RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Stu]

I have read enough to know about it. But to be honest with you, I do intend to read the book if only to confirm what I think.

I suggest you read the book, and make sure you get to the chapter on protein-binding sites.

I am only going to read it because I like reading about Evolution. I understand Behe stance in a general way and nothing there which surprises me since I know, and as Hugh also stated, Behe's position has changed throughout the years.

By the way, am I to assume that you have had your through introduction to evolution mechanisms through Behe's books?

Because the only time I have seen someone making a statement like "driving a nail in the evolution coffin" is from people who don't understand evolution nor the evidence for it, nor have they studied it.

So I am interested to know the source of your statements.

I typed out a whole response but it seems to have vanished...

I think evolution is the worst theory in the history of science, a disgrace to science, based on assumptions, wishful thinking, so-so evidence and heavy-handed tactics (forcing it down peoples throats).

But I'm curious, what is this evidence for evolution that you have?

I sometimes just push the back button and get the response back. It sometimes works but anyway...

I read your statement as an emotional disgust, which I can understand though can't appreciate it. I would have liked to know your sources for saying its "worst theory in the history of science, a disgrace to science, based on assumptions, wishful thinking, so-so evidence and heavy-handed tactics".
I am sure you can't say it without reading extensively about it? am I correct?

Plenty and plenty of evidence for evolution. I have a whole thread for it which I can link to if you like. though its filled with science papers, if you're willing to go through it. It took me more than a year.

Sure give me the link.

But also just give me a couple of quick ones, that shouldn't be too hard.

[Audie]

Yet another My guess is it's you who doesn't understand, and with every word you type it is you who come across as arrogant, self-righteous and holier-than-thou.

Not that you will be able to, but if you could show where anything that I have said constitutes an ad hom, you will amaze all who witness it.

Go ahead, try!

You called Behe a charlatan:

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

For the record a charlatan is: "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill"

So you insulted the man by claiming he isn't skilled or educated enough to comment on the merits of evolution, when in fact he is more accomplished than many of the servants of evolution that you worship.

Your first reaction is to insult and demean, rather than just accept he has a different opinion to yours. It shows just what kind of person you are.

On top of that you insulted me by insinuating that I am easily led astray or stupid for reading Behe. If that was the case then I could just as well call you an idiot for following Dawkins, Myers or any of the other snakes who peddle their fantastic ideas.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted............

Sure I made a comment on his credibility. But I guess you missed the part where ad hom involves trying to rebut an argument?

Oh, and it is hardly an insult to say you let yourself be led astray. Just helping you to understand yourself.

You insult yourself far beyond my small capacity to add or subtract.

Ah, "to the man" or "to the person" is more like it, which is exactly what you did.

And you show your arrogance and self-righteousness with every single post you make. It's quite ugly.

As noted elsewhere, emotional outbursts. What an oddly inappropriate avatar you have.

And you still dont get the part about how an ad hom somehow involves trying to rebut an argument.

[Stu]

Not that you will be able to, but if you could show where anything that I have said constitutes an ad hom, you will amaze all who witness it.

Go ahead, try!

You called Behe a charlatan:

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

For the record a charlatan is: "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill"

So you insulted the man by claiming he isn't skilled or educated enough to comment on the merits of evolution, when in fact he is more accomplished than many of the servants of evolution that you worship.

Your first reaction is to insult and demean, rather than just accept he has a different opinion to yours. It shows just what kind of person you are.

On top of that you insulted me by insinuating that I am easily led astray or stupid for reading Behe. If that was the case then I could just as well call you an idiot for following Dawkins, Myers or any of the other snakes who peddle their fantastic ideas.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted............

Sure I made a comment on his credibility. But I guess you missed the part where ad hom involves trying to rebut an argument?

Oh, and it is hardly an insult to say you let yourself be led astray. Just helping you to understand yourself.

You insult yourself far beyond my small capacity to add or subtract.

Ah, "to the man" or "to the person" is more like it, which is exactly what you did.

And you show your arrogance and self-righteousness with every single post you make. It's quite ugly.

As noted elsewhere, emotional outbursts. What an oddly inappropriate avatar you have.

And you still dont get the part about how an ad hom somehow involves trying to rebut an argument.

Emotional outbursts.... no just factual observation of your personality.
No I get it

[Philip]

Stu, you're wasting your time on the evolution true believers - at least with the immense statistical improbabilities involved - as absolutely nothing with deter the non-theist determined to insist that such wildly improbably things are possible - certainly without an intelligent, guiding and all-powerful force behind it. Because what they assert has hard parameters that are so improbable as to be magic. And it's traceable back to a point where all things are dependent upon something that wasn't physical, that pre-existed, and the ultimate source in that non-physical realm had to be eternal. NOTHING creates itself! That means the source is metaphysical, and no science can measure or prove that - while they can speculate until the cows come home - actually, eternally speculate.

As well, Progressive Creationism can explain the fossil record and the biological/chemical components of life's development on the planet. Same evidences, but direct injections of God in creating anew, allowing other species to go extinct. However if one wants to argue God is behind that - great. Because that would be the only explanation, IF it were true. So then, for the Christian evolutionist, they have direct conflicts of their beliefs with Scripture - another issue entirely. And it's all a sideshow argument that is entirely dependent upon the much bigger issue - of why life exists or things exist to begin with, how they operate, how they are designed, all that. That's the far more important issue!

[Philip]

Just a tip - always "select all" and copy to your clipboard before hitting submit - and if you are typing a very long post, do that every so often before finally submitting. Nothing like having to do a term paper all over again, from scratch!

[Audie]

You called Behe a charlatan:

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

For the record a charlatan is: "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill"

So you insulted the man by claiming he isn't skilled or educated enough to comment on the merits of evolution, when in fact he is more accomplished than many of the servants of evolution that you worship.

Your first reaction is to insult and demean, rather than just accept he has a different opinion to yours. It shows just what kind of person you are.

On top of that you insulted me by insinuating that I am easily led astray or stupid for reading Behe. If that was the case then I could just as well call you an idiot for following Dawkins, Myers or any of the other snakes who peddle their fantastic ideas.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted............

Sure I made a comment on his credibility. But I guess you missed the part where ad hom involves trying to rebut an argument?

Oh, and it is hardly an insult to say you let yourself be led astray. Just helping you to understand yourself.

You insult yourself far beyond my small capacity to add or subtract.

Ah, "to the man" or "to the person" is more like it, which is exactly what you did.

And you show your arrogance and self-righteousness with every single post you make. It's quite ugly.

As noted elsewhere, emotional outbursts. What an oddly inappropriate avatar you have.

And you still dont get the part about how an ad hom somehow involves trying to rebut an argument.

Emotional outbursts.... no just factual observation of your personality.
No I get it

Ah so desu ka, finding fault in me, is that a red herring or an ad hom?

Twice you evaded the, ah, fact that its not an ad hom unless the object is to rebut an argument. A tacit concession will do.

I observed that when people give credit to a charlatan, they bring discredit to
their other beliefs and you, instead of looking at that as a possibility, went for rebuttal by attacking me. Wonder what that might be called.

I was kind of thinking you might calm down enough to notice that you are busy with what you call ad homs yourself, referring to scientists as snakes and so forth, and of course, displaying really incredible arrogance, presenting or as you'd put it, "insinuating" that you know more
science than any scientist on earth.

But I guess such insights are still elusive.

[Stu]

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted............

Sure I made a comment on his credibility. But I guess you missed the part where ad hom involves trying to rebut an argument?

Oh, and it is hardly an insult to say you let yourself be led astray. Just helping you to understand yourself.

You insult yourself far beyond my small capacity to add or subtract.

Ah, "to the man" or "to the person" is more like it, which is exactly what you did.

And you show your arrogance and self-righteousness with every single post you make. It's quite ugly.

As noted elsewhere, emotional outbursts. What an oddly inappropriate avatar you have.

And you still dont get the part about how an ad hom somehow involves trying to rebut an argument.

Emotional outbursts.... no just factual observation of your personality.
No I get it

Ah so desu ka, finding fault in me, is that a red herring or an ad hom?

Twice you evaded the, ah, fact that its not an ad hom unless the object is to rebut an argument. A tacit concession will do.

I observed that when people give credit to a charlatan, they bring discredit to
their other beliefs and you, instead of looking at that as a possibility, went for rebuttal by attacking me. Wonder what that might be called.

I was kind of thinking you might calm down enough to notice that you are busy with what you call ad homs yourself, referring to scientists as snakes and so forth, and of course, displaying really incredible arrogance, presenting or as you'd put it, "insinuating" that you know more
science than any scientist on earth.

But I guess such insights are still elusive.

Yes, I fully realised that I called them snakes, just following your example.
But cmon you gotta admit the self-obsessed arrogant prick that is Dawkins is a snake of the highest order

But I don't get off on personal useless arguments, unlike you it seems, so I'll call it quits.

[hughfarey]

But on a basic level if,
E.coli (10 to the power of 13 organisms) = 0
HIV (10 to the power of 20 viruses) = 0
Malaria (10 to the power of 20 organisms) = 0
can produce zero protein-binding sites over that period of time, what hope in hell does early life (whatever form that took) and evolution have in achieving even a single protein-binding site.

Yes, fair enough. This is one of those engaging situations to which Thomas Henry Huxley's aphorism "the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact" applies only too well. It was Behe's original contention that because none of these organisms produced any new binding sites, then it was probably impossible. However, as soon as his book was published, Abbie Smith pointed out that in fact HIV had indeed already produced one, thus demolishing that first idea. Behe then contended that all right, producing new sites was probably not impossible, but it was very improbable. However, proof of ID relies on impossibility, not improbability. What's more, although HIV mutates quite fast, it has managed quite successfully to terrorize its human hosts in a very short time - it is beautifully adapted to its environment. Organisms adapted to their environment have little pressure to change. Early life, by definition, was not 'adapted' at all. It must have survived, but there were obviously ways it could achieve greater reproductive success, and so the pressure to evolve was considerably greater than HIV's. Even so, it took millions of years even to produce the eukaryotic cell, let alone complex life. It was during those millions of years that most of the experimenting with mutations took place, since when the development of life has mostly consisted of tinkering with what was already there. Another of Behe's mistakes often discussed by his critics is his assumption that homo sapiens must have been an inevitable end result (so far) of the evolutionary process. This is a matter of faith, not of logic. If I specify that I will pick the Seven of Spades off the top of a randomly shuffled pack of cards, I will be correct 1/52 of the time. But if I say that my card will be 'unusual', it might be any ace, or king, or the date, or the age of the birthday child, or almost anything, as I can define 'unusual' in such a way that it fits any card at all. So the probability of an unusual card being picked is 52/52, or certainty. If have no doubt whatever that in a distant galaxy far far away there are pink blobs with huge brains wondering if they are the only intelligent life in the universe, and calculating the odds...

[neo-x]

So, not one serious objection to the ToE.

For Abe, see a transitional fossil - sinornithosaurus millenii

Question for ID's:
1.Why do human embryos develop a coat of hair at about six months and then shed it?
2. Why do we develop a yolk sac at a 4-week embryo stage when we don't need it?
3. Why do we have a fully functional vitamin c building gene in our DNA but it is cut off at the last step, making it incomplete. It is like you make a fully functional car and then not put in the ignition key switch.

Evolution can easily answer these questions. How does ID explain this?

[Audie]

Ah, "to the man" or "to the person" is more like it, which is exactly what you did.

And you show your arrogance and self-righteousness with every single post you make. It's quite ugly.

As noted elsewhere, emotional outbursts. What an oddly inappropriate avatar you have.

And you still dont get the part about how an ad hom somehow involves trying to rebut an argument.

Emotional outbursts.... no just factual observation of your personality.
No I get it

Ah so desu ka, finding fault in me, is that a red herring or an ad hom?

Twice you evaded the, ah, fact that its not an ad hom unless the object is to rebut an argument. A tacit concession will do.

I observed that when people give credit to a charlatan, they bring discredit to
their other beliefs and you, instead of looking at that as a possibility, went for rebuttal by attacking me. Wonder what that might be called.

I was kind of thinking you might calm down enough to notice that you are busy with what you call ad homs yourself, referring to scientists as snakes and so forth, and of course, displaying really incredible arrogance, presenting or as you'd put it, "insinuating" that you know more
science than any scientist on earth.

But I guess such insights are still elusive.

Yes, I fully realised that I called them snakes, just following your example.
But cmon you gotta admit the self-obsessed arrogant prick that is Dawkins is a snake of the highest order

But I don't get off on personal useless arguments, unlike you it seems, so I'll call it quits.

I'll call it "bug out" and tacit concession, but as for Dawkins, I wouldnt know. He is of no interest to me.

Actually, id be glad to call it a draw-even if it isnt- and possibly actually discuss something another time.

[neo-x]

And I think k, that much of the confusion arises because of the uncertainty principle. The particles appear for the tiniest of a billion parts of a second and then poof out. And even then we can't know the position and the speed of these simultaneously. We see particles for such short time. We imagine these particles like planets orbiting the sun. But in reality its more like blurry images going by. Like a speeded up fan whose blades are too blurry to be made out.

....

As someone once said, reality is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.

It's one reason I don't believe our world is wholly mechanical or fundamentally material or physical. When such glitches, if we may call them that, are seen on the most base levels, an observer-perception altered reality, then the missing ingredient from all scientific theories is understanding consciousness and how it relates to and impacts upon our world.

Don't get me wrong, physical theories are great at explaining physical constructions, but if the world isn't entirely mechanically run by such, then strangeness like you mention would be an eventual and expected outcome.

I actually think it only makes sense when we say it is fundamentally material and things work out based on "chips fall where they may". The things that are happening out in the universe and within our world. That is the only way it makes sense to me. If God is tinkering with it as you believe, it's really not helping or showing.

[abelcainsbrother]

But on a basic level if,
E.coli (10 to the power of 13 organisms) = 0
HIV (10 to the power of 20 viruses) = 0
Malaria (10 to the power of 20 organisms) = 0
can produce zero protein-binding sites over that period of time, what hope in hell does early life (whatever form that took) and evolution have in achieving even a single protein-binding site.

Yes, fair enough. This is one of those engaging situations to which Thomas Henry Huxley's aphorism "the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact" applies only too well. It was Behe's original contention that because none of these organisms produced any new binding sites, then it was probably impossible. However, as soon as his book was published, Abbie Smith pointed out that in fact HIV had indeed already produced one, thus demolishing that first idea. Behe then contended that all right, producing new sites was probably not impossible, but it was very improbable. However, proof of ID relies on impossibility, not improbability. What's more, although HIV mutates quite fast, it has managed quite successfully to terrorize its human hosts in a very short time - it is beautifully adapted to its environment. Organisms adapted to their environment have little pressure to change. Early life, by definition, was not 'adapted' at all. It must have survived, but there were obviously ways it could achieve greater reproductive success, and so the pressure to evolve was considerably greater than HIV's. Even so, it took millions of years even to produce the eukaryotic cell, let alone complex life. It was during those millions of years that most of the experimenting with mutations took place, since when the development of life has mostly consisted of tinkering with what was already there. Another of Behe's mistakes often discussed by his critics is his assumption that homo sapiens must have been an inevitable end result (so far) of the evolutionary process. This is a matter of faith, not of logic. If I specify that I will pick the Seven of Spades off the top of a randomly shuffled pack of cards, I will be correct 1/52 of the time. But if I say that my card will be 'unusual', it might be any ace, or king, or the date, or the age of the birthday child, or almost anything, as I can define 'unusual' in such a way that it fits any card at all. So the probability of an unusual card being picked is 52/52, or certainty. If have no doubt whatever that in a distant galaxy far far away there are pink blobs with huge brains wondering if they are the only intelligent life in the universe, and calculating the odds...

So a virus remaining a virus which is kinds producing after their kind gives you the evidence you need to assume a eukariotic cell can evolve?Where is the evidence the HIV evolved because the evidence shows it cannot evolve but always will remain the HIV virus,no matter how much it adapts. Based on this we cannot even come close to believing a eukaryotic cell could evolve because a virus remains a virus always,so no evolution can happen. You are using evolution imagination that the evidence does not back up.We see the same thing in all other examples of evidence for evolution too and that is Evo-Genesis God created life to produce after its kind just as this virus evidence proves and shows us. There needs to be evidence a eukaryotic cell could evolve,showing kinds producing after their kind regardless of the harsh environment like with the HIV virus does not in any way show life can evolve,but the opposite,it cannot. Just normal variation in reproduction regardless of the environment.Scientists cannot prove normal variation in reproduction which has been known about for thousands of years regardless of the harsh environment and use this as evidence for life evolving.

[Kurieuo]

What I've said here doesn't necessarily imply tinkering, which really isn't how I'd describe my view but something Audie actually coined. When fleshed out I wouldn't call it tinkering, even if I just went with her on it and played it out a little.

That said, I'm talking of a set of laws to describe the effects of consciousness upon the physical and vice-versa, a world which otherwise seems mechanical. Many scientists will continue puzzling over QM when within a purely mechanical framework, but if there are another set of laws alongside or weaved with the physical, that is consciousness also part of the order, then observer impacting upon outcomes of physical arrangements (eg double slit) aren't that puzzling like you previously described.

Think of what it also does for the biggest criticism against evolution, which is one of order and arrangement, an apparent telos to living beings and way things are arranged. At the universe level, the anthropic principle is a real term coined, not by Theists, but generally accepted that things seem arranged for us. Then there is the Gaia Hypothesis.

If embedded in the fabric of the world is a self regulating consciousness of sorts, then it seems more possible the physical world will self organise, Nature with a capital 'N' really does select. It's not as far out sounding as one might initially think, it in fact seems to be where science hints us towards. Minimally, it shouldn't and can't be ruled out.

[neo-x]

What I've said here doesn't necessarily imply tinkering, which really isn't how I'd describe my view but something Audie actually coined. When fleshed out I wouldn't call it tinkering, even if I just went with her on it and played it out a little.

That said, I'm talking of a set of laws to describe the effects of consciousness upon the physical and vice-versa, a world which otherwise seems mechanical. Many scientists will continue puzzling over QM when within a purely mechanical framework, but if there are another set of laws alongside or weaved with the physical, that is consciousness also part of the order, then observer impacting upon outcomes of physical arrangements (eg double slit) aren't that puzzling like you previously described.

Think of what it also does for the biggest criticism against evolution, which is one of order and arrangement, an apparent telos to living beings and way things are arranged. At the universe level, the anthropic principle is a real term coined, not by Theists, but generally accepted that things seem arranged for us. Then there is the Gaia Hypothesis.

If embedded in the fabric of the world is a self regulating consciousness of sorts, then it seems more possible the physical world will self organise, Nature with a capital 'N' really does select. It's not as far out sounding as one might initially think, it in fact seems to be where science hints us towards. Minimally, it shouldn't and can't be ruled out.

I understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily think that it isn't possible. However, I do think it's unlikely and more so that there is no conscience driving it to be the way it is. We probably call it that because we try to look for patterns. It's a very common trait of all life actually.

Following on what Phil and me talked about, when I read the Bible, the focus is so entirely on humans and humans alone that it boggles me when I look up at the sky and think what going out there and why?

The scriptures remotely don't care or focus on evolution or creationism for that matter. The sole focus remains of what Christ did. And then when I see people dragging that same scripture to justify some new theory etc I kind of cringe.

I kind of understand that it's hard to accept that we may not be special at all the way it has always been taught and preached. However, to me the miracle, if I may call it that, lies with in the random. I mean look around and see there is no life for as far as we can look just outside of our little planet.

I think you hold to the view that God sustains all creation/universe at every given moment. I didn't mean to misrepresent, its just that I probably saw you or a conversation where you may have had used the word tinkering, hence I used it. Apologies.

If the yellow stone caldera blows up or a comet hits us or Andromeda collides with the Milky way, what will happen? Certainly nothing like the scriptures have ever said or probably predict. It's that far apart. And therefore I don't really think we need to drag the creator in almost everything we do. To me it's a note back to our own importance and perhaps that's why we ascribe everything with a goal and purpose.

The only way it makes sense to me, is when things go random, where NS works in a way which is really blind chance. That is the only way the universe makes sense. If not then things are really awkward at least that is what I think.

[abelcainsbrother]

Natural selection is a myth not backed up by evidence.

The environment has absolutely no effect on life except for it is either able to adapt or it dies,but environmental pressures does not cause life to change in anyway as far as what kind of life it is. It will always remain the same kind of life even when it is able to adapt and the evidence in evolution science proves this true.This has really already been known but has been ignored in order to push the evolution myth. Francis Crick who won a Nobel Prize for his work in genetics in his "Central Dogma" of genetics
showed that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern.Evolution is just a bunch of imagination,sorry if the truth hurts,but it's true. It won't hurt you or anybody to admit it and the sooner you admit it,the sooner we might get better science.