Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble

On Aug 21, 7:07 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 21, 3:21 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 21, 5:11 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:24 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:58 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 18, 3:59 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Numerous <numer...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
<e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
saying this.
Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
either, do you?

The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble.

Are they *all* saying this, or just the "real" ones? Are you claiming
a consensus of cosmologists and physicists, of the actual BB theory
being "in trouble"?

Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
fails to be science.

In your zeal to appear as if your lips have a life of their own, you
failed to respond to the question of what and whether the BB is in
"trouble".

So Behe for example, isn't an "evolutionary scientist", right?

Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist. When he does
actual science, which seems to be rather rarely nowadays, he tends to
be a biochemist. Not a particularly leading edge one, but that is not
a serious knock. We cannot all be a Krebs or an Einstein. OTOH, his
"evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
are not science.

I see. Behe is not an evolutionary scientist, because he isn't a
*real* scientist when it comes to his views of evolution.

No. He is not a real evolutionary scientist because he does no actual
research in evolution. He gives his rather unsupported and ignorant
opinion about evolution, but that makes him a creationist no better
than you are, not an evolutionary scientist. There are people who do
actual publishable research in the field who I think are nuts and
cranks in their views of evolution (Feduccia, Schwartz). Behe is not
even one of them.

Nothing in
biology makes sense except in light of evolution, right Howard? And
being a *bio*chemist doesn't make him an "evolutionary scientist",

That's right. It doesn't.

despite the fact that he makes claims about evolution, mutation
rate...right? "Right"?

Again, Behe gives his unsupported and ignorant opinion about mutation
rates based on bogus assumptions that were refuted loooong before he
published.

Oops. So much for what you have said up till now.

He has performed no experiments wrt mutation rates or
presented any research quality mathematical analyses that he has even
attempted to get published.

Being rather picky with what a real scientist is, aren't you?

http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/short/13/10/2651

I suppose that isn't enough "quality" math for a real scientist,
right?

Even before I read Michael Lynch's reply in press (below), even I
could see that, as Mike says in his abstract which is, for a science
article, brutally blunt: "It is shown here that the conclusions of
this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions,
inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic. Numerous simple
pathways exist by which adaptive multiresidue functions can evolve on
time scales of a million years (or much less) in populations of only
moderate size."

The rest of his paper demonstrates that the Behe and Snoke paper is
nothing but bogus numerology based on false assumptions about how
evolution and proteins work. Moreover, there are specific examples of
"cherry-picking" data (that is the polite term; the less polite is
"lying about") references that Behe and Snoke cite.

http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/9/2217

Rather than beat a dead horse, I will let the Lynch article speak for
me. If you want me to translate the parts you don't understand I will
try to do so, but I have serious doubts that you are capable of
understanding Lynch's points. After all, you clearly seem to be
capable of (willfully) misunderstanding even the simple fundamental
concept of natural selection.

And the requirement for real scientist is that he must perform real
experiments?

The Behe and Snoke paper is based on false assumptions of a NON-
DARWINIAN model and is entirely theoretical in nature. In the
imaginary universe where their false assumptions are true, the paper
might have some meaning. In the *real* world that we live in, it is
nothing but bogus numerology.

So any papers that I read that do not involve real
experiments should be regarded as not scientific. I think I got it,
Howard.

He cherry picks his data and misinterprets
it. He doesn't do any of that in the actual scientific papers he has
published, which are NOT on evolutionary biology.

Wow. I would have thought that anything about mutation would be about
evolution.

Probably he
publishes only books because he knows the problems that would get the
articles rejected by anything other than the popular or religious
press.

Probably, huh. Close your eyes and it will all go away. Believe it.
Because apparently you do.

Merely making claims about evolution does not make one an
evolutionary biologist.

Nice change of words. That's like evolution, right? A Howard monkey
typing at the keyboard, going from scientist to biologist?
Why no, Howard. Behe isn't, and has not to my knowledge, claimed that
he was an "evolutionary biologist". He is a biochemist.

If that were all that was required, YOU would
be an evolutionary biologist.

Requirements? What is required to be a scientist, Howard? You've
mentioned one or two. To do actual experiments. By the way, what does
"actual" mean?

And that would truly be laughable.
Hell, I don't even claim that *I* am an evolutionary biologist; I just
understand what they do and don't present idiotic misinterpretations
of them and the field like you an Behe do.

Oh, you understand. How fortunate and useful for you.

You're frothing at the mouth, Howard.

I'm drinking more beer.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Evolution and aging
    ... How Advances in Evolutionary Biology Can Help Us ... Postpone Aging. ... Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, ... take on evolution and aging science will probably be startled by Rose's ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... Science does not *require* consensus. ... *real* scientist when it comes to his views of evolution. ... biology makes sense except in light of evolution, right Howard? ... which are NOT on evolutionary biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Lecture of the Week: Part I: What Makes Us Human?
    ... The Evolutionary Biology Lecture of the Week for September 11, ... know that we share more than 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. ... Julian Huxley created the words clade and grade to represent the two ... associated with understanding the evolution of life on this planet. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine
    ... New applications of evolutionary biology in medicine are being ... but few physicians have sufficient ... that evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. ... such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine
    ... but few physicians have sufficient ... that evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. ... such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, ... All of you at one time or another have claimed that medical science is ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading