Evolution

[tonymctones]

Science is great, but evolution isn't science

evolution is science, did we humans evovle from an ape like creature? we dont know for sure but evolution is a fact and we know this to be true

[Dos Equis]

Here's the explanation the buried Behe:

" "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all."

Rather verbose but it does debunk the grand theories of ID supporters.

It doesn't debunk anything.  It's a guy who disagrees with one item discussed in Darwin's Black Box.  He talked about a number of systems in his book.

I don't expect the scientific community to agree with the guy.  He is challenging something that much of the community has been taught and is teaching as fact. 

[columbusdude82]

Behe was buried, literally, under a pile of published papers and books about the evolution of the human immune system, at the Dover trial.

He was pulling claims out of his hoooo-haaaa, like creationists always do, and announced that the human immune system was irreducibly complex, and that it couldn't have resulted from evolution. Then the opposing lawyer started piling all those papers and book in front of Behe.

Man, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that court room

[Decker]

It doesn't debunk anything.  It's a guy who disagrees with one item discussed in Darwin's Black Box.  He talked about a number of systems in his book.

I don't expect the scientific community to agree with the guy.  He is challenging something that much of the community has been taught and is teaching as fact. 

So science has no relation to objective inquiry.  Scientists just repeat what they are taught in an unquestioning manner.

Then along comes a maverick thinker like Behe challenging the decrepit status quo.

And the scientific communities response?  Stick to the story and marginalize this maverick.

Beach Bum, that's foolish. 

Science is always re-evaluating its underpinnings.  Always.

Behe is a song and dance man that admitted, under oath, that ID is on the same scientific footing as Astrology.

But I guess when people hear stories that play to their individual religious prejudices, they'll believe just about anything to fortify that prejudice.

[Dos Equis]

So science has no relation to objective inquiry.  Scientists just repeat what they are taught in an unquestioning manner.

Then along comes a maverick thinker like Behe challenging the decrepit status quo.

And the scientific communities response?  Stick to the story and marginalize this maverick.

Beach Bum, that's foolish. 

Science is always re-evaluating its underpinnings.  Always.

Behe is a song and dance man that admitted, under oath, that ID is on the same scientific footing as Astrology.

But I guess when people hear stories that play to their individual religious prejudices, they'll believe just about anything to fortify that prejudice.

Does not surprise me in the least.  The establishment's response to attacks is always to defend the establishment.  It happened with the tobacco industry.  I'm sure you know the tobacco industry had its own team of scientists who claimed nicotine was not addictive and did not cause cancer?  Do you recall anytime the Surgeon General issued a report on nicotine that the Tobacco Institute and its scientists issued contrary reports?  Every single time. 

Same thing happened with the meat and dairy industry.  If you want to read something that will challenge the way we were all raised (in terms of diet), try "The China Study:  The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health," by T. Colin Campbell.  Incredible stuff.  This guy's research shows that animal protein is the root cause of the diseases that kill most of us in this country.  What do you think the meat and dairy industry's response to his research and book was?  Do you remember Oprah getting sued for saying she was going to stop eating cheeseburger? 

I wouldn't expect the evolution proponents to react any differently. 

[columbusdude82]

Yes, science is the same as the tobacco and meat and dairy industries

It's not like science has safeguards, like the scientific method, or peer reviews, or any of that

[Dos Equis]

   Missing the point.  The point was how an establishment responds when it is challenged.

Regarding safeguards, etc.:  "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." 

[columbusdude82]

That's exactly the thing, BeachBum. There is NO challenge from the creationists.

They can make colorful fancy-sounding pamphlets and websites, but when it comes to providing evidence for their ideas, or testable hypotheses for their theories, they got nothing.

As for their claims, they are easily demonstrated to be laughably false!

There are LOTS of challenges to neo-Darwinism coming from legitimate, qualified scientists with good points to make. Creationists aren't among them.

[columbusdude82]

Beach, a while back, I recommended a book to you, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design."

I'll recommend it again. It has all the science on the creationism/evolution debate, as well as (and that's the part relevant to your previous post), a list of the real difficulties and problem areas and challenges in evolution today.

You'll see that science isn't a closed club with stale air where no new ideas are allowed to permeate. Instead, it is the most vibrant, innovative, and challenge-seeking institution known to man!

[Decker]

Does not surprise me in the least.  The establishment's response to attacks is always to defend the establishment.  It happened with the tobacco industry.  I'm sure you know the tobacco industry had its own team of scientists who claimed nicotine was not addictive and did not cause cancer?  Do you recall anytime the Surgeon General issued a report on nicotine that the Tobacco Institute and its scientists issued contrary reports?  Every single time. 

Same thing happened with the meat and dairy industry.  If you want to read something that will challenge the way we were all raised (in terms of diet), try "The China Study:  The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health," by T. Colin Campbell.  Incredible stuff.  This guy's research shows that animal protein is the root cause of the diseases that kill most of us in this country.  What do you think the meat and dairy industry's response to his research and book was?  Do you remember Oprah getting sued for saying she was going to stop eating cheeseburger? 

I wouldn't expect the evolution proponents to react any differently. 

Columbusdude82 is doing a better job at this than I am. 

You are changing the subject.  Your taking the scientific community as whole--peer review, scientific methodology--and equating it with boughtnpaid hucksters with an ax to grind.  Which coincidentally is how creationists are viewed by the scientific community. 

Creationists are all bluster with a prejudicial religious chip on there collective shoulders.

[Dos Equis]

That's exactly the thing, BeachBum. There is NO challenge from the creationists.

They can make colorful fancy-sounding pamphlets and websites, but when it comes to providing evidence for their ideas, or testable hypotheses for their theories, they got nothing.

As for their claims, they are easily demonstrated to be laughably false!

There are LOTS of challenges to neo-Darwinism coming from legitimate, qualified scientists with good points to make. Creationists aren't among them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "creationists," but I'm reading a challenge to the theory of evolution right now.  Even created a thread about it.    There is nothing demonstrably false about this, which I've posted several times in this thread and others:  "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."  

You don't have to be a scientist to know that in two significant areas--the origin of life and macroevolution--there has been no observation and testing of predictions.  The response I hear when this is raised is an attack on Intelligent Design, which is really a different subject.  Some folks are almost afraid to admit there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution.  

[Dos Equis]

Beach, a while back, I recommended a book to you, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design."

I'll recommend it again. It has all the science on the creationism/evolution debate, as well as (and that's the part relevant to your previous post), a list of the real difficulties and problem areas and challenges in evolution today.

You'll see that science isn't a closed club with stale air where no new ideas are allowed to permeate. Instead, it is the most vibrant, innovative, and challenge-seeking institution known to man!

Thanks for the recommendation.  I might read it, but it will take a while.  I've been plodding through three other books. 

But I will say that I don't really need to read books about evolution.  I was taught that stuff in school.  I'm actually finding Billions of Missing Links, which challenges what I was taught, much more interesting. 

You shouldn't be afraid to read things that challenge your way of thinking.  About 8 or 9 years ago a nutritionist friend gave me a book called "Don't Drink Your Milk," which talked about problems with cow milk.  The result was I immediately got my kids off that stuff.  They've been drinking soy milk ever since.  Amazing what you can learn when you open your mind a little. 

[Dos Equis]

Columbusdude82 is doing a better job at this than I am. 

You are changing the subject.  Your taking the scientific community as whole--peer review, scientific methodology--and equating it with boughtnpaid hucksters with an ax to grind.  Which coincidentally is how creationists are viewed by the scientific community. 

Creationists are all bluster with a prejudicial religious chip on there collective shoulders.

I didn't change the subject at all.  I gave you a couple of examples of how an establishment responds when it is challenged.  I didn't expect you to agree. 

[Decker]

I didn't change the subject at all.  I gave you a couple of examples of how an establishment responds when it is challenged.  I didn't expect you to agree. 

The establishment is science itself--methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology.

How is the meat, cigarette and milk industries part of the legitimate world of scientific endeavor.


Hell, if you want fraudulent Ph.d.s, just look at the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute and gaze upon people who've sold their souls....not to mention professional credibility.

[Dos Equis]

The establishment is science itself--methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology.

How is the meat, cigarette and milk industries part of the legitimate world of scientific endeavor.


Hell, if you want fraudulent Ph.d.s, just look at the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute and gaze upon people who've sold their souls....not to mention professional credibility.

So what "methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology" has established the origin of life and macroevolution?  (I can answer that for you.) 

No, the scientific community isn't some amorphous endeavor or group of ideas.  It consists of people with ideas, etc. just like any other establishment.  The scientific community is no different than any other establishment.  No different than the tobacco industry with its scientists or the meat and dairy industries with theirs.  They all attempt(ed) to use science to support their positions.  They all attacked the messengers and the message when challenged.   

I didn't say anything about fraudulent PhDs.  Not sure where that came from?   

[columbusdude82]

I'm not sure what you mean by "creationists," but I'm reading a challenge to the theory of evolution right now.  Even created a thread about it.     There is nothing demonstrably false about this, which I've posted several times in this thread and others:  "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." 

You don't have to be a scientist to know that in two significant areas--the origin of life and macroevolution--there has been no observation and testing of predictions.  The response I hear when this is raised is an attack on Intelligent Design, which is really a different subject.  Some folks are almost afraid to admit there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution. 

Yeah, and that book was written by a member of a creationist organization, the Discovery Institute.

As for this overt concern with macroevolution, sorry to tell you, but it's been demonstrated in the lab, and there are no "gaping holes" in that regard.

Lots of brilliant articles in this regard in the biology literature, esp. journals like Nature.

[Decker]

So what "methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology" has established the origin of life and macroevolution?  (I can answer that for you.) 

No, the scientific community isn't some amorphous endeavor or group of ideas.  It consists of people with ideas, etc. just like any other establishment.  The scientific community is no different than any other establishment.  No different than the tobacco industry with its scientists or the meat and dairy industries with theirs.  They all attempt(ed) to use science to support their positions.  They all attacked the messengers and the message when challenged.   

I didn't say anything about fraudulent PhDs.  Not sure where that came from?   

The origin of life is still a mystery so your assertion is not apt.

The scientific community is different than the commercial bullshitters with Phds exactly b/c of the peer review of their work.

I refer to Phds b/c that's rather popular amongst scientists.