RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 10094
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: 1005
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: 1005
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: 2595
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...


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
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: 1964
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: 1005
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: 4361
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: 10094
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: 1964
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: 2595
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.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
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: 4361
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: 1005
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: 1964
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: 1005
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: 2595
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.


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
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!

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

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

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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