"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

Yawn. Old news. We've done those before. They're bogus arguments and you know it. Can't you cut/paste something new for us?

Try to keep up, Gunga - irreducible complexity is a demonstrated absurdity - not merely rejected but refuted by the scierntific community at large. ID-iots argue from ignorance, misperceiving or misconstruing what little actual science they figure in some way or another they ccan twisrt to lend credence to their silly proposition, while producing no science whatsoever of their own in support of their ludicrous assertions.
Rejecting or failing to understand science does not challenge science; it is ID-iocy.

Just one example each of scientific refutations (from among many hundreds, if not thousands, available on the web) of each of your supposed challenges to evolution:

Evolution of the eye

Evolution of Flagella

The Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle's Defense Mechanism

Evolution of arthropod stings

The Evolution of Sex

The Evolution of Vertebrate Sonar

You can drag out all the mumbojumbo you wish, all you will accomplish is to further establish the ignorance of those who seek to support the foundationless proposition you vainly and inneffectually put forward. While it is true questions remain, it also is simultaneously true that sbsolutely no evidence (the body of which increases day by day) conflicts with evolution and that absolutely no evidence supports ID-iocy.

great links timber. I glommed all of them. An imposrtant aside to all of Bernies and Gungas assertions is that, of all the evolutionary developments that timber has posted, all but one has an unarguable fossil record. That one point of departure is the "Flagella and cilia evolution" That too, Ken Miller , in his introductory college text spends a goodly amount of time on its development from early ciliates and eukaryotic cells with cilia to some fossils(these are in the International treatise of Paleontology) in the fine grained Burgess and Ordovician shales.
So our original point from gunga is one of his accepting anything that Creationists write , and he accepts it without question, whereas most of the rest of us have looked at many sides of all the evidence to arrive at conclusions.

Bern and Gunga, Isnt your "acceptance without proof" merely the Hallmark of modern religion and not science?

That quote is from the Dancing Wu Li masters. I still love the classics.

In other words Bern, your accusing us of not understanding Dr Behe, when it is you, who understands nothing. All you seem to have done is tear off some quote that is didengenuous enough to avoid letting you know the problems with Irreducibility.

I believe it was Doug Futuyama who said that "Irreducible Complexity was a foxhole of last refuge for the non-science of Creationism ".

Most recently, Gunga Din linked a page from ARN--The Access Research Network. These folks are slick enough not to mention Jeebus by name, but they tip their hand nevertheless--from their "about ARN" page:



Behe's fingerprints are all over these jokers--he's mentioned on just about every page of their drivel. So basically, Gunga Din went to Behe to get evidence that Behe is correct. This is not different than the bible thumpers who say something is so, because the bible says so. You ask them why we should believe the bible, and they say because it is divinely inspired, and when you ask how they know that, they tell you because it is written in the bible.

The first three authors listed on their "Featured Authors" tab are William Dembski, Charles Darwin and Michael Behe. Of course, there is a store where the credulous can spend their hard-earned dollars on the drivel the creationists and IDers publish, and a tab for making direct contributions. A fool and his money . . .

ARN's Home page. I don't know if they do email updates, but if they do, i'm sure Gunga Din gets them, and comes running over here as soon as he gets a new one.

I listed several things which came to mind easily and immediately, such as whale sonar and bee stings.

Im posting some of this stuff for the handfull of viewers here who benefit from it. Arguing with committed evo-losers is basically like arguing with somebody on an LSD trip over what color the sky is.

I stand in awe at the evidence provided. However, it may be that my understanding of science is insufficient to understand the evidence provided. I respectfully suggest that someone write in terms understandable to the layman which addresses the following material--especially the last two paragraphs.

from Kenneth R. Miller- "Finding Darwin's God"

quote:

P. 292

from the final sentence of the Origin of the Species as quoted by Miller.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.:...."

then Miller ends his book with this line.

"What kind of God do I believe in? The answer is in those words. I believe in Darwin's God".


Then

from Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"--P. 227

"The reason why Miller's argument misses the mark is actually quite understandable. It arises from the confusion of two separate ideas--the theory that life was intelligently designed and the theory that the earth is young....Implicit in Ken Miller's argument about pseudogenes and absoultely required for his conclusions, is the idea that the designer had to have made life recently. That is not a part of intelligent-design theory. The conclusion that some features of life were designed can be made in th eabsence of knowledge aboutr when the designing took place"

end of quote

It goes without saying that Behe believes in God.

and from Miller--"Finding Darwin's God" P. 163

"The evidence(including the fossil record) which Behe makes clear he accepts scientifically, squeezes him into a nonsensical position. It forces him for the sake of consistency, to cobble his acceptance of th earth's well-documented natural history into the idea of God as a biochemical mechanic."

And, from Mortimer J. Adler's "How to think about God" P. 150

"The conclusion that God exists has not been proved or demonstrated. Nothing that has been said should result in conviction with certitude...I am convinced that God exits, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons in favor of that conclusion over reasons against it".

(Note: Dr. Adler is not a fundamentalist. Those who doubt that are invited to read his book)


When I view Darwin, Miller, and Behe's assertions about the existence of God, I cannot reasonably conclude that Behe's assertion that Behe's statement( as posed by Miller) concerning "God as a biochemical mechanic" is outside the realm of possibility.

*************************************************************

The "immutability" of scientific theories appears to have suffered another blow with the recent thesis advanced that there was indeed no "Big Bang" as laid out by past theories. Instead, a new theory seems to indicate that the Universe is really INFINITE.

Some may have has much trouble assimilating theidea of AN INFINITE UNIVERSE as they might have assimilating the idea of God!

Really, now, dear scientists--How can anything be infinite?????

Space HAS to be infinite. If it weren't, there's be a wall out there somewhere; you gonna tell me who BUILT that wall??

Bern-youre a couple of years behind the cosmol;ogical hypotheses.remember Brane theory?

Your quote about Behe , "By" Behe seems a bit shall we say, unresolved?

Both Behe and Miller are Catholics, a relatively "progressive" religion when it comes to evolution. However they do differ in content of their thoughts. Behe , and I know Mike, is a scientist who has done a lot in his field. However he has set the trip point for these Irreducible complexities and has taken a position that "beyond this point is the world of God's input" (he does freely admit that hios "designer" is God, and they nailed him for that in Dover). Miller's statements are correctly phrased, he has a personal religion that, basically doesnt get carried to work, and he feels that impressing irreducible complexity rules on where the set point begins, is to limit the power of his God. , but like Huxley said
"I do not deny the immortality of the soul, nor do I affirm it> I see no compelling reason to believe in it. On the other hand, I should not know how to refute it....but...Follow nature humbly wherever she may lead you or you will learn nothing"
I submit that neither gwanga nor bernie , by quote mining, learn anything, they merely miss the substance of what they wave around. Too bad.

Actually.you are all in agreement.

In a society such as America,and England to only a slightly lesser extent,the ego assertive character type predominates over the integrative tendency.

The ego assertiveness in its extreme forms can only express itself on the social level and leads to competitive striving, attention to the bodily self and it's surroundings and the will to power and it is this which is responsible for the material success and the social problems which accompany it.

The thwarting of these characteristics, which is what results from extreme forms of integrative or self-transcending tendencies produces the well known squalor, disease, intellectual stagnation and social resignation of Oriental civilisations which also produces absolute rulers and fatalistic submission.

In actual fact both tendencies are always at work. It is a question of balance but we begin life as infants and they are totally integrated to the extent that the self and the world are indistinguishable. This is why extreme self-asserters, and A2K debaters are that, are correct to refer to integrative tendencies as infantile. Religion is obviously integrative as is sexual activity associated with love and such things as mass outrage and fanatical sport followings.

What the ego self asserter says about integrative tendencies is meaningless because it is tautological in the sense that it is axiomatic of the ego self asserter. The competitive, dominating, individualistic self asserter cannot help but refer to the contemplative, nonattached,passive character of the extreme integrative character in the way he does. He is simply saying that he is an American and he's best.

The problem is that the self asserter cannot quite let go of integrative tendencies and the integrative character, especially in America, can hardly avoid aspects of self assertion in his daily life although I have read of a few who do. Flower power was driven by integrative notions but collapsed due to self assertion.

Obviously, self asserters can exploit the atavism of integrative longings and the need for what are sometimes called "oceanic feelings" in order to dominate and so can their followers.

A2Kers are obviously self asserters. So you are all in agreement that ego self assertion is the right and proper way as is to be expected for Americans. Your disputes are merely chosen methods of asserting yourselves and are no different from those of rival football supporters.Agreement would be pointless.

The oceanic feelings of the extreme integrative personality, the mystic say, lead to a total lack of interest in things like how old this cooling lump of rock is or what fossils it contains. He sees the world in a similar manner that the infant sees the breast i.e. as a part of himself. All one.

Darwin was a product of his time and place which was England during the industrial revolution where self assertion was highly valued.

The real question is how to arrange a balance between these opposing tendencies which takes society forward. The exclusive attachment to one or the other is foolish because both tendencies are real scientifically and neither can be ignored without taking undue risks.

Thus you are not only all similar in your self asserting tendencies but you are also all foolish to take black/white positions on unknowables except to indulge your assertive tendencies.

The balance is what matters and the social effects of where that balance is set and that is far too complex a process to be even slightly understood by anyone who has not taken the trouble to become "expert" in trying to deal with it.

The "faith" of both sides is a faith in the self and in opposing each other there are only blurts of self assertion dressed up in rote learned psychobabble or technobabble.Self assertion is aggressive.

As the self asserting tendencies are more likely in males and the integrative tendencies are more likely in females one would expect debates such as this to be conducted by males who have a degree of contempt for such things as the Trivia threads which,if played properly, and self asserting tendencies eradicated (some hopes), are cooperative and integrative and they would also have a degree of contempt for well integrated boozing schools in pubs.

It's all probably due to dong size, or otherwise, when analysed far enough. But that's another can of worms eh?

It might even be due to eating cheese for supper instead of lettuce.

Or idolising a particular teacher or role model in early life and getting stuck fast to the position out of pride which goes with self assertion.

Mr. Farmerman:

I have read your posts. I know you are very intelligent. But, you did not respond to my post.

l. Darwin, Miller and Behe believe in God

2. Miller does not agree with Behe

3. Reread Adler statement in my post. It states the position much more clearly than Huxley.

4. If God exists(see Darwin, Miller and Behe) and God does indeed conform to the characteristics described by Adler( See Adler's "How to Think About God") then there is absolutely no problem with God as a "biochemical mechanic".

I am afraid that it is you, Mr. Farmerman, who are behind the times with regard to cosmology. My referral to the infinite Universe was based on A NEW PRESENTATION. It is not a couple of years old.

Mr. Farmerman:

I am sure that you are aware of the meaning of "quote mining" You must know that it is also used to derogatarily demean the user since he or she is "cherry picking" I would assume, however, that labeling someone with that term is invalid unless the person using that term can show exactly why the quoter is "cherry picking". If you can't, your charge is invalid.

If I were to use that term against any writer I have ever read, I would be unable to read most of the books in my library.

Re-wrapping garbage in shiny new paper does nothing to improve the packaged product.

With regard to the "Infinite Universe", Bill Bryson, in his book, " A Short History of Nearly Everything" ( described by the the New York Times as a book "destined to become a modern classic of Science Writing) writes:

"It is natural but wrong to visualize the singularity as a kind of pregnant dot hanging in a dark, boundless void. But there is no space, no darkness. The "singularity" has no "around" around it. There is no space for it to occupy, no place for it to be. We can't even ask how long it has been there--whether it has just popped into being like a good idea or whether it has been there forever quietly awaiting the right moment. Time doesn't exist. There is no past for it to emerge from."


And some people have more difficulty with the concept that God is Omnipotent!!!

Bern, my charge isnt invalid. gunga had poste that exact list of "quotes by real scientists" about 6 months ago. In fact his thread was called "WHAT REAL SCIENTISTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT EVOLUTION". In that thread, I believe we took more time to expose his quote mining by showing the full quotes of many of those he posted or , like in his recet one where he quoted a line out of chapter 9 of the 6th edition of ..."Of THE Origin of Species..."
I just called to his attention the full scope of his quote. Also, I believe it was Timber or set, who actually traced the source of the quotes (IN a LUMP-gunga didnt even bother to rearrange them). These can be found in many ways

Also, when Gunga states something , he usually hits and runs or pastes and then posts that picture of the Cave man (as if his brand of juvenile criticisim has any bearing on science)


Youre posts were taken fromBehe and Miller. Im not certain whether the first batch was by you or from a "prepackaged" quote mine, Im quite used to seeing those arguments that you posted so the mine is open and you just happened to pick up some very popular quotes . We already dispensed with them in the past by similar responses from workers in the field of molecular bio (I assume that youre not one because you mis applied some specific congener molecular positions)
I was a chemist at one time and havent forgotten the rules of nomenclature, so Ive assumed you just clicked them from a page.

My response to you, using Behes own words, actually come from page 6 of the"Darwins Black Box" . The issues that set and timber later posted were "left overs" from the last time someone tried to make us believe that you(aggregate you) brought something new to the table.You havent, were , while weary of old hash, dont want to appear disrespectful.

What kind of pisses me off though, is that there are two options that pertain when someone repeatedly posts old" mined" quotes, and these are

1 Are you(actually in this case Gunga) that stupid to forget the last time these quotes were posted or

2 Do you think we are that stupid to have forgotten.

We can do battle using numbered sequences .(eg) Argument C120 (out of talk archives) was that intermediate fossils are missing in the fossil record. This is gunga just demonstrating his ignorance . Im probably 1000% more qualified than he in this matter so he just denies any attempts at authority (I dont impress my own data on him, Ive patiently provided literature citation s, to which hes never even acknowledged) ALSOe hes never taken the time to look at or read about fossil intermediates because his arguments are the same lameness over and over. He just buys the predigested pablum from the phony Creation geologists who lurk out there, and, who use the approach that a little bit of fraud is ok as long as its in the work of God. FActs and evidence are nondenominational

Bill Bryson, the humorist, yes I read that book.I didnt think it was up there with "A walk in the Woods" or "In a SUnburned Country" . I believe Bryson has been trying to morph into a more serious writer.

Mr. Farmerman- Your response was, in my opinion, unresponsive. You might go to read my post again.

I am surprised that a person as bright as you are would think that I must have gotten my quotes from a "prepackaged" quote mine.

I did not.

I own the book--Finding Darwin's God- by Kenneth R. Miller-Perennial Press- Published 2002 and took the quotes by Miller from the page I referred to in my post--his last page. I read the book.

I also own the book- "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe-Free Press Publisher- 1996. I read the book.

If you will check P. 292_Miller and P. 227- Behe- You will find that I quoted precisely from those pages.

I did not cherry pick but rather went to the sections in which Miller commented on Behe and Behe commented on Miller.


I would respectfully suggest that you ask a poster whether he or she is pulling his or her quotes from a "mine" before you accuse them of "mining'

Again, you did not respond to my post concerning belief in God. If you wish, you can try again.


You may be right about Bryson. However, if you are, the New York Times Book Review needs a good shake-up since they believe that Bryson's book is "destined to become a modern classic of science writing". However, the writer of the encomium above is one Ed Regis, Phd in Philosophy and the author of nine highly praised books on Science.

But perhaps he is mistaken in his praise of Bryson if you say so, Mr. Farmerman.

As far as the quote Mining. You began withsemi snotty comments about how you expected me to rebut gungas quotes, when we already did, more than once.I therefore took you as a travelling companion. You must forgive me then if I miscast you in the same company as gunga. Remember When you quote something that is already a popular quote mine nugget, such as Behe (as far as Miller, you hadnt really made any important point so I let that ride) you must expect that you will be not be confused as a scientist whose developing his own thesis on Irreducibility.


Miller is more responsible for taking some of Behes Irreducibilities and, after doing more research, shoving them back at him . Consequently The full responses by the ID web sites was, naturally, to affect "damage control" on Behe. However the issues of all the above quoted Irreducibilities shows the thought process that IDers have adopted.
IF an IDer determines that something is irreducibly complex enough for them, they then halt any further inquiry and invoke GOD. (or a designer). Behe himself said its GOD,so I naturally cut out the middle man and the argument about whether its really science. If Behe would only continue his work to look at blood clotting in other species, and if he were honest , he wouldnt have published the enzyme reaction chain without conferring with other scientists.You must admit that this was, at least, sloppy science

You have the books, Ok,maybe then , Ill cautiously remove my appellation that you are a quote miner.like gunga. You merely search the works by yourself and pull out quotes that you wish to present.To which Ialready responded in a fashion that was acceptable to me (Behe admits that evolutions evdience is compelling and he has no reason to doubt it).. oh yeh, and the fossil record is quite a decent records keeper of the evolution of vision. ( of course, the evidence is used to draw conclusions, so it is , as real life says, circumstantial)


As far as the NEw York Times saying that Brysons book is such an important scientific text, i think maybe they were saying that the book is so written that some of the more arcane concepts of science were made availble to non scientists. I found the book a bit trite and , after one reads the Dancing Wu Li MAsters, which is a really good popular account to help the layman understand physics, one ould agree that there is hardly a comparison between the two. Bryson is, to me, a humorist a little more refined version of DAve Barry.

Mr.Farmerman:

I really do not consider a link a rebuttal of a quote. I do think that Gungasnake listed more quotes of his than were responded to.

I must repeat. I hope you will forgive me.

l. Darwin, Miller and Behe have indicated their belief in God or as Darwin said- "A creator"

2. Mortimer Adler, in his book,"How to Think About God" ( which I also own and have read) indicates that "The conclusion that God exists has not been proved or demonstrated. Nothing that has been said should result in conviction with certitude...I am persuaded that God exists, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons in favor of that conclusion over reasons against it."

3. I find myself in the same camp as Darwin, Miller and Behe. I do believe in a creator.

4. I find myself agreeing with Adler that there are more reasons in favor of the conclusion that God exists than reasons he does not exist.

5. Therefore, I state that since there is at least a possiblity that God exists, the conception of Behe of God as, in Miller's words, "A biochemical mechanic", is not only plausible, but if Dr. Adler's description of God's attributes which include Omnipotency, is correct, positively necessary.

Mr. Farmerman: As you may have noted, I referenced the reviewer of the book by Bryson, Ed Regis. You continue to denigrate Bryson's book. I am sure that someone with your ablities may have indeed found it trite, however, Ed Regis' vita reveals him to be a most learned man. I do not know your background except that you are a chemist. I am sure that you are a very good chemist. I do not know, however, whether you have written nine highly lauded books on science and scientific topics like Dr. Regis has done. If you have, you do indeed trump his views on the review of the Bryson book.


When you say that "You merely search the works by yourself and pull out quotes that you wish to present".

If you will note the Index on each book, Mr. Farmerman, the "Quotes that I wish to present" come from "Behe, Michael" in Miller's book and from "Miller, Kenneth" in Behe's book. I can indeed find more but you should know that what I would quote would only be from those two indices.

There can be nothing fairer.

So what?

Why should we care what any of these people believe? None of their beliefs alter the science behind evolution.

What's your point?