14
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2018 12:46 pm
@Setanta,
Was religion responsible for the first bigotry?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2018 05:37 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Behe, that on-line anti-evolution rag and the Discovery Institute all have an agenda to push so-called intelligent design because of a religious bias. You just want to whine about non-existent name-calling and about atheists, and once again demonstrate your ignorance. .


The way to tell there is an institutional bias is when one side is excluded from the discussion.

Both sides are biased but, niether side should exclude the other. Math is not biased so, what do you think is wrong with Behe's math?

Quote:
There are many scientists who are men and women of faith, and the Catholic church in particular accepts evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet--except perhaps for a Catholic lunatic fringe
The catholic and Jewish lunatic fringe like, Copernicus and Galileo. Niether one would stand for the big bang and random processes being the only explanation for the origination of hydrogen and helium, abiogenisis and the complexity and diversity of life. The heirarchy of the science community is the modern version of the Catholic church at there time. But the catholic church came around quickly and did not use legal means to stop the discussion at all levels of education over a long period of time. This new bigotry has a much greater institutional entrenchment.

Quote:
Whats really hilarious here is that your claim includes a reference to statistical probability, so that if the claim were true, demonstrating the case would in fact be very easy. So stop attempting to sidetrack this part of the discussion and put up or withdraw that ridiculous claim


It does just that.

So, unless you can show me where Behe is wrong, I guess I win by default and you are admitting my point of view is correct. Which would mean, "your point of view is not based on math but, on an ideological bias towards atheism."

Quote:
So stop attempting to sidetrack this part of the discussion and put up or withdraw that ridiculous claim
Did you copy that line from what the Catholic Church said to Galileo before they did due diligence in understanding his math.
Quote:
By the way, history does not repeat itself. The only historical commonality is human nature, which includes, among a host of other failings, self-delusion, confirmation bias, lying and bigotry. Those failings are particularly noticeable in religious fanatics.
Can an atheist be an ideological fanatic?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2018 10:42 pm
@brianjakub,
You remind me of a member here who used to complain constantly that his free speech rights were being violated because people who agree with him criticized him. Now you're alleging by implication that you're being excluded from the discussion--and yet here you are, right in the middle of the discussion. You could benefit from a sense of proportion, as well as a common sense application of a rather obvious logic.

You make a claim, and when challenged, simply link to a suspect web site with an article by a suspect individual. They are both suspect because the promote a point of view biased against evolutionary theory due to religious proclivities. In his ruling in the Kitzmiller versus Dover School District case, Judge Jones pointed out several failures on the part of Mr. Behe to make his case, and several instances in which Behe effectively admitted that so-called intelligent design is a religious point of view, and not scientific evidence. From the ruling: Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.; and As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.; and First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.; and We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.; and Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.; and In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

You might also look at the ruling in Association of Christian Schools International versus Roman Stearns. Behe was paid $20,000 to testify in that case, and the judge writing the ruling was as unimpressed with Behe's alleged scientific statements as was Mr. Jones in the Kitzmiller ruling.

In your remark to which I have objected, and to which I continue to object, you did not say that Michael Behe has said this, you spoke as though you yourself knew that evolution was statistically improbable. Therefore, you own the statement, and you need to defend the claim. As with all of your silly word salad and scientific woo-woo here, you provide no substantiation and no evidence. You just make up new silly claims, such as that Michelson-Morley was "misinterpreted." If this thread were a tennis match, it would be 40-love in every set, and it would be set scores of 6-0 and 6-0.

You lose, game over.

From the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, here is a précis of the case. You can look up Judge Jones' ruling on your own, if you like. You've not been excluded from the discussion, and neither has the charlatan Behe--but you've both been spanked, which is no more than you deserve.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2018 10:43 pm
Your remarks about atheists, by the way, just compound the stupidity and bigotry of your remarks.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2018 11:28 am
@Setanta,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/
Quote:
Such numbers seem prohibitive. However, we must be cautious in interpreting the calculations. On the one hand, as discussed previously, these values can actually be considered underestimates because they neglect the time it would take a duplicated gene initially to spread in a population. On the other hand, because the simulation looks for the production of a particular MR feature in a particular gene, the values will be overestimates of the time necessary to produce some MR feature in some duplicated gene. In other words, the simulation takes a prospective stance, asking for a certain feature to be produced, but we look at modern proteins retrospectively. Although we see a particular disulfide bond or binding site in a particular protein, there may have been several sites in the protein that could have evolved into disulfide bonds or binding sites, or other proteins may have fulfilled the same role. For example, Matthews’ group engineered several nonnative disulfide bonds into lysozyme that permit function (Matsumura et al. 1989). We see the modern product but not the historical possibilities.

We should also notice which parameters the model is particularly sensitive to and which not. The model is least sensitive to the point mutation rate v and the selection coefficient s because both of those appear only as linear terms in equation 4. Thus, for example, if we consider an organism where the point mutation rate is increased by a factor of 103, then the numbers calculated from equation 4 will decrease by only that factor. For the case discussed earlier in which six nucleotide changes were required, the population size needed to fix the feature in 108 generations would then decrease from 1022 to just 1019.

The model is more sensitive to the value ofρ, because ρ appears with an exponent in equation 4. If ρ were less by a factor of 10 (100 instead of 1000), then the population size needed to fix the feature in the preceding example in 108 generations would decrease from 1022 to 1016. The number of possible null mutations—the numerator ofρ—arises from basic considerations of protein structure so that it is unlikely to vary significantly. The number of possible compatible mutations λ—the denominator ofρ—is more difficult to estimate. However, the value of one thousand that we use for ρ in Figure 6 ▶ is conservative compared with the range of values used by other workers (Walsh 1995). It should be noted that as λ becomes larger, the number of possible null mutations—and thus implicitly the length of the gene—must increase to maintain a constant value ofρ.

The model is most sensitive to the value of λ—the number of loci that must mutate before a new MR function occurs—which appears as an exponent in equation 4. If in the case just mentioned, because of the particular initial sequence of the parent gene, either three or nine nucleotide changes were necessary instead of six, then the population sizes required to fix the feature in 108 generations would vary from 1011 to 1031 organisms. The dependence on λ may encourage speculation that perhaps MR mutations could develop by point mutation in duplicate genes if the parent gene giving rise to the duplication were serendipitously poised to lead to the new feature with only one mutation in the precursor gene. Although this is certainly possible, it is unlikely to be the general case. As one example, Li (1997) has argued that the precursor to modern hemoglobins that can bind diphosphoglycerate did not have any of the three amino acid residues involved in the interaction. As shown in Figure 5 ▶, for the average case, pre-equilibration, which allows for the occurrence of rare, fortunate alleles, does not affect the expected time Tf in the linear portion of the curve.

The lack of recombination in our model means it is most directly applicable to haploid, asexual organisms. Nonetheless, the results also impinge on the evolution of diploid sexual organisms. The fact that very large population sizes—109 or greater—are required to build even a minimal MR feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 108 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes. Thus, mechanisms in addition to gene duplication and point mutation may be necessary to explain the development of MR features in multicellular organisms.

Although large uncertainties remain, it nonetheless seems reasonable to conclude that, although gene duplication and point mutation may be an effective mechanism for exploring closely neighboring genetic space for novel functions, where single mutations produce selectable effects, this conceptually simple pathway for developing new functions is problematic when multiple mutations are required. Thus, as a rule, we should look to more complicated pathways, perhaps involving insertion, deletion, recombination, selection of intermediate states, or other mechanisms, to account for most MR protein features.


I think the math is all that should be discussed, not the ideology of the mathemetician. The math look correct and the conclusions are reasonable. The fact that people with different ideological biases don't agree with the conclusion should not end the discussion.

Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

Show me the evidence (quote the evidence or provide a link) and lets discuss the different conclusions people with different ideologies reach and why.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 07:21 am
@brianjakub,
You can't believe that paper! Look at all the references to 'God' in those equations!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 04:21 pm
@brianjakub,
You expect me to argue in favor of irreducible complexity? You really are out of touch, aren't you?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 08:41 pm
@Setanta,
I expect you to discuss it or provide arefuting article, Explain yourself. How or why am i out of touch.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 09:57 pm
@brianjakub,
First, stop giving me orders, that's arrogant, and you have no authority.

brianjakub wrote:
Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.


Why would I argue with this? Irreducible complexity is an IDiot argument. There is absolutely no reason for me to disagree with this. And that's why you're out of touch. You just babble--you take articles you don't understand and catch-phrases and names and you make them into a word salad. Then, apparently, you expect to be taken seriously. Ha!

brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 10:12 pm
@Setanta,
Take the word “not” out it is a typo. Sorry. It’s hard to edit you own writing sometimes.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 10:52 pm
Pathetic.
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2018 12:11 pm
@Setanta,
Lighten up. I like your tenacity. Could you redirect it to the subject of the debate and not at personal attacks on my editing skills?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2018 07:05 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Soiled my old black t-shirt while painting my garage door today with light brown paint. My wife made me stop after finishing about 1/5th of the job, because she doesn't want me to strain myself. She said she'll help me tomorrow, and wants to make it a four more day Very Happy job.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2018 07:21 pm
@rosborne979,
I believe my generation have seen the greatest progress in technology. I was born in 1935 during the Great Depression, and have seen the ups and downs of our economy, but still have been thankful that I have lived during this time of much progress in politics and the economy. I have been able to travel to all 7 continents, and visited some 128 countries. It would not have happened if it not for the fact that this country provided us with free education and the opportunity to succeed in whatever endeavor we pursued. I just started reading Obama's "AUDACITY OF HOPE." In it, he speaks to the opportunities he's had, and how our Constitution has been a bellwether for our country's progress. I'm not personally that involved in religion although all my siblings are Christians, and my wife is a Buddhist who attends her temple 4 or 5 times a year. Our older son earned his graduate degree from the University of Texas in Austin, and now works there. I instruct him to return home to Sunnyvale CA every 6 months or so. He recently bought a 3 bedroom condo, so we shouldn't wait too long before we visit. My wife and I are doing the Columbia and Snake River cruise next month from Portland to Lewiston ID, a 8 day venture which I'm looking forward to. Chou.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2018 07:48 am
@brianjakub,
I get sick of you issuing orders--to me, or to anyone else here. You have no authority. I have consistently addressed the topic here, and you just slip away, making more demands, more statements from authority, and tossing more word salad with your silly misunderstandings as the ingredients. Then you whine about name-calling and personal attacks.

You have never provided any evidence for your claims about what is, according to you, mathematically impossible. Why should anyone put up with your arrogant commands and your slimy insinuations when you attempt to hold others to a standard you yourself do not meet?

Do the math--show your work.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2018 02:25 pm
@Setanta,
Yeah thats it...Give him the full force of your Freudian projection syndrome ! Lay on the 'arrogance' and 'name calling' accusations and show him your mathematical superiority !
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 07:59 pm
@Setanta,
You are correct. I am sorry for being so authoritative.

Would you please explain yourself?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/10/2018 at 10:23:44