Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The bacterial flagellum is such a central argument to the ID movement that during the Dover trial, it resulted in the funniest moment in the trial. After Michael Behe had spend nearly two full days on the witness stand, much of it talking about the flagellum, Scott Minnich took the stand and was going to talk about the same thing. When he put up a slide of the flagellum, Judge Jones said, "We've seen that." Minnich deadpanned, "I kind of feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's fifth husband. I know what to do, I just don't know how to make it new and exciting for you."
Nick Matzke, who was the single most important person in the trial, responsible for educating the attorneys about science and ID and poking holes in the other side's arguments, had already by that time co-authored an article proposing that the flagellum had evolved from a more primitive and simple cellular apparatus and providing the evidence for that argument that was known to that point. That article was later published in the journal Protein Science.
Since that time, the evidence has grown considerably stronger for the hypothesis that Matzke and Pallen put forward in that article as the various proteins involved have been sequenced and more homologies discovered that indicate precisely how the process of mutation and selection might have led from the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS) to the flagellum. And now Mike Gene has essentially admitted, despite being initially critical of that hypothesis, that it appears to be correct.
But in a far more important and global sense, it does indeed look like Matzke's hypothesis is correct and that the TTSS machinery is homologous to the F-ATPase.In The Design Matrix, I explore how the concept of IC interfaces with cooption and intelligent design and offer the following as part of my approach:
"Instead, independent evidence is needed to support such a hypothesis of cooption cobbling a machine together. This does not mean we need something that amounts to a proof. Nor does it mean that an exhaustive Darwinian explanation is needed. On the contrary, the evidence we need is extremely modest and lacking in detail......First, if an irreducibly complex machine did evolve into existence through cooption, then the parts must have predated the machine. They must have been doing something else prior to being recruited into the machine. Thus, some evidence of this pre-machine activity is needed. Since we cannot travel back in time, we will have to settle for traditional evidence of common descent. Do the various parts of the machine have homologs that are in turn part of a system that is more ancient than the machine?"
Multiple points of homology between the components of the F-ATPase and flagellum/TTSS would clearly qualify as "various parts of the machine" having "homologs that are in turn part of a system that is more ancient than the machine."
It is refreshing to see this kind of intellectual honesty from Mike Gene.
Politics
Comments
Did Mike Gene have something to do with the Dover trial?
Posted by: xebecs | September 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Since the bacterial flagellum was considered the sine qua non of ID evidence, will Mike Gene have the intellectual honesty to reassess his acceptance of ID as a viable theory?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | September 25, 2008 1:31 PM
Not to my knowledge. Perhaps behind the scenes? I believe 'Mike Gene' is a pseudonym, so you'd have to know his/her real name to find out. Unless someone else involved acknowledged Gene's assistance.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 25, 2008 5:58 PM
Who is Mike Gene? In his own words:
Translation: "I dunno what I'm talking about, and I've decided to admit that up front so you'll be more willing to believe me just because I'm sincere. You can trust me because I'm just an ordinary guy like you, not some elite researcher with tons of grant money and a lab that looks it."
Translation: "Somebody you might have heard of has heard of me, and I'm going to milk it for all it's worth even thought it doesn't mean squat."
/snark
Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | September 26, 2008 3:02 AM
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars
So, "Explore Evolution" tries to argue that marsupials must have been specially created, and that "the first fossil bat appears suddenly", and other good stuffs like that, huh?
No, ID isn't about fundie creationism at all. No sirree. It's all about the molecules and the math and stuff!! Yeeaahhhh...
Posted by: 386sx | September 26, 2008 6:53 PM
No, ID isn't about fundie creationism at all. No sirree. It's all about the molecules and the math and stuff!!
Oh yeah, I forgot. If something isn't "poofed", then that means it's "front-loaded". That's pretty much yer ID in a nutshell: "poofing" and "front-loading". That, and "permeating the culture". They like to "permeate the culture" a lot.
Posted by: 386sx | September 26, 2008 7:17 PM
Mike Gene said: And it becomes more interesting when we realize that the themes of cooption, modularity, and subfunctionalization have apparently played critical roles in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. This is something to dig into at a later date.
Yeah, I wonder if maybe it was front-loaded! Nahhh of course not.
Posted by: 386sx | September 26, 2008 7:26 PM
Evidence for Intelligent Design is found throughout science. The "Big Bang" which says first there was nothing-no space, no time then the world came into existence with no possible physical cause. This is followed with the fine tuning of the universe. All the physical laws that can not vary by any significant amount or there would be no stars, no galaxies, no life. Then the origin of life. Just having the constituents is not helpful. Take a living cell and puncture it. Now you have everything needed, but no one can make it alive again. Then you have the code of DNA. A code is always produced by intelligence. It cannot be a result of chemistry any more than a written code could result from a reaction between ink and paper. For purposes of brevity I will say lastly the inadequacy of natural selection to account for evolution. (I have had many debates on this and the opponents always want to argue God would not have done things that way. They never argue how natural selection would do it.).
Posted by: David Moshinsky | July 31, 2009 3:16 PM
David Moshinsky, that is complete and utter bullshit. And I think you know it. You're just regurgitating creationist talking points debunked decades ago. You've got nothing. And you're such a coward you have to spew your shit on a dead thread, hoping no one will call you on it. Well you lose, asshole.
Why is it cdesign proponentsists are incapable of telling the truth? Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 31, 2009 3:29 PM
I just came to this thread after searching for Mike Gene. I had no reason to believe it was a dead thread, since the blogger seems active. As for your reply, I did not see anything that refuted anything I said. Try to use facts instead of spewing sewerage. Claiming my facts are refuted without even one example is garbage.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | July 31, 2009 10:33 PM
Yeah, Davy, I suppose it's MUCH too complicated to read right above where you were typing your creationist BS and see that the last post was almost a year ago! Surely far too taxing for a cdesign proponentsist.
Not a single thing you've said even comes close to being "Evidence for intelligent design". You try to make the classic creationist argument that a beginning requires a beginner, but then you flee in terror from explaining what began this "designer" of yours. You claim that natural selection is inadequate to explain evolution. Not only have you made no effort whatsoever to support this claim, you are ignoring (I suspect willfully) other observed and documented evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic drift, and you have utterly failed to show how ID (which everyone knows is just creationism in a stolen soiled labcoat) could explain these things.
Look here. When you can find an argument for creationism that wasn't refuted long before you were even born, come back. Until then, fuck off.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 31, 2009 10:54 PM
I just wanted to add a couple of things:
The Big Bang theory does not state that at one point there was no space or time. It states that at some point in the distant past, all matter, energy, and space in the universe was concentrated in a very small volume. It isn't even logically coherent to say "First there was no such thing as time, then..."
Second, DNA is not a code. A code is an abstract representation. You can substitute one symbol used in the code for any other symbol not already in use without effect. DNA is not an abstract representation of proteins - it is a template for proteins.
If you're going to spout Werner Gitt's nonsense go back to him and get him to give proofs when he calls something a theorem, and empirical evidence when he calls something an empirical principle.
Posted by: DaveL | August 1, 2009 7:27 AM
David Moshinsky stated:
Please provide your citations of peer-reviewed articles providing evidence of an intelligent designer that have not been discredited with overwhelming and compelling empirical evidence by other peer-reviewed findings. Given you claim "throughout", I assume you possess multiple findings in various disciplines; so I'd appreciate seeing multiple citations from various disciplines. If you can't do this, then you are flat-out lying in your assertion.
In addition, I'd like to pile on to DaveL's statements regarding your mistaken, nay ignorant, representation of the prevailing origin of the universe theory. This provides anecdotal evidence you're developing your understanding of reality using anti-science propagandists as sources given no scientist I've ever read would ever get so much so wrong in so few words. This comment about the state of reality prior to the Big Bang suggests you may not even understand what scientific methodology actually is and how the scientific community derives its understandings.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 1, 2009 7:55 AM
If I provided the citations you request you would still be antagonistic. I, however would be convinced of your correctness if you would provide
1. An example of a complex code demonstrably created without intelligence.
2. A creation of life from non life without intelligent intervention.
3. A natural cause for the big bang.
4. A scientifically verifiable cause for the fine tuning of the universe.
Any one of these would go a long way to convince me. All 4 would cinch your case.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 2, 2009 12:26 AM
David - Here's how it works:
YOU make the big claim, YOU provide the big evidence to back it up.
See how simple it is*?
a) Provide evidence for proposition that "Intelligent Design is found throughout science"
b) Provide evidence that the 'big bang' violates natural laws? [Although what this has to do with biology baffles me]
c) Provide evidence for the proposition that " the physical laws of the universe can not vary by any significant amount or there would be no stars, no galaxies, no life" [Again biology]
d) Provide evidence that biology can not spontaneously arise (in the right conditions) from chemistry
e) Provide evidence that "natural selection is an inadequate theory to account for evolution"
Dazzle us with your knowledge, oh wise one, that we might see the error of all those scientists who have worked on such problems over the last 150 years. - DJ
________
*posting "I know you are, but what am I?" and "No, you prove it!" on a very old thread (then running away?) doesn't help to add to your argument's creditability I'm afraid.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 2, 2009 12:54 AM
1. An example of a complex code demonstrably created without intelligence.
It's pretty difficult to give an example of something created without intelligence to someone who thinks the whole universe was created by an intelligence! That's a tough one for sure.
Posted by: 386sx | August 2, 2009 1:35 AM
Intelligent design is not confined to biology. However, I will point out that natural selection has failed many tests. Plant and animal breeders find a limit to selection. It is not possible to breed a dog with feathers.(Evolution must breed a microbe into a spider, a bird and man). Radiation of fruit flies never produced a new species. The fossil record is lacking in intermediates. (Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed to explain the lack of intermediates). When the finest mathematicians in the world met in Philadelphia in 1963 they concluded evolution by natural election was not feasible mathematically.
You claim that I am proposing a big claim, but actually Darwinism is the big claim. The greatest minds in science such as Newton, Pasteur, and others accepted intelligent design. In fact, most scientists expect to find a rational, lawful universe. Darwin's proposal is the one that needs proof. Only by rigging the debate does Darwinism still stand. In most cases, natural selection eliminates evolution by culling unfit. It has no creative power.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 2, 2009 1:46 AM
"You claim that I am proposing a big claim, but actually Darwinism is the big claim."
You mean an invisible sky dude going *poof* ISN'T a big claim?
Thanks for the laugh, David.
Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2009 4:11 AM
David -
Intelligent design in relation to biology is what we are talking about here. Do try and keep up.
You, of course, have solid evidence of this secret project to breed feathered dogs that you are going to share with us, right? Firstly, 40,000 years isn't enough time and secondly, what forces would be acting to create feathered dogs? The argument is ridiculous.
Fruit flies, have been mutated quite a bit, not only by radiation, but also by mutagenic chemicals. Given time, and evolutionary pressure they might also evolve into new species. [BTW - E coli have been observed evaluating into toxin resistant species, same with nematodes. Finally: Drug-resistant Malaria, Tuberculosis, MRSA, H1N1 anyone?]
Apart from the fossil record, there is genetic evidence to support evolution. Genetic sequencing of various living things are showing us how one species is similar to another. Thus showing how every living thing has common ancestors, and (roughly) when they were. Which is exactly what Darwin predicted 150 years ago, well before such things where even known!
In a sense, evolution has already bred a microbe into a man, because the microbial DNA still exists within human DNA. [Spiders & birds are 'cousins' of ours, not ancestors].
Transitional fossils? Go look up 'Tiktaalik', 'Darwinius massilae', 'Ambulocetus', not to mention 'Australopithecines', 'Homo ergaster', 'Homo erectus' and so on. All are transitional fossils. Your fossilised bones will be transitional too, because evolution is happening all the time, seen and unseen.
"In 1963 a gathering of the 'finest' paleobotanists in world (at Dismal Swamp [South Australia]), concluded that mathematics was completely and utterly impossible on paleobotanical grounds!" Sorry but that statement deserves ridicule. Firstly, mathematicians have no experience in the field of biology, why would anyone give credence to their opinion? Do you ask you tax accountant whether you should have your appendix removed? Secondly, a 47 year old exercise to retain a shred of sanity at a dull conference, is your evidence? Don't you think biology and mathematics have changed (one might almost say evolved) in the last half century or so? Do you think that the tools available to both might just have improved our understanding of how life works just a little bit? And thirdly, where is the peer-reviewed paper? Who were the authors? What institutions did they come from?Do these authors still hold this theory to be strong?
You made several enormous claims back in post #8 (as detailed in my reply in post #15) and we are still waiting for the evidence to back up those wild claims. I don't have to prove anything because I am making no extraordinary claims, you are.
If Darwin, Pasteur, Newton and Einstein all passionately believed that they owned the Brooklyn Bridge would that make it so? What they believed is not relevant, what can be proven is. [Now you have to produce evidence of Newton's and Pasteur's beliefs, and show how these are relevant to your argument]
Ordered and rational are not words usually applied to evolutionary biology, but even if it were, would it prove the existence of 'a designer'? Would proving that ice forms into hexagonal crystals provide more evidence for the great sky fairy than the fact that glass does not form regular crystal structure at all? That one is ordered, the other not, proves what exactly?
If by 'rigging' you mean a reliance on facts, logic and evidence, I guess you're right. Believe any nonsense you wish, just don't call it science. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 2, 2009 4:16 AM
Intelligent design is not confined to biology.
Yeah exactly. Like I said, I don't think David Moshinsky could give us one example of anything in the universe that was not "demonstrably created without intelligence", let alone a "complex code". Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | August 2, 2009 5:16 AM
Let me try that again without flubbing it up. :P
I don't think David Moshinsky could give one example of anything in the universe that was "demonstrably created without intelligence". (That's because he thinks the whole universe was "demonstrably created" with intelligence.) However, perhaps I am oversimplifying David Moshinsky. (Not.)
Posted by: 386sx | August 2, 2009 5:29 AM
David Moshinsky stated:
I would not be antagonistic, instead I would be stunned. As someone who keeps up on what science understands, I'm cognizant of the fact there are zero citations supporting your claims while we have overwhelming evidence which rebuts your claims regarding ID. I was merely exposing what a liar you are when you claimed:
and therefore asked you to validated your claims knowing such a feat is impossible. The fact you couldn't and attempt to weasel out is not surprising, merely entertaining.
The more interesting question is why creationists are so dishonest.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 2, 2009 7:01 AM
Well, first you need to define what you mean by "intermediate" before a reasoned response to this assertion can even be made. But, if you're using the tired "transitional forms" line, then you need to change your assertion, because what you've written is demonstrably false. We don't search for "transitional forms" in the fossil record*. We search for transitional features. That might seem pedantic, but this is science. Science is about details, and this particular detail matters. Given that, I assume that you can either provide a list of fossils organisms that lack transitional features** or that you will be honest and retract your assertion.
*Although there certainly are fossil taxa known that meet the criterion for a transitional form, so your statement fails on that count too.
**Backed up by the technical literature.
Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 7:05 AM
God? I thought that ID was supposed to be silent on the subject of the designer. *wink* *wink*
But okay, since you threw it on the pile, I'll bite:
1. Which god, and where is the evidence to support your answer?
2. Who designed god?
Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 7:11 AM
I think it's important to remember what the subject of this blog post is partially about: Creationists hung their hat on their notion that the bacterial flagellum was supposedly irreducibly complex and therefore "God must have done it" in spite of their having zero evidence to infer such a response, like evidence a god even exists (failure of evidence) or could exist (failure of logic). The difference in science was that scientists actually went to work and figured out how its current complexity is instead the result of evolution, and independent efforts, i.e., real work, ensued which also validated the original evidence.
While there are many books which report on the overwhelming peer-reviewed fact and theory of evolution which summate the countless number of peer-reviewed articles which report such findings; we have yet to find even one peer-reviewed article that either provides evidence of a so-called intelligent designer or is even remotely able to discredit both the countless facts of evolution occurring and the peer-consensus theory of evolution that explains how evolution occurs. In addition, we also have countless examples of features that if designed, were highly flawed and/or harmful to the population, and are far below the current standards of human design capabilities. We also continue to discover locational differences between species that make no sense if designed and perfect sense if these populations evolved, e.g., oceanic island populations vs. continental island populations.
My current favorite book which reports on the peer-reviewed findings is Dr. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. I like this book because it's written within the context that Americans remain both ignorant of scientific methodology and the evidence of evolution and the theory of evolution; that frame allows one to perceive the absurdity of the design argument. Coyne's book also provides a far broader set of disciplines' evidence which all independently corroborate and validate other disciplines' findings than other books I've read on this toic. The book's only flaw, which is somewhat surprising given Coyne's background in molecular biology, is that the book doesn't have any chapters that focus solely on evo devo or the overwhelming evidence contained within DNA. IIRC, in his blog Dr. Coyne deemed those too weighty of subjects in a book dedicated to the general public; he does weave this evidence into the book, he merely chooses not to cover it in a manner that shows the overwhelming evidence these disciplines have discovered validating evolution as fact and theory. Therefore to round out the evidence I continue to also recommend Sean B. Carroll's book on evo devo, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" and Daniel Fairbanks "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA".
I am also grateful that Dr. Coyne remedies a misunderstanding that exists even within the scientific community, that evolution is both fact and theory. His first chapter focuses on how to distinguish between the two and the following chapters provide ample evidence of evolution as a fact and how those facts differ from the theory, i.e., an explanatory model which explains scientific findings.
And to insure there is no misunderstanding, these three books do not attempt to create new findings or arguments which bypass the scientific process, instead the books report on findings that have successfully completed this process and have earned their way to peer-acceptance, or he reports whatever controversies exist when they do, or where we still have work to do in better understanding - which is what science does. This approach is vastly different than creationist books whose authors avoid the scientific process and doing actual lab or field work to merely argue their case without having any scientific evidence supporting their religiously-fueled notions; and when they cite a peer-reviewed article, the perspective is always either immediately discredited by actual scientists in the relevant field of discipline either showing how creationists misrepresented others' work or other peer-reviewed findings have filled in the gaps not yet understood by previous scientific efforts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 2, 2009 10:14 AM
I've become pretty much convinced that this misunderstanding is symptomatic of a "larger" issue, which is a pervasive basic ignorance of the process of science. This problem extends (rather deeply) into the educational community and sadly, as you point out, even into the scientific community. It isn't just that people don't understand how evolution is both fact and theory. It's that a lot of science teachers don't understand the difference in general.
Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 10:34 AM
If I provided the citations you request you would still be antagonistic.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how crybabies admit they can't back up any of their arguments.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 2, 2009 12:42 PM
David Moshinsky, desperately trying to hide from the burden of proof:
And like all your other bullshit assertions, you haven't got the slightest speck of evidence to support this one, because unless you're claiming the magical ability to read minds, you can't know that until you actually provide those citations!
Really, what you're doing here is admitting that you've got nothing and hoping you can distract attention from your total lack of evidence. You fail again. Just like every creationist who has ever used this dodge fails, because when the time comes they can NEVER show a speck of evidence.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 2, 2009 3:14 PM
Uh this may be trivial, but necessary:
Clovis point, specifically
synthetic biochemistry &
materials science, generally
...
Let's restrict this to biological forms and cosmology.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 2, 2009 4:11 PM
“Fruit flies have been mutated quite a bit, not only by radiation, but also by mutagenic chemicals. Given time, and evolutionary pressure they might also evolve into new species”.
This wishful thinking should be called “evolution of the gaps”.
“Mathematicians have no experience in the field of biology, why would anyone give credence to their opinion?”
The fact that all science is validated by math means nothing to these mathematically illiterate biologists.
I shall give a math problem for the crowd.
Chimps are supposed to share 99% of the human DNA. That makes the difference 31,000,000 nucleotides. (A recent peer reviewed article raise this to 180,000,000, but I’ll let you stick to the smaller number.) Chimps and humans are supposed to have separated from their common ancestor 5,000,000 years ago. That is 250,000 generations. A mutation in a serf in Europe doesn’t show up in Geronimo in America instantly. It takes years to spread. Most mutations are neutral or harmful. Please calculate how many favorable mutations can spread through humanity in 250,000 generations and compare that with the 31 million mutations needed. You should come up with about 150 of the 31 million if you use reasonable assumptions.
One peer reviewed article published in a science journal was published in the
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, august 2004 an article by Stephen C. Meyer which strongly supported intelligent design. The editor, a scholar with two PhDs was attacked so violently that the likelihood that anyone will publish any other pro-ID articles is very low.
A book “Slaughter of the Dissidents” discusses the treatment of anyone who might favor ID or reject Darwinism. Anyone who supports such behavior should hang his head in shame.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 3, 2009 10:05 PM
All right so far...
No, but if the mutation occurred in a common ancestor, it will show up in both at once. We don't need to consider intercontinental migration- humans were humans before they left Africa.
Most of those 31 million mutations are neutral, and some of them are harmful. You don't get to assume that these 31 million base pair differences are all favourable. You don't even get to assume each mutation is a single base pair mutation - many involve the duplication or deletion of large sequences.
You are aware that each individual carries about 500 mutations they didn't inherit from either parent, right? That means over 250,000 generations you could potentially accumulate 125 million. That's if we pretend that every mutation happened in a single base pair.
Does the newer, higher, completely uncited number pose a challenge to evolution, then? No. Mutations happened in the chimpanzee lineage, too.
Are you, perhaps, starting to see why mathematics is meaningless if you don't have the background to fit your models to reality?
BTW, Stephen Meyer's is a philosopher. Not a geneticist, not a biologist. The only reason he got his paper published is that the editor was a fellow ID supporter who slipped the paper past actual peer review. See the publisher's retraction of the paper.
Posted by: DaveL | August 4, 2009 7:20 AM
Yes, I agree completely... anyone who supports such behavior -- the publishing of such a book of distortions, half-truths and outright lies in support of Baby Jebus -- SHOULD hang his head in shame!
By the way, DaveL... nice takedown.... I know you could probably write 50 pages more of detail on this, but it's more than he deserves. If we're lucky, he actually summarized an ID/creationist talking point he found online instead of just copy&pasting it directly. I doubt he understands what he wrote, much less what you wrote and why he's completely wrong on the facts.
But the thing is, is that with the retraction, he thinks this makes Meyer a martyr... and since we've been telling David he's completely wrong, too, he's probably starting to get the martyr complex, too!
After all... if everyone is telling him he's wrong, it must be because he's correct, and nobody is willing to admit it!
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 4, 2009 8:18 AM
David - You don't seem to have checked out a textbook on genetics since around 1973^. The structure and function of DNA is a little more complicated than the simple linear transcription model that you seem to presuppose (probably since around 1.1 billion years ago or so anyway).
Areas than code for proteins are typically preceded by an area than contain 'switches' that control when proteins are to be produced (based on the cellular environment it finds itself in)*. If a mutation occurs in this area it can prevent the production of proteins from occurring.
In this way a mutation in Eastern African Humans prevented the production of proteins on the surface of red blood cells. This prevented Plasmodium from finding and entering the blood cells, thus the immune system was able to find, tag and destroy the invader. Since the Humans didn't die young of Malaria they had more offspring, spreading the gene through the population. Unfortunately Plasmodium that managed to avoid this problem, find shelter in the red blood cells and evade the host's immune system survived and had offspring. This spread the genes needed to counteract this Human mutation through the Plasmodium population. Evolution in action!
The downside was that the lack of the protein on the surface of the blood cell (rendered evolutionarily neutral by the Plasmodium mutation) remained widespread in the East African Human population, and this made it easier for the red blood cells to be penetrated by the HIV virus, creating a greater number of long lasting, symptomless HIV infections. Swings and roundabouts.
(Also you might like to research Adult Lactose Tolerance in European Humans). - Cheers DJ
^Remembering I'm no expert, I'm just reporting what I've read from real scientists. [Any real scientist out there who can explain it better, please do]
*In fact, one protein produced in one area of the DNA can 'switch on/off' another 'instruction' at the other end of the long DNA molecule, or even 'switch on' an 'intruction' repeatedly. Pretty neat huh? Nature already created 'IF THEN ELSE', 'DO WHILE', "DO UNTIL' & etc. some 1.1 billion years ago.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 4, 2009 8:29 AM
David Moshinsky made the following assertion in his original post, @8. In fact is was the first sentence in that comment:
Since that is an extraordinary claim, I requested the following in post @13:
David responds with:
Does he meet the criteria? Not even close. All he does is provide ample evidence he's some combination of ignorant, dishonest, or deluded.
Meyer's article never attempted to provide any evidence of an intelligent designer nor did it attempt to present any evidence of ID, instead it attempted, feebly, ignorantly, and dishonestly, that our current understandings of the mechanisms that allow populations to evolve can not explain the Cambrian speciation 'explosion' of higher taxa. Here is one of many scientists (Wes Elsberry) easily dismantling Meyer's assertions along with exposing this article is a work of fraud.
In addition, Meyer's article was not peer-reviewed for the topics it covered contrary to Moshinsky's claim. In fact the "review process" actively avoided peers within the very organization which sponsored Meyer. The article was fraudulently published and ultimately retracted. Ed Brayton does a great job of showing how Moshinsky is flat-out lying about how the Meyer article was published and ultimately retracted. Here's Ed with one of several articles that he wrote that covered Meyer's fraud.
In summary, Mr. Moshinsky:
Failed to provide any evidence of an intelligent designer, let alone "throughout science".
Failed to provide any evidence of intelligent design.
Failed to provide any legitimately peer-reviewed findings supporting intelligent design.
Failed to provide any peer-reviewed articles by anyone doing field or lab work supporting intelligent design (Meyer merely misrepresented the findings of other scientists and built an argument that was quickly discredited by scientists in the relevant fields). In fact Meyers' argument was outside his fields of study, ignored previous peer-accepted findings that discredited his argument, and grossly misrepresented findings he cited. See the first link above supportive of these assertions.
Failed to cite any scientists relevant to the fields that actually do field and lab work.
He did achieve providing another observation of the type of dishonesty we find common amongst creationists.
David - If you truly want to understand the evidence for evolution before feebly attempting to discredit it, I suggest you at least first consider its evidence as its understood and accepted by the relevant, practicing, publishing scientists. Jerry Coyne and Daniel Fairbanks' latest books are a great start. Neither scientist tries to make new, unsupported arguments for evolution in these books like creationists do in their books. Instead they report peer-accepted findings and explain these findings to the general public. Both do so within a framework that acknowledges some of their readers are ignorant of the scientific process and evolution, such as you, and instead believe in creationism/ID. Therefore their explanations for evolution also show the complete absurdity of believing in creationism/ID given overwhelming evidence that convincingly falsifies both ID.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 4, 2009 8:51 AM
I am not going to repudiate most of the attacks on this blog. They consist of misattribution and attempts to score debate points, they are not attempts to get at the truth. I will however take the time to point out that one post does try to use real science to oppose me. Dingojack does point out the accepted mechanism for malaria resistance. If he will contemplate what he said he might notice it is just the opposite of evolution, it is devolution. Thank you.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 4, 2009 11:34 AM
David Moshinsky "If he will contemplate what he said he might notice it is just the opposite of evolution, it is devolution."
...and penguins' flippery wings are devolution because they're losing wings.
...and seagulls' flying wings are devolution because they're losing arms.
...and upright dinosaurs' arms are devolution because they're losing legs...
How far back do you want to go?
"Gains" commonly come with "losses". The malarial "loss" of crappy red bloodcells came with the "gain" of some resistance from malaria. Evolution just keeps what works, even if it doesn't work all that well.
Posted by: Modusoperandi00@hotmail.com | August 4, 2009 11:43 AM
Nuts. Can someone important (like Ed Brayton) change that sig to just my name, rather than my email address. It's late and I'm tired. Too tired to fill in these mysterious "boxes" with the correct "information" and "whatnot".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 4, 2009 11:47 AM
David - OK I'll bite. How so? - DJ
PS the point was also that you were thinking of the DNA sequence in a linear way, it's more complex than that. Mutations tend to accumulate for a long time, then suddenly a new mutation can push the organism into creating a change in structure. These changes can be large. These new forms can also spread through a small (semi)isolated population rapidly, especially if sexual selection is also favoured. You were thinking a little too mechanistically about mutation and phylogenetic variations.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 4, 2009 11:47 AM
Modusoperandi (#37) - Oh yeah. Been there, done that, got the leather shorts. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 4, 2009 11:51 AM
David Moshinsky tries to change the goalposts along with adding another whopper of a lie:
Please cite the 'misattributions'. The only misattribution I noted was your claiming to cite a scientist doing science and providing evidence of ID when in fact he was not a scientist and his work was quickly and effectively falsified by the publisher and many practicing scientists. In addition the citation's article did not even attempt to argue there was evidence of a designer or intelligent design - contrary to your claim in your comment @ 30.
It's also a lie to claim that no one presented "real science" to refute you. My link to Panda's Thumb @34 presented not just an argument from a scientist falsifying your citations claims, but was supported by citations he provided of peer-accepted publications that discredited Meyer's work. In addition I referenced two actual science books filled only with peer-accepted findings that clearly show evolution as both fact and near-unassailable theory while easily discrediting design notions. You won't be reading those will you? If you did the cognitive dissonance that would create might be deafening.
To date David you are the one that's failed to present any scientific evidence for your claims. You've presented zero evidence for what you argue, we've discredited yours, we've provided sources that report overwhelming evidence for our case, and yet you continue to lie, lie, lie and now squirm out of your own unsolicited statement, i.e., "Evidence for Intelligent Design is found throughout science".
Doesn't it bother you that failed to find even one peer-reviewed finding from the field or lab that provides unfalsified evidence of a designer or design while scientists can easily show design does not explain the origin of species or the attributes of species evolution has been continually and independently validated across all relevant fields of science? Isn't it wearing?
I continue to ask for either evidence in support of your original assertion, "Evidence for Intelligent Design is found throughout science" or your concession that no such evidence exists but you really wish it were true.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 4, 2009 12:12 PM
You mean an invisible sky dude going *poof* ISN'T a big claim?
This is called a straw man fallacy
what forces would be acting to create feathered dogs? The argument is ridiculous.
The point is breeders find a limit to the changes possible by selection.
Fruit flies, have been mutated quite a bit, not only by radiation, but also by mutagenic chemicals. Given time, and evolutionary pressure they might also evolve into new species.
Evolution of the gaps.
[Now you have to produce evidence of Newton's and Pasteur's beliefs, and show how these are relevant to your argument]
The point is these great scientists accepted intelligent design. Your argument from ignorance denies history. If you need citations to see Newton’s religious beliefs than you need a new education.
I don't think David Moshinsky could give one example of anything in the universe that was "demonstrably created without intelligence". (That's because he thinks the whole universe was "demonstrably created" with intelligence.)
This straw man argument is silly. I can provide dozens of examples of things created without intelligence. Hurricanes, snow storms, mountain ranges, lightning caused forest fires, etc.
No, but if the mutation occurred in a common ancestor, it will show up in both at once.
This is an example of begging the question.
Areas than code for proteins are typically preceded by an area than contain 'switches' that control when proteins are to be produced (based on the cellular environment it finds itself in)*. If a mutation occurs in this area it can prevent the production of proteins from occurring.
These areas were once called “junk DNA” and explained as the result of blind evolution. ID proponents said much of this DNA would prove useful and have been proven correct.
Please provide your citations of peer-reviewed articles providing evidence of an intelligent designer that have not been discredited with overwhelming and compelling empirical evidence by other peer-reviewed findings.
Because of the harsh attacks and punishment given for any hint of ID, most proponents keep their beliefs quiet. I suspect Mike Gene uses a pseudonym to protect himself. However, I can give evidence from laboratories. For example Dr. Ralph Seelke disables one gene in bacteria to see how long evolution takes to recover function. He found, in the equivalent of a few million human generations the gene could be restored, but if he disabled genes so that two genes had to both recover, evolution could not accomplish this.
...and penguins' flippery wings are devolution because they're losing wings.
...and seagulls' flying wings are devolution because they're losing arms.
I tell my tailor, be careful not to shorten my trousers too much. You can always cut more, but lengthening is much harder. Evolution can easily lose an organ. It is gaining new organs that is hard.
I will briefly restate some of the evidence for ID.
The world, including space and time began. There can be no naturalistic cause as nothing existed.
The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned. Very slight variance and there would be no galaxies, no stars, and no life.
The first life could not start without a guiding intelligence. Natural selection did not operate on non life.
There is a code that governs life. Codes are always produced by intelligence.
Natural selection does not account for evolution. It is mathematically untenable and it has no ability to create new organs.
I hope there are some readers more interested in the truth than scoring debating points and ridiculing a thoughtful seeker of truth.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 6, 2009 6:33 AM
You do know that Newton predated Darwin, right? That Newton accepted a religious belief in the absence of a scientific one hardly argues the superiority of the former over the latter.
But hold on- I thought Intelligent Design was the new kid on the block that scientists weren't giving a fair shake, whereas your invocation of Newton shows it's the same belief system that was accepted for thousands of years, leading to no new knowledge, no new applications, and no testable hypotheses.
There is no evidence for fine tuning, because fine tuning would imply that it's possible for the laws of physics to be different. There is no indication that is the case.
Actually very little of junk DNA has been found to have a function.
That's an argument against intelligent design, as there can be no agency without time.
It makes no sense to ask what caused the universe, since time is part and parcel of the universe and there can be no "before" time, even if time does not extend infinitely in the past. The universe can just 'be'. If you disagree, you need to explain how your designer can just 'be'.
1. Is this guiding intelligence alive?
2. If life is too complex to arise without intelligent intervention, how complex is this intelligent agent?
3. Lack of a settled scientific theory for any question is not evidence of intelligent design. In science, you have to provide evidence for your hypotheses, not just arguments against others. If you could falsify evolution (which, in fact, is what you are trying to do, not establish Intelligent Design), the proper posture would be "I don't know", not belief in Intelligent design.
4. Science has made great strides in explaining the origins of the first life forms. In Darwin's time it was unimaginable. We've since found amino acids forming spontaneously under several different sets of conditions. In 2002 we produced the first synthetic virus. We've discovered autocatalytic sets. There are loads of journal articles on possible origins of biological chirality. Remind me again how much progress Intelligent Design has made in, oh, the past 5000 years in fleshing out the details of how life originated?
Already answered. DNA is not a code. Nucleotides are not abstract symbols. They do not "stand" for anything.
We've already refuted your math.
We've seen the evolution of cecal valves in lizards over the course of only a few decades.
[Inigo]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo]
Posted by: DaveL | August 6, 2009 7:05 AM
Zero citations and a gross misrepresentation of the evidence.
Moshinsky - you are an incredible fraud, how do you sleep at night?
You are not a "seeker of the truth", that's evidence of projectionism to a degree I find astonishing. If you were you would have made your arguments given the evidence cited here by some of us and in all of science and would have provided citations of your own, which you continually fail to do.
I continue to call you out on your initial claim, "Evidence for Intelligent Design is found throughout science". To date you've provided only one citation, from a non-scientist caught attempting to perpetuate a fraud, but caught, who didn't even argue he had evidence for an intelligent designer or intelligent design. All the while we've cited numerous peer-reviewed articles that provide overwhelming evidence for evolution and which convincingly falsifies evidence for design.
Maybe that's why your reliant on mere rhetoric rather than presenting actual evidence, i.e., evidence that has been peer-reviewed and not falsified. Do you even understand the scientific method and its high standards for presenting claimed findings? You've certainly failed to meet that standard to date in this thread, where you instead rely on rhetoric I'm sure is convincing to the sheeple that populate the fundie churches because it's what they want to hear, but such rhetorical tricks will not fly in a scienceblog forum.
If you want to make an argument and not have it ridiculed, we'll need actual citations from publishing, practicing scientists in the relevant fields whose publication was not falsified who actually present evidence for either an intelligent designer or intelligent design. Otherwise all your doing is presenting arguments for your religious beliefs.
I have some advice for you if you really want to be "thoughtful". Read the books I recommend in the above thread. It's clear you do not understand the scientific method nor do you appear even remotely aware of the evidence for evolution or how it falsifies notions of intelligent design, i.e., the Coyne and Fairbanks books. And again, these are not books creating arguments like we see out of Dembski, Wells, or Behe, all of whom I've 'thoughtfully' considered. Instead they are books reporting on peer-accepted empirical evidence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 7:22 AM
David Moshinsky, Liar For Jesus™:
Don't make me laugh. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass you lying sack of shit.
Davie stealing the credibility of the dead:
Davie, you're seriously trying to say "Newton believed in ID, therefore all of modern biology is a hoax"? Really? first of all, thanks for admitting that ID is nothing new, just old debunked creationism in a stolen labcoat. Makes things a lot easier.
But you haven't offered the slightest speck of evidence that Newton was an IDiot like you. And even if he were, that doesn't erase the evidence for evolution. You're not even really trying to present evidence for ID, you're just making bullshit attacks on evolution, and failing miserably.
By the way, has anyone ever told you that Newton was an ALCHEMIST? Go ahead, show us the Philosopher's Stone. Give us a video of you turning lead into gold. Mass-produce the Elixer of Life and heal the world. If you can't, then you'll have to admit that Newton was wrong about alchemy, which means your argument from authority is bullshit, and you should quit stealing the credibility of dead men with crazy ideas to prop up your kooky cult.
One of Davie's bullshit arguments that doesn't require exhuming the corpse of a long-dead alchemist:
If nothing existed, then your "Intelligent Designer" did not exist. If said "Designer" can exist without cause, your argument, founded on the claim that NOTHING can exist without cause, is a load of bullshit. YOU FAIL!
Dumbass Davie Lying For Jeebus™ yet again:
This is an outright lie, and has been demonstrated as such many times, including in this very thread.
Protip: If you want to pretend to be a "thoughtful seeker of truth", it's best not to lie blatantly and obviously to people who know what they're talking about, because you WILL get caught, and you WILL be called out for it.
Isn't that imaginary god (excuse me, "designer") of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness, Davie?
You came into this blog with zero credibility, defending an IDiot too stupid and dishonest to present the slightest speck of evidence for his bullshit claims. Now that you've been caught in these lies, you have NEGATIVE credibility. Not only will no one here take what you say at face value, you'll be assumed to be lying until proven otherwise. And we all know you don't even know HOW to present evidence of anything. Hell, you can't even make shit up, you just regurgitate other people's lies that were debunked decades ago!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 6, 2009 9:52 AM
Oh come on! Score debate points? Seriously?
In #17, you made an assertion:
That assertion is problematic in several ways, which I addressed in #23:
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, presumed that you weren't aware of the important difference between the words form and feature in this discussion, and tried to prompt you to clarify your position, hopefully by first explaining to us what "intermediate" means to you.
An explanation from you regarding "intermediates" was important, because the assertion you made in #17, as written, is demonstrably false. It's a statement that can only be made by someone (assuming the person is honest--the alternative is worse...) who is so ignorant of paleontology and evolution they shouldn't be offering an opinion on anything related to the subject--and certainly not in the form of a declaration. It's at the same level as you walking up to me with a piece of clearly mudcracked siltstone, shaking it in my face, and saying "these are not what mudcracks look like!" and then walking off in a huff without explaining why they aren't mudcracks. I'm sorry, but it's basically the same thing. You don't get to sit there in your armchair and tell us how to do our jobs (i.e., tell us that we're using our words wrong without any explanation as to why)--at least and not expect us not to call you on it. I doubt that you'd walk into a backroom poker match, sweep the chips off the table, and shout "these aren't what poker chips are supposed to look like!" I don't know where the hell you got the arrogance to presume that it would be okay for you to do it with fossils*.
You're response to #23 has been crickets chirping, and now you make an accusation that I** tried to "score debate points?" Right.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt with resepct to your honesty in this discussion. From here on in I am going to assume that you are dishonest until you demonstrate otherwise.
*Unless, of course, you can show me the scientific paper that you've authored where you've successfully advocated for an operational definition of the word "intermediate" to replace how it's currently used.
**Yes, I'm aware that you didn't name me in particular, but your broadbrush statement was wide enough so that I can interpret it as including me.
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 9:53 AM
Also, David, you should really go check out the article that DaveL linked to in comment #42. How any honest "seeker of truth" could be unimpressed by this very cool and elegant study, I don't know.
Here--here's a link to the actual .pdf; the actual scientific paper. It's in pretty clear language considering it's a PNAS article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf+html
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 10:08 AM
Josh, Dumbass Davie would rather die than read that. At best he'll skim it to quote-mine. To actually read and understand any science at all would completely demolish his bullshit cult, and he can't have that. He needs the lies to prop up his faith, which is far too weak to survive the slightest brush with reality.
Creationists: Death before learning!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 6, 2009 10:13 AM
I know. But I think that, as we're calling them on their pathetic lies, we should also continue to take the high ground and present them with the evidence they so often demand (yet always quickly flee from).
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 10:18 AM
David Moshinsky "You can always cut more, but lengthening is much harder."
Actually, lengthening is pretty common. The nerve that runs your trachea goes out of your brain, down your neck in to your chest, loops under a ventrical, then runs back up to your trachea.
"Evolution can easily lose an organ. It is gaining new organs that is hard."
You're forgetting that those that lose something that need it don't survive. What you see now is the victors. Natural selection pulled all the the losers (and continues to do so)
"There can be no naturalistic cause as nothing existed."
Perhaps you should read up on the Big Bang. It says a bunch of things. None of them involve starting from nothing.
"The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned."
"I hope there are some readers more interested in the truth than scoring debating points and ridiculing a thoughtful seeker of truth."
We aren't ridiculing you. We're pointing out that your arguments stink and that you seem blissfully unaware of what the theories (Big Bang, ToE, etc) actually state. If we were ridiculing you, there'd be a lot more comments about your puffy nose. Okay, some of us are ridiculing you. This is because you have a puffy nose. There, I said it. I'm not sorry.
In short, a "thoughtful seeker of truth" would be thoughtfully seeking the truth, rather than just repeating Creationist talking points and ignoring the fact that most of us are trying to help you with actual facts rather than cheap rhetoric.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 6, 2009 10:18 AM
+10
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 10:22 AM
What bothers me most about people like David Moshinsky is that while many of us in this forum have spent the money, taken the time, and made the effort to: study the TOE, understand scientific methodology, consider the arguments of creationists, and learn how to build a cogent, honest argument; he's clearly only learned creationist talking points, poorly in his case given his arguments were old. He then has the gall to tell us he's the one on a journey for truth.
No, I'll override the above, the worst thing about guys like that is that he came across as one of those guys with complete certainty regarding false claims. My experience is that people like this falsely pose as someone with a clue and proselytize to the totally ignorant that scientists are seriously flawed in their collective understanding of the origins of the universe and earth's species, but they as an authority "who know" are aware of fresh new models, all mavericky and shit, who will supplant the old guard and put God back in his rightful place. BTW, I last heard this argument by Tom Tancredo on Hardball several weeks ago.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2009 5:53 PM
I am providing quotes from recognized experts, most who either support Darwin or are cosmologists. These quotes do show that the attacks on me in this forum are not justified. I could provide many more examples that what I said is based on science.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
Elsewhere Gould writes-
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
• Gould, S.J. (1977)
"Evolution's Erratic Pace"
Natural History, vol. 86, May
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.
• Eldredge, N., 1995
Reinventing Darwin
Wiley, New York, p. 95
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
Stephen Hawking
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Sir Fred Hoyle
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.”
Arthur Eddington
“The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics”
Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450
“If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us.”
Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202
Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking mentions the ratio between the masses of the proton and the electron as one of the many fundamental numbers in nature, and comments, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
Stephen W. Hawking
A Brief History of Time—From the Big Bang to Black Holes
New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 125
But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle.
The code is meaniningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components WHICH ARE THEMSELVES CODED IN DNA: THE CODE CANNOT BE TRANSLATED OTHERWISE THAN BY PRODUCTS OF TRANSLATION [emphasis original]. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [all life from eggs, or idiomatically, what came first, the chicken or the egg?]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."
• Jaques Monod (1972)
Chance and Necessity
Collins London, pp 134-135
"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible."
• Orgel, Leslie (1998)
"The origin of life -- a review of facts and speculations,"
Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. (pp. 494-495)
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."
• Lovtrup, S. (1987)
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 7, 2009 11:38 AM
I posted a post (as is my want!) and it went in to moderation! Woe!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 7, 2009 1:00 PM
Ah, Dumbass Davie is back! Spewing quote-mines to hide from the fact that he's been exposed as a liar.
It's not going to work, Davie. Everyone here knows what you're trying to do. We've seen it countless times. When a creationist gets caught bullshitting, they change the subject and try to hide. When a creationist posts a quote from a scientist, they take it out of context or just outright lie about it. This is nothing new. This is what your cult always does. It is lying, but you've made it clear you don't mind being a liar. All that matters to you is that your pitifully weak faith can't survive any exposure to the real world, so you have to spew shit in hopes of discrediting science. But science works. Your cult fails, always.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 7, 2009 3:54 PM
Wow! A well reasoned and courteous post, filled with accurate scientific riposts. You should be proud.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 7, 2009 4:22 PM
*looks around for a definition of "intermediate"*
*sees none*
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2009 4:54 PM
David, you are aware that quote mining scientists is not the same as presenting peer-reviewed work, right?
Neither Gould nor Eldredge denies the fact of evolution or believe in Intelligent Design. You are misrepresenting their position.
Stephen Hawking, whose quote you use twice ( a sure sign of copy-and-pasting) was merely introducing the argument from fine-tuning, you conveniently leave out how he answers it.
Hoyle was an astronomer with no expertise in biology. He did reject the Big Bang model, but later evidence has since shown he was wrong.
Eddington died in 1944 and can hardly be relied upon as an authority on the current state of any scientific discipline.
Who in the hell is Barry Parker? Do you have any context for that quote?
Jacques Monod, despite your quote mine, actually believed life arose naturally. Read up on his biographical entry on Wikipedia.
Leslie Orgel also believed life has its origin in prebiotic precursors, see his biographical entry.
I have no idea what your quote from Trends in Biochemical Sciences is supposed to demonstrate.
Soren Lovtrup was not an evolution denier either. Another very selective quote mine.
Don't you think twisting people's words and taking them out of context is, you know, dishonest? Don't worry, though, that's exactly what everyone has come to expect from creationists.
Posted by: DaveL | August 7, 2009 5:00 PM
Yeah, this statement (I'm talking about the first sentence). Creationists love this statement. Appeal to authority is such a wonderful thing. Well, here is the thing about that statement. Steve was wrong. He didn't know what the hell he was talking about. It wasn't accurate in the 1980s or thereabouts he wrote it, and it's less accurate now. He was showing a hole in his knowledge there (or he had a senior moment or some shit--I don't know). Unfortunately, he wrote that in an un-reviewed essay that was published in a popular science magazine, so the statement gets a lot of traction. It's wrong.
The rest is a broadbrush description of where the data lay on a cladogram (and that's kind of odd, too, because that sentence is not a logical follow on from that first sentence--he's talking about two different things). And it's basically accurate. But here's the thing: the ends of the branches and the nodes are the important parts. Take away the nodes and branch ends of a cladogram and what do you have? The branches. The lines connecting the dots. It's the lengths of the lines I think that he was talking about. Sure, the branch lengths are inferences based on the data. So what? The pattern of the branches (which is derived from the data) are what's interesting/important.
The heliocentric model of the solar system is an inference from the data, too. I'd argue that it's a fairly analogous one. You're not jumping up and down about that. Why not?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2009 5:31 PM
David Moshinsky - do yourself a favor, stop playing around on the Internet and actually study what science understands. I recommend the following books in the following order. Then come back and make your case within the context of now understanding the actual theory, its facts, and theories in general:
Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True"
Daniel Fairbanks' "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA"
Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters"
Sean B. Carroll's "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" (the latter will give you an appreciation for how your progeny will live healthier lives because of the advances we're now making in medical care because we better understand evolution at the cellular and molecular level).
Lastly two other books that might cause you to start respecting the people you vilify by mispresenting what scientists do and communicate. Real scientists do work in the field and in the lab. Imagine what it would be like if ignorant people attacked what you did in spite of the discipline within which you work has saved countless lives and increased our economic wealth while their attacks were simply not true. These last two books put a human face on these heroes and are rollicking good reads. In addition Shubin even shows how predictions turn into one of the most exciting transitional fossil finds of this decade, Tiktaalik:
Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body"
Sean B. Carroll's "Remarkable Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origin of Species"
Lastly, none of the books invent arguments, instead they accurately and honestly report on the findings of scientific community that is either peer-accepted, or at a minimum peer-reviewed but still debated - while reporting on those debates accurately.
If you actually read and comprehend what these authors report, I think you would stop lying about the state of the evidence for both creationism/ID and evolution. I have never known a creationist who was cognizant of the science except those that make money off the ignorant and gullible and even they frauds have been repeatedly exposed as ignorant on the science, e.g., Behe and Dembski among others.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 6:36 PM
I think the idea that the universe itself is very "clever" through anthropic fine-tuning, is more interesting and well-supported than whether anyOne/thing had to sort of, meddle with it later. (And "God" gets all the more credit for being that clever!) I don't think it is logically clear what entities are "irreducibly complex" because the issue of what can happen is so tied into the nature of the universe it happens in. That is the deepest question, why is the universe/s like this and not otherwise etc? And some ID proponents like Behe acknowledge that "meddling" is not a required aspect of what happens if "extended fine tuning" can apply, presuming they can make that idea clear. (It seems to be, that the aspects and likely behavior of things that would drive evolution are more "set up" in the nature of things than just overall supporting parameters like a helpful fine structure constant. I can consider that much.)
However, ID proponents do have a point of principle regardless of whether they ever find evidence that such and such couldn't have evolved naturally: It is a game a priori logical point, to see if such and such process E hypothesized as the cause of X can really do that. If the case for E is weakened, that doesn't tell us what else happened but does increase the case for "something" outside known processes in a general way. And it would increase our knowledge to know that E wasn't as efficacious as we thought and we have to do more. It's roughly like finding that dark matter and dark energy have to be involved, since there isn't enough "matter" as we know it to account for what happens - but we don't understand them.
tyrannogenius
Posted by: Neil B ♪ | August 11, 2009 10:22 AM
Neil B ♪ "And it would increase our knowledge to know that E wasn't as efficacious as we thought and we have to do more."
Which is a bit like thanking the guy who keeps trying to slash your tires for accidentally bringing to your attention that one is low on air....
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 12, 2009 5:22 AM
Because I am lazy, I will list the fallacies committed on this forum, but I will not identify them. The guilty parties can search their own posts.
1. Ad hominum. Attacking the person instead of his arguments.
2. Begging the question. Offering as proof that which is the subject of debate.
3. Straw man. Misstating the opponent’s argument so you can defeat it.
Posted by: David Moshinsky | August 14, 2009 5:13 PM
Is that also the reason why you won't even try to actually rebut the arguments proffered?
Posted by: DaveL | August 14, 2009 5:34 PM
DaveL "Is that also the reason why you won't even try to actually rebut the arguments proffered?"
Ah ha! Clearly a case of the ol' Argumentum asking for factso!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 15, 2009 6:49 PM
So, Dumbass Davie is, by his own admission, too lazy to identify fallacious arguments. He's also too lazy to address ANY argument and much too lazy, dishonest, and stupid to even try supporting his own claims with anything at all.
Wonder if he's hit the 2000 word requirement for Dembski's class yet?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 18, 2009 2:16 PM