RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: The Edge of Evolution, Behe's new book< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2007,11:53   

It seems that things have been entirely too nice around for a while so I thought it was time to stir things up.  I'm not sure how long this has been out, I must have missed the national fanfare, but I picked up Behe's new book today.

The Edge of Evolution - The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

Dr. Behe and I part ways on many points but I always give him a good read and I thought why not share that with everyone in the process.  Now, I anticipate most here haven't read this book so I'll be doing a service with my summary.  Who knows, maybe we'll hear something new.  :D

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2007,11:57   

Quote (skeptic @ June 04 2007,11:53)
It seems that things have been entirely too nice around for a while so I thought it was time to stir things up.  I'm not sure how long this has been out, I must have missed the national fanfare, but I picked up Behe's new book today.

The Edge of Evolution - The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

Dr. Behe and I part ways on many points but I always give him a good read and I thought why not share that with everyone in the process.  Now, I anticipate most here haven't read this book so I'll be doing a service with my summary.  Who knows, maybe we'll hear something new.  :D

You should check out the multitude of reviews that are out there.

Mark Chu-Carroll's in particular

But there are a few more.

And don;t forget to see the whining temper tantrums being thrown over at the clown show.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2007,12:10   

Blake Stacey is collecting a list of the reviews and other chatter about Behe's new book.

The Edge of Evolution Reviews and news

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2007,13:00   

Perhaps you could explain to me whether or not Mark Chu-Carroll's review mischaracterises Behe, and if not why is it wrong.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2007,18:38   

I'd like to know why Behe didn't dazzle the scientific world with his, uh, bold new scientific insights on the witness stand in Dover, when he had the chance . . . . .

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10276
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,07:56   

We've all had a good laugh as each of Behe's previous examples of 'Irreducible Complexity' has been found wrong, like the clotting cascade and the flagellum. Well he comes up with a new example of IC in his new book, and Surprise! It's wrong.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4838
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,08:17   

Might as well have the direct pointer to the source of the damage:

Nick Matzke Pwns Michael Behe

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

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,08:18   

Oh it's just frakkin priceless that the example he uses throughout the book as "ooooo it's so complex, godmustadunit" is the perfect counterexample to his IC horsecrap.

Like rain on your wedding day, baby.

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,09:14   

I don't know how many folks on this board subscribe to Natural History magazine, but the most recent (June 2007) issue has an interesting batch of reviews by Darwin scholar Richard Milner. Lots of post-Dover books are discussed, as well as Randy Olson's Flock of Dodos film.

He cites some interesting points, including the observation by  Matthew Chapman that most kids, who are ostensibly the main focus of the protagonists in this struggle, are clueless about ID and natural selection. I don't know if that is a good sign or a bad one! But he also quotes someone named Frank Wheeler, who is described as a "practicing Christian" whom he met on a cruise to the Galápagos. Wheeler also admitted that he rarely heard evolution discussed in any Christian organization. Furthermore, Wheeler wrote "Most of us are more concerned about helping people improve their lives than in a literal interpretation of Genesis."

If true, that is a very good sign.

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2007,12:31   

In the discussion of how Behe fucked up his discussion of malaria, I came across this quote from his book:

Quote
"Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts."


Tho I know it's a minor point, this made me wonder just what Behe thinks the religious significance is of the Disembodied Telic Entity facilitating what might be the worst disease in human history. Then I came across this interesting comment by Larry Gilman at PT:

Quote

I don’t have Behe’s new book, but what he’s almost certainly implying is that malaria is Satanically designed—that it is a bioweapon created by a supernatural enemy. This is yet another reason why the argument from “bad” design (i.e., the argument that design that’s “bad” by human standards disproves ID) is a weak reed, even though one form of it has given this excellent website its name: Creationists can always attribute harmless natural oddities like the panda’s thumb to divine whimsey, not-so-harmless phenomena to prehistoric sabotage by demonic forces. And so they do. The idea of demonic sabotage of the natural order has, as far as I know, been little or not at all taken up by mainstream Christian theologians—it smacks of Manicheism and has no scriptural basis. But the IDers, whose theology is as twisted as their pseudoscience, are forced by their assumptions to cross the line.

The deep craziness of the inevitably resulting worldview needs no emphasis on this forum.

Larry


(my boldfacing)

This is interesting, since maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but this idea had never occurred to me before: that malevolent (but still 'intelligent'!) design, by Old Scratch hisself, is fair game for the DIY, non-centralized Protestant theology of ID advocates.

So, the obvious question at this point: did the Debbil fuck up the design of the prostate and the urinary tract as well? Is Beelzebub ultimately responsible for my lower back pain?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10276
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2007,14:37   

Quote
Those are the words that Thomas Huxley, Darwin's confidant and staunchest ally, purportedly murmured to a colleague as he rose to turn Bishop Samuel Wilberforce's own words to his advantage and rebut the bishop's critique of Darwin's theory at their legendary 1860 Oxford debate. They are also the first words that popped into my head as I read Michael J. Behe's The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it, Behe makes a new set of explicit claims about the limits of Darwinian evolution, claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2007,15:02   

The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands.  
Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2007,14:37)
 
Quote
Those are the words that Thomas Huxley, Darwin's confidant and staunchest ally, purportedly murmured to a colleague as he rose to turn Bishop Samuel Wilberforce's own words to his advantage and rebut the bishop's critique of Darwin's theory at their legendary 1860 Oxford debate. They are also the first words that popped into my head as I read Michael J. Behe's The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it, Behe makes a new set of explicit claims about the limits of Darwinian evolution, claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427

Brilliant!  Sean Carroll was the perfect reviewer for Behe's latest drivel. Kudos to the staff at Science for making that choice. And the Monty Python cartoon is just perfect as well.

Of course, DT will tell us that Carroll is unqualified to review books, since he has written some before...

--------------
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: June 09 2007,12:34   

DS starts the counter-fisking:
Quote
Sean Carroll writes a review of Michael Behe’s new book “Edge of Evolution” for Science Magazine titled God as Genetic Engineer. 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.


"well supported by evidence"? Ha, some chance.
In the 3 comments so far the first is from DS who, in an effort to support with evidence his point, links to an earlier blog post at UD!

The second comment boldly steps out with:
Quote
That statement in bold caught my attention as well, but for a different reason. He uses the word “degenerate” when the idea that gene duplication says that one inactive copy may evolve while the other one is open to selective pressure. Shouldn’t he have said “evolve” instead of “degenerate”?


hmm. And the third? Contains this gem:
Quote
I haven’t read Dr. Behe’s book


bwhahahaaha. Why not get Dr Dembski, mafs wizard, on the case DS? Or can't he be bothered matching MarkCC's pathetic level of detail?
Link

--------------
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: June 09 2007,13:43   

hah, #4 Borne:
Quote
The “no transitionals”, contrary to the reviewers bare assertion, is more valid than ever.

When will Darwinists figure out that calling something a transitional because it shares morphological traits doesn’t make it such?


bare assertion is all UD is about Borne, including your comment itself!
Quote
I still believe one of the major defects of Darwinist scientists is a lack of training in logic and information. That’s what perpetually leads them astray into nonsense.

Thats laughable coming from you Borne.

Quote
All the blows are being given to Darwinism as any one with a clear, unprejudiced mind can see.


Mmm, musta been all those court cases Dawrinism keeps losing he refering to.

--------------
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: June 09 2007,18:42   

Bornagain responds:  
Quote
Here is a refutation I found of his assertion that cefotaxime antibiotic resistance in bacteria was proof of evolution.

He then adds  
Quote
Point mutations confer cefotaxime resistance, but they compromise ampicillin resistance. Thus, selection for both drug resistances in a bacterium with two copies of beta-lactamase should favor the divergence of one copy to improve cefotaxime resistance while maintaining the other copy to preserve ampicillin resistance. This selection was performed on a bacterium with identical sequences of beta-lactamase on two separate, compatible plasmids. As expected, one plasmid evolved increased cefotaxime resistance when appropriately strong cefotaxime selection was applied. However, the cefotaxime-resistant plasmid maintained sufficient ampicillin resistance to tolerate the concentration of ampicillin used, and the other plasmid was lost. Hosts carrying both the cefotaxime-resistant and wild-type plasmids were then subjected to various higher concentrations of both drugs to find conditions that would ensure the maintenance of both plasmids. In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence.

However this is an abstract of an article found here at pubmed.
He also "forgot" to add the first line of the summary  
Quote
The fate of gene duplicates subjected to diversifying selection was tested experimentally in a bacterial system. The wild-type TEM-1 beta-lactamase gene confers resistance to ampicillin but not to cefotaxime.


Do you think that the Section of Evolution and Ecology, Center for Population Biology, University of California approves?  :p
Would they call it a refutation? Hmm

And, I wonder, does this meet the DS requirement? Lets remind ourselves
Quote
Please keep your comments topical, focused, and well supported by evidence


Do you think he really meant somebody else's evidence ?

--------------
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 09 2007,19:30   

Quote
claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them.


so... since this appears to be the case for Behe in every public forum he has attempted to present his arguments for the past 5 years or more...

what are the speculations as to where his wit went?

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

-CC

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2007,23:30   

wit as in marbles or humor?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,02:48   

Quote (skeptic @ June 09 2007,23:30)
wit as in marbles or humor?

one often follows the other I've noticed.

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

-CC

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,05:43   

I thought biologists had found and surpassed the limits of Darwinism 80 years ago?
And then found and surpassed the limits of that theory?

Behe sure is behing the times, but we know that already from his limited reading list.

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:41   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 04 2007,18:38)
I'd like to know why Behe didn't dazzle the scientific world with his, uh, bold new scientific insights on the witness stand in Dover, when he had the chance . . . . .

What? And give away his ideas for free?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10276
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2007,21:08   

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....rry.php

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:40   

Quote (stevestory @ June 12 2007,21:08)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....rry.php

For your viewing pleasure, the link is to some great comments by real scientists trashing Behe's book at Amazon.

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

--------------
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 13 2007,14:49   

LOL.

I love the:

Dear sir...

you are truly an IDiot

respectfully yours...



hilarious!

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

-CC

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:57   

Quote (J-Dog @ June 13 2007,14:40)
Quote (stevestory @ June 12 2007,21:08)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....rry.php

For your viewing pleasure, the link is to some great comments by real scientists trashing Behe's book at Amazon.

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

Holy crap, Dude is getting whooped on the science and of course falls back to Hitler, communism, planned parenthood, Jesus, Satan, the whole enchilada, in one comment!

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

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,15:03   

you got it.

that's where their mindset is.  It really doesn't seem to take much to get them there, either.

it's why keeping this shit OUT of schools is so important:

without the refreshment of these idiots teaching this inanity, it will eventually die of old age.

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

-CC

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,15:11   

Man, O Son.  That was like a Tard Burrito.

--------------
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: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,15:30   

My favorite is that the KRID Theory ismore valid than ID theory from poster John Kwok:

So I would argue that a perfectly valid alternative to Intelligent Design is the Kwok-Roddenberry Intelligent Design model of origins, or KRID for short. KRID postulates that sometime in the distant future, a flotilla of Klingon battlecruisers - or just one Klingon battlecruiser - traveled back in time, and dropped out of warp, orbiting the primordial Earth approximately 4.5 billion years ago. A team of Klingon scientists and engineers then created the necessary conditions favorable for the origins of life on Planet Earth, knowing that by doing so, they could change the timeline to ensure that James T. Kirk would not be born in the 23rd Century. Apparently they've been successful, since there hasn't been the Eugenics Wars or a World War IV which wiped out most of the globe in a nuclear conflict between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I submit to you that there is more ample evidence in support of KRID than for ID, and I will also note that KRID is consistent with the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution too.

Live Long and Prosper,

ps:  if anyone has an Amazon account, they could invite Mr. Kwok to our humble little corner of the blogosphere.  I tried to, but do bot qualify, since I have not bought a book from them in the past.

--------------
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 13 2007,16:12   

I for one welcome our future Klingon overlords.

QAPLA' !

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

-CC

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,16:43   

Interesting, but my theory is still that Dembski, Behe and Wells will travell back in time and seed the first life so that they can sell books.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,17:18   

From Behe:

 
Quote
[The Edge of Evolution] develops a framework for intelligent design as a comprehensive scientific statement, defining the principles by which Darwinian evolution can be distinguished from design, and fits design theory together with the findings of cosmology, chemistry, and physics into an overarching theory of the universe.


ID won't match your pathetic level of detail, but ID will blow away your pathetic level of self-congratulation.

  
  103 replies since June 04 2007,11:53 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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