't possibly know what God thinks about a tiger or a mosquito, much less what the tiger or mosquito thinks, or does.

HG Frankfurt would call this "bullshit."

So do I.  Bullshit, Behe.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,21:47   

Funny insider info--

Okay, the HIV research world is cut-throat.  You do NOT talk about your research until its already on its way to publication land, as competition is thick and fierce.

One of the PIs I emailed for more info on Vpu was just wonderful-- very nice, very helpful, very prompt replies.  But even though Im just a random grad student in the middle of nowhere, he kept this ace up his sleeve:
Modulation of the severe CD4(+) T-cell loss caused by a pathogenic simian-human immunodeficiency virus by replacement of the subtype B vpu with the vpu from a subtype C HIV-1 clinical isolate.

Quick translation-- those 'pathetic' changes in Vpu?  Yeah, those pathetic changes alone can drastically alter disease progression.  Its a sweet paper, and it references any paper you could want to read on the sequence, structure, biological, and clinical evolution of Vpu accumulated thus far.

ROFL!  Poor Behe.  Im gonna have my 'reply' up to him sometime this weekend-- Its an off weekend for tests, so Im actually going to have time to sit down and figure out a way to turn "Wow.  Youre an asshat." into a nice post...

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,22:05   

Behe passes off ubiquitin-mediated degradation as gumming things up.  Apparently, he is not impressed with, um, sex determination, photomorphogenesis, neurogenesis, eye development, meiosis, root development, etc., etc., etc.  (These and more all involve Ub-mediated protein turnover.) I wonder if he has written Stockholm, demanding that the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry be revoked.

I'm amazed at how much biology he has to shove under the rug, just to save his book.

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2007,01:17   

Quote (Art @ Nov. 02 2007,22:05)
Behe passes off ubiquitin-mediated degradation as gumming things up.  Apparently, he is not impressed with, um, sex determination, photomorphogenesis, neurogenesis, eye development, meiosis, root development, etc., etc., etc.  (These and more all involve Ub-mediated protein turnover.) I wonder if he has written Stockholm, demanding that the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry be revoked.

I'm amazed at how much biology he has to shove under the rug, just to save his book.

That's might be a good stiletto, Art. Have you ever tried it on any lay subjects? They at least get the idea of the Nobel in Chemistry.

From my dealings with the Tard, it seems to draw a lot of its force from the idea that those of us who argue against it study only evolution.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,08:06   

It appears that somebody finally alerted Behe to the fact that he was taking a pounding on the comment threads at his Amazon blog. Comments on every thread except the rebuttal to ERV seem to be really disabled now, at least for me. If anyone else can post a comment, please let us know here. Perhaps it is just a temporary glitch? One can only hope; there were some interesting discussions going on over there, and it was a very public forum.

--------------
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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,18:59   

And speaking of ERV, her answer to Behe is up, and it's a dandy.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,10:42   

Quote
Alas, noticing that I am indeed a woman appears to be the crown jewel of your observational capabilities, and nicely explains why you yourself are not involved in the research world in any meaningful capacity.


Ouch.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,10:52   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 04 2007,18:59)
And speaking of ERV, her answer to Behe is up, and it's a dandy.

Those pictures of Behe that she links to are a VAST improvement over the balding lumber-jack Behe pictured on his Amazon House Of Pain site.

I wish she hadn't done that - now it's gonna be harder to get the hate on for Behe...

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,11:17   

A commenter on ERV's site says

Quote
DS  said...

   Seriously. I used to think that Behe had an agenda and was just blinded by his faith. He has become such a caricature that I now think he merely likes the attention (and the money). As you pointed it out beautifully (especially in the last few paragraphs) he's not even making an effort to make sense anymore. He's mailing it in because he knows the people who agree with him don't care what he says, and he will get ripped to shreds by science no matter what he says. It's getting sad (I guess it never wasn't).
 (my bolding)

That's exactly right. Behe doesn't have to bother saying anything scientifically defensible, because his audience will never listen to an actual researcher like ERV. They're zealots.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,11:24   

It can't help that ERV is an HIV researcher, because so many Intelligent Design people are also HIV deniers.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,06:41   

Part II of Behe's response to Matzke's review of his book is up at Amazon. Comments are disabled (I guess they learned that lesson), so I guess we have to comment here and at PT.

--------------
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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,21:18   

Part III is up. You can get there via Nick's latest post at The Panda's Thumb.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,21:32   

Some highlights from Behe's blog:

Quote
Part I: Like almost all reviews by Darwinists, this one begins with a genuflection to the Dover trial, where a former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Board-appointed-judge, showing no evidence he actually understood the academic arguments of either side, copied almost word for word the document handed to him at the end of the trial by the lawyers for the complainant. This was his “decision.” For signing off on a document castigating intelligent design the apparently clueless judge got his picture in Time magazine, was bequeathed honorary degrees, and has been lionized by all the right people.

Always good to start with the traditional scientific boilerplate, "former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Board-appointed-judge".

Quote
Part II: Truly in this instance the Darwinian elephant labored mightily and brought forth a gnat.

A gnat being a very complex organism.

Quote
Part III: And this: “He is obsessed with ‘randomness,’ which he incorrigibly associates with ‘Darwinism’ and cosmic purposelessness.” Now, wait a darn second. Wasn’t it Darwin himself, we are constantly assured, who based his theory on “random” variation?

As Nick points out, Darwin didn't know the source or nature of variation, the word 'random' never appearing in Origin of Species.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,21:39   

In case you fell off a turnip truck yesterday and trust Michael Behe, here's a more detailed description from Wikipedia:

Quote
Early life, education, and law career

Jones was born in 1955 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania and raised in Orwigsburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended Blue Mountain High School. He graduated high school from Mercersburg Academy. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Dickinson College in 1977 and law degree from Dickinson School of Law in 1980. At that time, the school was unaffiliated with Pennsylvania State University.

After clerking for Guy A. Bowe, the president-county judge for Schuylkill County from 1980 to 1983, Jones joined the law firm of Dolbin & Cori. When he was made a partner, the name of the firm was changed to Dolbin, Cori & Jones.

In 1986, Judge Jones began his own private practice, John Jones & Associates. He spent the next years as a trial lawyer. He also served as solicitor for several municipalities, including his hometown of Pottsville, and was a part-time assistant Schuylkill County public defender until 1995. From around 1992 until his appointment to the federal bench, Jones served as counsel to the Reading firm of Roland & Schlegel.

[edit] Political career

In 1992, Jones unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. House of Representatives for the Sixth Congressional District seat and then was co-chair of the transition team for Governor-elect Tom Ridge.

Jones was the chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board from 1995 to 2002, a period marked by some controversy. He was part of a failed attempt to privatize state stores, and he banned Bad Frog Beer after determining that its label (a frog giving the finger) was in bad taste. He briefly considered running for Governor in 2001, but was appointed to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by President George W. Bush in February 2002. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 30 and was commissioned on August 2.

[edit] Service on federal bench

Jones was assigned to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District bench trial, the first direct challenge brought in the federal courts against a school district that mandated the teaching of intelligent design. He was praised by Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Governor and former head of the Department of Homeland Security, who said that "I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue... he has an inquisitive mind, a penetrating intellect and an incredible sense of humor."[1]

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,22:52   

As a non-scientist, it has been hard going, but rewarding, educating myself on the whole HIV issue so I can see the holes in Behe's argument. It still boils down to
Behe: X and there are no studies contradicting this
Others: What about all of these studies?
Behe: Insignificant
Others: They are not insignificant because Y and Z.
Behe: Gratuitous Insults
Others: Wanker

What burns me up if that I take the time to study the evidence so I can understand the majority position. Ftk on the other hand reads nothing and declares it all on gut feel.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,02:58   

Quote (bystander @ Nov. 06 2007,22:52)
Ftk on the other hand reads nothing and declares it all on gut feel.

I think the difference is the difference! FTK can whine away and it'll never make any difference because "her" position has been the default position since humanity could conceive of a higher power. Been there, done that. FTK's position is being dropped as the generations change. I doubt her kids will have the same set of attitudes that she does, despite "her" best efforts to program them.

Since FTK reads nothing she cannot criticize on the level of the evidence and so her slings and arrows are too blunt to matter. They don't reach the evidence.

People like Behe give the appearance of dealing with the scientific substance, but it's only an appearance. Put a science sounding gloss on "god did it" and people like FTK are happy. They don't understand the "why" of it, but they understand the message even if they skip the maths. The maths is just there to signpost "this is really science proving your god exists".

--------------
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

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,16:46   

Quote (bystander @ Nov. 06 2007,22:52)
It still boils down to
Behe: X and there are no studies contradicting this
Others: What about all of these studies?
Behe: Insignificant
Others: They are not insignificant because Y and Z.
Behe: Gratuitous Insults
Others: Wanker

Can I steal that?  I will reference you!

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,05:54   

Quote (ERV @ Nov. 08 2007,09:46)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 06 2007,22:52)
It still boils down to
Behe: X and there are no studies contradicting this
Others: What about all of these studies?
Behe: Insignificant
Others: They are not insignificant because Y and Z.
Behe: Gratuitous Insults
Others: Wanker

Can I steal that?  I will reference you!

ERV

Sure, 'tis nothing compared to your great putdowns!

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,06:00   

From Part III of Behe's reply to Nick Matzke:
Quote
And isn’t there a rather well-known evolutionary biologist with the initials Richard Dawkins currently traveling the world to tell us exactly that Darwinism means purposelessness?


So, what's his full name?
Richard
Ian
Cornelius
Henry
Angus
Robert
Daniel

Denyse
Albert
William
Kenneth
Ivan
Nelson
Springer?

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,12:08   

Got a little question :)
Quote
I look forwards to Behe attempting to defend all the various aspects of his "work" that have been demolished so far in reviews.

Can anyone post links to those reviews? (I already got the TolkOrigins link)

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,16:59   

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 10 2007,13:08)
Got a little question :)
Quote
I look forwards to Behe attempting to defend all the various aspects of his "work" that have been demolished so far in reviews.

Can anyone post links to those reviews? (I already got the TolkOrigins link)

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,14:38   

Stolen from Pharyngula



--------------
"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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,14:56   

I don't know what to say, except that I didn't know Behe had a tattoo.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,17:13   

Behe has a new post up at his Amazon blog, in which he promises to address Ian Musgrave's open letter which appeared on PT a while back.

I must have just caught him posting it, because when I first opened it, the comments were enabled. So I typed a comment, hit the "submit" button, and when the page reloaded, my comment was not there, and comments were disabled.

Whatta wanker.

--------------
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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,18:41   

ERV is waiting for Behe.

Come on down, Behe!  Show us your (pseudo) Science!

ERV makes a point that NOBODY has come out of the woodwork to defend Behe.  Except, of course, BA77, aka Christopher, who was trounced in the comments on Amazon.

The creationist nitwits like Behe can only survive in their little world if they control the vertical, control the horizontal, control the comments.

Behe was shown to be a FOOL at Kitzmiller where he couldn't control the questioning and had to answer the questions.  Behe sealed the case for the plaintiffs.  Thank you, Michael!

Now, Mikey has a 5-part rebuttal to Abbie, the grad student's, inquiry.

Why, oh, why, Mikey, do you need 5 postings to reply to a "mean girl?"

Hmmmmmm?

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,19:48   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 11 2007,17:13)
Behe has a new post up at his Amazon blog, in which he promises to address Ian Musgrave's open letter which appeared on PT a while back.

Quote
An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe By Ian Musgrave:

Dear Dr. Behe...


--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,13:28   

Phase 1 of 5 has been posted.

As expected, it's All Science, All the Time.


Behe's Reply Number 1

  
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,13:36   

Ans so far his response is all science . . . yeah right!

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,14:07   

But hooligans, remember Behe's definition of science.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,14:20   

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

OMG!  Behe cannot top this!  He CANNOT top this!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,14:42   

You should be quite honored, ERV.

Do you realize that Behe never, Never, NEVER responds to his critics.

Oh, hang on, Behe hasn't actually addressed anything scientific, so maybe his track record holds.

In any case, I like this line from Behe:

Quote
As far as I’m concerned, if a complete stranger sends me a message with a sneering tone like that, she can go soak her head.


If a "complete stranger" blah blahs "SHE" can go soak "HER" head.

I think your slip is showing, Dr. Freud.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,14:45   

Behe whines:  "I had no intention of replying to Smith’s post at all; I did so only after I received requests from other folks who wanted me to reply."

What can he say at this time?  That he's an idiot?  Thanks, Mike,we already know.  I would say that "other folks" is Amazon, where they have to be begging him to try and counter the bad publicity arising from his original post.  

Not much they can do about his bad book though.  Too bad.  Hey! Didn't Behe used to be a scientist or something?

--------------
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

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,17:30   

come on give the guy a break. It's not easy to try and find quotes to mine when you haven't read the primary literature. He might sneak some science in around post four or five. Maybe he should get the guys at UD to help, or Lee Merrill at IIDB seems to be doing well *snicker*

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,18:06   

Quote (bystander @ Nov. 12 2007,17:30)
come on give the guy a break. It's not easy to try and find quotes to mine when you haven't read the primary literature. He might sneak some science in around post four or five. Maybe he should get the guys at UD to help, or Lee Merrill at IIDB seems to be doing well *snicker*

Lee defends Behe better then Behe defends Behe.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,18:16   

Quote (ERV @ Nov. 13 2007,11:06)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 12 2007,17:30)
come on give the guy a break. It's not easy to try and find quotes to mine when you haven't read the primary literature. He might sneak some science in around post four or five. Maybe he should get the guys at UD to help, or Lee Merrill at IIDB seems to be doing well *snicker*

Lee defends Behe better then Behe defends Behe.

Sadly that's not saying a lot.

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,18:44   

Hahahahah I like how he shoots himself in the foot by quoting her without any refutation.

Abbie, by the way, you're a Mean Girl and need to be stopped. Aging biochemists are horrified at your antics.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,14:06   

New Boo-Hoo:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKG16DVFY0A5JM

--------------
"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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,14:24   

Behe -
Quote
She writes:

Quote
HIV-1 Vpu requires two casein kinase II sites. ... Yet some SIVcpz Vpus have only one CKII site, and instead utilize a simple string of negatively charged amino acids in place of the second site. Different ways of performing similar tricks with totally different amino acids. I think that’s biochemically significant as well.


I disagree with her assessment; I think this is a trivial biochemical change given HIV’s mutation rate.

I hope Behe doesn't suffer from a bad back, with all those goalposts he keep on moving.  Surely a biochemist would understand "biochemically significant" to mean significant to the biochemistry, not "having dissimilar DRNA sequences".

Play soccer, mate.  Then you only have to move a couple of coats.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,15:30   

Lets see latest post:

. Abbie is a meannie
. Misquotes Abbie (I wonder if he got it from Sal?)
. The change is minor so irrelevant

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,21:13   

Response to Ian Musgrave's "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe," Part 3

Wherein Behe, having claimed that "there is no new molecular machinery [in HIV]", proceeds to move the goal posts.

Quote
Michael Behe, please allow me to introduce myself…

I'm ERV. This is my dog, Arnold Schwarzenegger. And this is my friend, Vpu... I find it rather difficult to believe that you two haven’t crossed paths, as Vpu turns up in a simple Google search. And as a matter of fact, Vpu is sitting right there in the totally unnecessary and worthless diagram in ‘Edge of Evolution’. See? Right there:



Edited formatting.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2007,23:21   

I've sort of lost touch with this court case, but what's the status of the California trial he's supposed to be involved with now? I remember he was going to testify for that hideous Bob Jones book, but is the case still pending?

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,18:29   

Original essay: 2 weeks
Harassment from UD goons: 4 days
Confronting Dembski: 5 minutes

Getting Behe to admit he f*cked up: 105 days

Quote
Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,18:51   

Quote (ERV @ Nov. 15 2007,18:29)
Original essay: 2 weeks
Harassment from UD goons: 4 days
Confronting Dembski: 5 minutes

Getting Behe to admit he f*cked up: 105 days

 
Quote
Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV.

CALL GUINESS!

AFAIK THIS IS THEFIRST TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD (either 6,000 years, or 4.5 billion, depending, per ftk) THAT ANY ID PROPONENT HAS ACTUALLY APOLOGIZED FOR MAKING A MISTAKE!

CALL GUINESS - THE OTHER ONE!
ORDER ABBIE A KEG OF THE GOOD STUFF - CONGRATUALTIONS!  

NOT BAD FOR A GRLLL!

Can I stop shouting now?

--------------
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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,19:35   

Just don't mention Mt. Rushmore.  Behe still uses that.

Still, it's just a "leaky cell."  Not a Real Evolutionary Change like wings or eyeballs.  Give me an HIV with eyeballs and we'll have something to talk about!

Notice how Behe buries his concession in the middle of a paragraph and soldiers on trying to minimize it.

Still, I've never seen Behe climb down on anything, including Mt. Mousetrap.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,20:09   

Can somebody explain the last paragraph of Behe's statement. I can't see how this is not what we expect from Evolution, why does it support ID?

Michael

ps. I can't wait until this thread moves to page 7. I find the photo at the top disturbing for some reason

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,04:11   

Quote
ps. I can't wait until this thread moves to page 7. I find the photo at the top disturbing for some reason

Me too.

One post closer.  :-)

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,06:32   

Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 15 2007,18:51)
CALL GUINESS!

AFAIK THIS IS THEFIRST TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD (either 6,000 years, or 4.5 billion, depending, per ftk) THAT ANY ID PROPONENT HAS ACTUALLY APOLOGIZED FOR MAKING A MISTAKE!

CALL GUINESS - THE OTHER ONE!
ORDER ABBIE A KEG OF THE GOOD STUFF - CONGRATUALTIONS!  

NOT BAD FOR A GRLLL!

Can I stop shouting now?

Well, no, he didn't apologize. He merely admitted a mistake, and then attempted to notpologize it away as trivial.

And this sentence, at the end  
Quote
However, in the past fifty years many, many more potential viral protein-viral protein interactions must have also developed but not been selected because they did the virus little good.

is priceless! Yes, Dr. Behe, some mutations are neutral, some are deleterious, and a few are beneficial. That is exactly what happens in evolution, and to pretend that this is somehow a problem now is truly bizarre.

To think that a biochemist can sink so low just to sell a few books...

--------------
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

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,06:42   

You try supporting nine fucking kids as a professor, without any talent. Twenty grand for your credibility, which you were never going to use again anyway? Well worth it.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,12:42   

I don't recall that Behe has ever retreated on any point.

Anyone?

He still pulls out the Rushmore and mousetrap examples even though they were both completely dismissed a decade ago.

So, why now?

It's the thin end of the wedge for Behe.  If he can admit to overlooking a point that was central to his thesis in Edge, what else will he retract if pressed.

Few people have commented on Behe's most outrageous statement in Edge where he declares that the plasmodium was designed.  Not "could have been" but definitely was.  That seems to me to be a retraction worth going after.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,14:31   

Quote
Behe: This is the fifth of five posts in which I reply to Dr. Ian Musgrave’s “Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe” on the Panda’s Thumb blog.


Quote
Behe in The Edge of Evolution : Like throwing a wad of chewing gum into a finely tuned machine, it’s relatively easy to clog a system — much easier than making the system in the first place.

Quote
Behe responds to Behe: I did not say that Vpu acted as a nonspecific wad of chewing gum.


--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,14:59   

Quote
Behe: Cellular proteins must continually exist in a confined space, dense with many other cellular proteins, and so they are normally selected to not bind to most other cellular proteins. In other words, for eons the surfaces of cellular proteins have been honed so as to not interact with almost any other protein in a very concentrated cellular milieu.

Evolution can't occur because of — eons of evolution!

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:06   

Quote (bystander @ Nov. 15 2007,20:09)
ps. I can't wait until this thread moves to page 7. I find the photo at the top disturbing for some reason

You mean, this picture?

EDITTED for the little babies with sensitive tum-tums. :p

--------------
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!)

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:14   

I hate you.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:16   

Waiting for the page to roll over has been killing you, hasn't it Carlson Jokstrap?  I'm betting you've been planning that for some time.

Lou

P.S. I also hate you.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:27   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,15:16)
Waiting for the page to roll over has been killing you, hasn't it Carlson Jokstrap?  I'm betting you've been planning that for some time.

Lou

P.S. I also hate you.

Yeah, me too, but I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type.

ID Predicts that if you can get that through the Thought Police at UD, you win the prestigious Poster of The Century Award.

Getting it autographed by Behe, Lindsy Lohan and Abbie Smith - ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS, and we would all have to bow down and worship you.  Except me, cuz fortunately I am an atheist.

--------------
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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:28   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,15:16)
Waiting for the page to roll over has been killing you, hasn't it Carlson Jokstrap?  I'm betting you've been planning that for some time.

Who, little old me?  Would I do something like that?  It was just an innocent question.  But, to show what a swell gent I am, I editted the post to keep from offending your senstivities, oh moderator!
Quote
P.S. I also hate you.


You know, there was an absolutely perfect lolcat you could have used in this case.  Just so ya know......

Oh, by the way.  Any guy who wore a red dress with that much junk in his trunk shouldn't be hating on Behe!

--------------
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!)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,15:35   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 16 2007,16:28)
Oh, by the way.  Any guy who wore a red dress with that much junk in his trunk shouldn't be hating on Behe!

Hey, I made that dress look good.

Plus, I did it by request of my dead Aunt.  Favorite Aunts get a certain amount of consideration when they go to California.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2008,15:44   

We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here.

I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity?

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2008,17:33   

I have no idea.  I was just thinking that to me Behe probably looks marginally better than the Lamprey, although the Lamprey probably talks better science.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2200
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,11:57   

Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,13:44)
We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here.

I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity?

Well, phlogiston, lead-into-gold, and geocentrism come to mind.  But if we restrict it to recent hypotheses, proposed when the evidence was already running against them, and maintained by their proponents as evidence continued to mount, the only parallel I can think of is steady-state cosmology.  Of course, steady-state was always a scientific theory, not religious apologetics, so I'm not sure it's that good a parallel.

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

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,12:26   

Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,15:44)
We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here.

I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity?

I was arguing IC on Uncommon Descent a week ago here, where I told them they should stop clinging to the flawed notion, but they still believe it's credible, and I rather failed at showing them otherwise.

Apparently they are aware that nothing in evolution prohibits IC, but still insist that it be shown in practice else ID wins by default. I know a goalpost has been moved somewhere there but my argument-fu is weak. In any case they're asking for evidence which is unreasonably difficult to obtain in practice, but easy to show in principle.

Personally I believe that emphasising the power of gene duplication is the key, since that, as far as I know, is the method for adding information (by their definition) - the mechanism they claim doesn't exist. how exactly do they deny that one? we know genes duplicate, we know that it doesn't always harm the animal, we know that they can mutate in different ways to the original gene, we know that this can be selected for, and we have evidence of genes which look like copies of others.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,12:48   

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 12 2008,12:26)
Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,15:44)
We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here.

I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity?

I was arguing IC on Uncommon Descent a week ago here, where I told them they should stop clinging to the flawed notion, but they still believe it's credible, and I rather failed at showing them otherwise.

Apparently they are aware that nothing in evolution prohibits IC, but still insist that it be shown in practice else ID wins by default. I know a goalpost has been moved somewhere there but my argument-fu is weak. In any case they're asking for evidence which is unreasonably difficult to obtain in practice, but easy to show in principle.

Personally I believe that emphasising the power of gene duplication is the key, since that, as far as I know, is the method for adding information (by their definition) - the mechanism they claim doesn't exist. how exactly do they deny that one? we know genes duplicate, we know that it doesn't always harm the animal, we know that they can mutate in different ways to the original gene, we know that this can be selected for, and we have evidence of genes which look like copies of others.

Ah so!  You must remember Little Grasshopper, that no man can convert a True Believer™.  True Believer must convert himself.



--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,14:05   

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 12 2008,13:26)
Quote (stevestory @ May 10 2008,15:44)
We don't seem to have a general Mike Behe thread per se, so I'm putting this here.

I was reading the new Panda's Thumb story about Behe's ridiculous immune system claims, and it makes me idly wonder, has any idea ever been eviscerated as thoroughly as Irreducible Complexity?

I was arguing IC on Uncommon Descent a week ago here, where I told them they should stop clinging to the flawed notion, but they still believe it's credible, and I rather failed at showing them otherwise.

Apparently they are aware that nothing in evolution prohibits IC, but still insist that it be shown in practice else ID wins by default. I know a goalpost has been moved somewhere there but my argument-fu is weak. In any case they're asking for evidence which is unreasonably difficult to obtain in practice, but easy to show in principle.

Personally I believe that emphasising the power of gene duplication is the key, since that, as far as I know, is the method for adding information (by their definition) - the mechanism they claim doesn't exist. how exactly do they deny that one? we know genes duplicate, we know that it doesn't always harm the animal, we know that they can mutate in different ways to the original gene, we know that this can be selected for, and we have evidence of genes which look like copies of others.

You should have pity for them. Believing in IC at this point is a kind of IQ test.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,14:28   

Plus PaV or DHL or some other nugget was arguing that redundancy in biological structure is evidence of design last week.

To recap:
Take a piece out.
If it still works: Design!
If it doesn't work: Design!

--------------
"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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,14:46   

besides since there are no theory independent observations, and theories are clearly designed, all observations thus yield design.

you pathetic darwinist materialists chance worshippers cannot possibly understand how infantile your objections to Design are in the eyes of the almighty GOD DESIGNER.

--------------
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

  
BopDiddy



Posts: 71
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,00:39   

Exhuming an old Behe thread to post this:

The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe "The son of intelligent design heavyweight Michael Behe discusses his journey to atheism"

A snippet:

 
Quote

The Humanist: How long was this transformation, and why didn’t your father’s ideas (or others) about intelligent design demonstrate proof of a “designer” or creator?

Behe: The journey from very devout Catholic to outspoken atheist took about six months total. Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. After I lost the element of trust—be it trust in the Bible, trust in a church, or trust in the Pope—I had no choice but to vindicate my own beliefs through research, literature, and countless hours of deep thought. It was then that my belief in any sort of God faded away gradually, and to this day I continue to find more and more convincing evidence against any sort of design or supernatural interference in the universe. As for the arguments from design, such as irreducible complexity or the so-called fine-tuning of the six cosmological constants, I have many reasons for dismissing them each in particular, but one overarching reason would be the common refutation of William Paley’s classic watchmaker argument—the only reason that complex objects appear to be designed is because we as humans create complex objects, and we then assume that complexity is indisputably indicative of a designer. This is an association we make only as a result of what our “common sense” tells us.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,00:46   

Quote (BopDiddy @ Sep. 01 2011,00:39)
Exhuming an old Behe thread to post this:

The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe "The son of intelligent design heavyweight Michael Behe discusses his journey to atheism"

A snippet:

   
Quote

The Humanist: How long was this transformation, and why didn’t your father’s ideas (or others) about intelligent design demonstrate proof of a “designer” or creator?

Behe: The journey from very devout Catholic to outspoken atheist took about six months total. Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. After I lost the element of trust—be it trust in the Bible, trust in a church, or trust in the Pope—I had no choice but to vindicate my own beliefs through research, literature, and countless hours of deep thought. It was then that my belief in any sort of God faded away gradually, and to this day I continue to find more and more convincing evidence against any sort of design or supernatural interference in the universe. As for the arguments from design, such as irreducible complexity or the so-called fine-tuning of the six cosmological constants, I have many reasons for dismissing them each in particular, but one overarching reason would be the common refutation of William Paley’s classic watchmaker argument—the only reason that complex objects appear to be designed is because we as humans create complex objects, and we then assume that complexity is indisputably indicative of a designer. This is an association we make only as a result of what our “common sense” tells us.

Turnabout is fair play.  O'Hair's son became a Christian, didn't he?

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,02:29   

Hang on: for a proper 'conversion-to-atheism' story, doesn't he have to have an account of how happy, purpose-driven and Good he was before turning away from Jeebus?

I suspect an infiltrator....

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

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

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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