RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The limits of darwinism., Utunumsint's thread.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:18   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,12:04)
Here is a paraphrase of what Behe says in chapter 8.

The limits of darwinism are:

1-Three or more different proteins binding specifically to each other (not three copies of the same protein) is beyond the ability of darwinian evolution.
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

Hopefully I'm not over posting.... :)

Any comments?

Cheers,


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

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:24   

I'm not sure I understand Utunumsint's argument.

Is he disputing the idea that three newly created proteins can co-opt to a new function by binding together?

Has anyone asked this guy if he's ever taken a biology course?

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:26   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,10:10)
Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)

So anything that requires more than one or two mutations, e.g. three at a time, is beyong the reach of evolution, according to Behe.

That's Behe's confusion. The odds of mutations are fairly well known. Multiple rare events are rare, of course. But if each successive mutation confers a benefit, then it will become fixed in the population much faster than chance.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
 
Quote
In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.

So they knew that such mutations could happen, but they didn't know how rare they would be. It, therefore takes trillions of e-coli to produce one such mutation. Of course, as one critique observed, there are 10 to the power of 16 e-coli in one ton of dirt. So such mutation, given this large population size, should be common....???

Sorry. That wasn't clearly expressed. Mutations rates are well-established. The rate a neutral mutation will fix is a matter of analysis. What isn't known is how often a neutral mutation will potentiate a beneficial mutation. And therefore, whether evolution is primarily contingent on happenstance or adaptation. In this case, it appears happenstance was important because the other lineages never discovered the adaptation. Generally, it seems there is more neutral evolution on the molecular level than with macroscopic structures, but even that is not known with certainty.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:14)
But was it Behe's argument that the citrate utilizing capacity was not possible without the two mutiations? Therefore there is a whole class of functional developments that are not reachable by incrementatal adaptation?

That was the result. It took two mutations, the first of which was neutral and fixed by chance. His argument then is that this is the most evolution could accomplish. Of course, if a third mutation comes along that improves the mechanism, then there is no reason it can't be selected and fixed in the population. Or a fourth. Then a potentiating mutation, then a selectable one. As long as there is a selectable pathway, there is no Edge of Evolution.

By the way, there is no doubt that there are whole classes of functional developments beyond the reach of incremental adaptation. The vast majority of genomic sequences will never be searched by evolution.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:27   

Quote (RDK @ Jan. 28 2010,12:24)
I'm not sure I understand Utunumsint's argument.

Is he disputing the idea that three newly created proteins can co-opt to a new function by binding together?

Has anyone asked this guy if he's ever taken a biology course?

No, I am a technical writer with an arts degree. A professional pain in the ass to people with real science degrees, but I represent the people who need a dumbed down version of highly technical products. :)

If you read the last few posts here
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=2490

You can see where this is comming from.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:35   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,11:26)
However, all of this is a moot point if evolution happens in an incremental way. Which Behe admits happens, of course. He just thinks that some complex things cannot be created by evolution in incremental ways, but requires sometime two or more mutations to work in conjunction to have them happen.  

Then Behe isn't actually saying anything at all, at least nothing that isn't obvious.  

{edit} We know that evolution can't search every conceivable sequence. So saying it can't find some complex things doesn't say anything that isn't obvious. But Behe is actually saying that some existing complex things couldn't have evolved, saying "complexes of just three or more different proteins are beyond the edge of evolution. They are lost in shape space." But it is quite possible that complexes can evolve—even irreducible complexes, which is his real argument.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:46   

Thank you for your replies Zachriel. I have to return to my day job, but I'll respond tomorrow.

I've been invited to a movie viewing of "Expelled" tonight, so I'm preparing to be assaulted by vacuous propaganda al la Michael Moor. :) I'll bring up this conversation during the viewing and maybe insert some intelligence into the conversation.

Cheers,
Ut

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,12:54   

Obvious Poe is obvious.

However I figure I'll wait a few hundred pages for the FL-like apocalypse before I cast judgment.  Don't start the wailing and gnashing of teeth before I grab my popcorn!

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,13:49   

I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.



Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 28 2010,21:26

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,13:51   

Enjoy THIS for your amusement.

Nice handle, "Ut."

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:02   

Actually, I think that Lenski's study results are a black eye to Behe.

I am Catholic, and unashamed of it, that is why I called myself Utunumsint. Evolution does not threaten my faith at all. I don't even have to appeal to quantuum uncertainty to justify my belief in God. :)

I was originally impressed with ID around 5 years ago, but have since become disinterested in their arguments. I still think that Behe is basing his arguments on science, but I don't believe that science is confirming his conclusions. Especially given Lenski's results.

All the information I'm interested in right now is to get clarification on what Behe actually believes and is Lenski's results as big a hole in his theory as I think it is. Not being an expert, I thought I might find someone who knows about these things over here. www.catholic.com doesn't provide a balanced perspective on this topic. :)

God bless,
Ut

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:23   

Goalpost science. And yet it moves.



Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 28 2010,21:22

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:29   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 28 2010,14:23)
Goalpost science. And yet it moves.

I think you'd be right with Darwin's Black Box and maybe some of the other work from the Discovery Institute, but with The Edge of Evolution, Behe has drawn a line in the sand as indicated in the first post, and Lenski has come awful close to meeting that line.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:36   

Thank you, Ut, for jumping directly to level 6, Learning about Creationism.

Take a look at my stage 3.  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  There is no Framastat equation.  I stole the word "framastat" from a computer game.  Up-conversion is real but makes no sense in this context.  To a non-scientist, however, it sounds very grand.  Sciency.

Behe's work is not based on science at all.  There's no science, only science-sounding bafflegab. Behe's "work" is no different from a carnival barker.

Here's what Behe does.  You're walking in the rain in Houston and you're getting wet. Now, imagine that drop of rain that just hit your forehead.  I want you to calculate the probability of all of the molecules of water in that raindrop originating in the Gulf of Mexico, say, 200 miles off shore, evaporating, being transported to a location over Houston, coming together and nucleating into a drop, bouncing around in a cloud for a while and finally falling 30,000 feet in variable winds to hit you precisely on the forehead.

Got that?  Well, get your calculator and get busy.  Clock is ticking.

So, what's the probability?  Something like a ka-zillion to one?  Something like ten to the minus Juneteenth?

According to Behe you could never get wet because the probability of that particular raindrop hitting you at precisely that time and location is vanishingly small.  Of course, that's a gross misrepresentation of probability, or misuse, perhaps.  Anyway, it's gross.  And it's wrong.

Doesn't Behe know better, you ask?  Of course he does.  Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:39   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 28 2010,14:23)
Goalpost science. And yet it moves.

POTW

--------------
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: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:42   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:02)
I still think that Behe is basing his arguments on science, but I don't believe that science is confirming his conclusions. Especially given Lenski's results.

Well, you're wrong. He's basing his arguments on a preconceived conclusion, using sciencey terms and bogus math to disguise that fact.

Science moved past Behe's caricature of it decades ago. Lenski is only the latest to point that out.

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

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:46   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,14:36)
Thank you, Ut, for jumping directly to level 6, Learning about Creationism.

Take a look at my stage 3.  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  There is no Framastat equation.  I stole the word "framastat" from a computer game.  Up-conversion is real but makes no sense in this context.  To a non-scientist, however, it sounds very grand.  Sciency.

Behe's work is not based on science at all.  There's no science, only science-sounding bafflegab. Behe's "work" is no different from a carnival barker.

Here's what Behe does.  You're walking in the rain in Houston and you're getting wet. Now, imagine that drop of rain that just hit your forehead.  I want you to calculate the probability of all of the molecules of water in that raindrop originating in the Gulf of Mexico, say, 200 miles off shore, evaporating, being transported to a location over Houston, coming together and nucleating into a drop, bouncing around in a cloud for a while and finally falling 30,000 feet in variable winds to hit you precisely on the forehead.

Got that?  Well, get your calculator and get busy.  Clock is ticking.

So, what's the probability?  Something like a ka-zillion to one?  Something like ten to the minus Juneteenth?

According to Behe you could never get wet because the probability of that particular raindrop hitting you at precisely that time and location is vanishingly small.  Of course, that's a gross misrepresentation of probability, or misuse, perhaps.  Anyway, it's gross.  And it's wrong.

Doesn't Behe know better, you ask?  Of course he does.  Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...

That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,14:58   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,13:49)
I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.

Well, it would save Wes a lot of work. As for the Framastat equation, those can be tricky. You have to remember to take the exponent of the components in the contraption by the incredibility index. A lot of people get that wrong.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:01   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,14:42)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:02)
I still think that Behe is basing his arguments on science, but I don't believe that science is confirming his conclusions. Especially given Lenski's results.

Well, you're wrong. He's basing his arguments on a preconceived conclusion, using sciencey terms and bogus math to disguise that fact.

No, you're wrong. He's basing his arguments on sciencey terms and bogus math using a preconceived conclusion to disguise that fact. Hmmrph.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:02   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:46)
That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.

Sure Michael, er, no problem.

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

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:05   

You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:08   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:05)
You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

Hmm. Why don't you make your/his argument?

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

  
MillstoneCam



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:08   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,20:46)
If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...

Here's what Lehigh say about him

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:09   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:05)
You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

Don't quit now. Wes has already typed up 600 pages.

Anyway, if you really have questions, ask away.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:11   

As a grad student I could never remember to apply Finagle's Factor to my Framastat calculation, so I was mixing Newtons and Murphys.

I mean, a Newton-Murphy makes no sense.

Now, Ut, you're not listening.  Pay attention or you'll get a time out.

Behe has his wonderful job at Leheigh because he secured tenure before stepping off the edge of the Earth.  Leheigh honors that and good for them.  There is, however, a disclaimer on the Biology Dept website stating that Behe's views are his and his alone and do not represent the views of the Dept, etc.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

There's no point in discussing Behe's "argument" because he doesn't have one.  Behe has a conclusion backed up by wrong math and misrepresentation of actual research.  It's been digested and spit out elsewhere.  Get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself.

You might as well discuss Doc Bill's Stage 3.  Hell of a good argument I presented, by the way.  If you're interested I could set you up with some used Framastats.  Mint condition.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,15:51   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,15:08)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:05)
You guys really don't want to talk about this it seems...

OK then. Thanks anywway.

Ut

Hmm. Why don't you make your/his argument?

Why don't we start with the original post you started this thread with.

1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,16:02   

Quote
1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

1. Yes.

2. No, they are arbitrary.

--------------
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: Jan. 28 2010,16:10   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,15:51)
1-Has Lenski's results met these criteria?
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Cheers,
Ut

Behe:    
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. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.

How many more did he "overlook"? So, even by his own words his criteria must be falsified. He's no expert in the field. Miss one, miss 100. Same difference when you don't allow comments on your books at amazon, after all it's only about separating $$ from the faithful.
 
Quote
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

So
 
Quote
2-Are the criteria themselves reasonable?

Perhaps. Define "destroy". Show that what happens when citrate becomes digestible is "destructive"? How? What was destroyed? How did you know the thing that was "destroyed" was not also "destroyed" itself previously? etc.

Oh, what's that? You could put the citrate digesting strain back into the original environment and see if it's beaten out by the "undamaged" bacteria you say?  :p

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

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,16:26   

I'm not a biologist but from my understanding, Lenski's experiment just displayed what was already known.

Now Behe says that the probability to get from point a to point b is a gazillion to one. What he overlooks is:


1. Evolution is not goal orientated and there could be a bazillion proteins that could perform the same function. He should take these into account.

2. Proteins are not binary as a near hit can have a partial effect.

3. there are a bazillion ways to go from a to b. Behe only looks at a single path straight from a to b.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,17:31   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,11:49)
I've posted this before but the pattern keeps occurring!

1.  Hello, I want to learn about evolution.  Rather than buy a book or consult Wikipedia or any of thousands of science websites, I've decided to come to this friendly discussion group.  To learn, you see.

2.  Oh, where to start, there's so much to learn!  How about Lenski's experimental evolution research rather than something boring like comparative vertebrate anatomy?

3.  Gee, I don't know anything about chemistry/physics/math/statistics/history/geology or really anything, but I'm concerned that the conditional equilibrium according to the Framastat equation seems to conflict with the overall thermodynamic electron spin up-conversion at the photon wavelengths expected on the hypothetical Earth approximately 3.447 billion years ago.  Darwin failed to address this.

4.  Wes writes a 900 page reply on photon energy up-conversion.

5.  You guys are close-minded and mean, calling me a moron! But, I'll pray for you anyway.

If we're lucky, Ut will skip from stage 2 directly to stage 5 and put us out of his misery.

LMAO!

POTW?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2010,17:49   

YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

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

  
  333 replies since Jan. 28 2010,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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