Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

CMI reviews ''Darwin Devolves''...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Behe's getting old, and he's running out of ideas.
    Lmao

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Ah, okay. Odd. Never seen the title changed like that before and I don't know where the 2020 date came from, but they're the same except the pdf has the whole paper. And being from 2014, it was more than enough time for Behe to be aware of it.
    Okay.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post

    Then you linked to the same article from 2014 twice. Rendering the remark ''to be fair this came out after Behe wrote his book, but before Bergman wrote his review'' invalid.
    Ah, okay. Odd. Never seen the title changed like that before and I don't know where the 2020 date came from, but they're the same except the pdf has the whole paper. And being from 2014, it was more than enough time for Behe to be aware of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    There is only one article
    Then you linked to the same article from 2014 twice. Rendering the remark ''to be fair this came out after Behe wrote his book, but before Bergman wrote his review'' invalid.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post

    Thanks for the observations, Rogue, but both articles about the spliceosome seem to be from 2014. I think you made a mistake.
    There is only one article

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    A bit more

    Let's stop right there since what follows immediately after is totally dependent on the veracity of this initial claim. In spite of the book being written 2019 and the review in 2021, they've had evolutionary explanation for the origin of the spliceosome for well over a decade prior to Behe's book. For instance:

    And here is an article from 2014 (pdf download), Spliceosome: the unravelling complexity: The evolution of cellular machines that is pertinent to the discussion

    So, probably just like Behe was forced to admit on the stand during Kitzmiller, they don't bother with actually reading the scientific literature before summarily dismissing it.

    I'll end with the observation that several of the spliceosome's characteristic constituents are already present in representative organisms from all of the eukaryotic supergroups that there are any considerable genome sequence information. Further, functionally important sequence elements contained within U12-type introns and snRNAs have been shown to be highly conserved during evolution.






    1 to be fair this came out after Behe wrote his book, but before Bergman wrote his review.
    Thanks for the observations, Rogue, but both articles about the spliceosome seem to be from 2014. I think you made a mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Let's stop right there since what follows immediately after is totally dependent on the veracity of this initial claim. In spite of the book being written 2019 and the review in 2021, they've had evolutionary explanation for the origin of the spliceosome for well over a decade prior to Behe's book.
    That really is astonishing incompetence. We have actually identified introns that splice themselves out with no co-factors needed. The spliceosome, which is a protein/RNA complex, is thought to have evolved through the addition of co-factors, while retaining the RNA-based recognition and catalysis. It is perhaps the most obvious and simple pathways towards the evolution of a complex system out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    A bit more
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post



    ''Principle of Comparative Difficulty Concept

    The Comparative Difficulty Concept idea is, if a task that requires a small amount of effort is too difficult to accomplish by natural laws alone, such as the origin of the spliceosome,
    Let's stop right there since what follows immediately after is totally dependent on the veracity of this initial claim. In spite of the book being written 2019 and the review in 2021, they've had evolutionary explanation for the origin of the spliceosome for well over a decade prior to Behe's book. For instance:

    And here is an article from 2014 (pdf download), Spliceosome: the unravelling complexity: The evolution of cellular machines that is pertinent to the discussion

    So, probably just like Behe was forced to admit on the stand during Kitzmiller, they don't bother with actually reading the scientific literature before summarily dismissing it.

    I'll end with the observation that several of the spliceosome's characteristic constituents are already present in representative organisms from all of the eukaryotic supergroups that there are any considerable genome sequence information. Further, functionally important sequence elements contained within U12-type introns and snRNAs have been shown to be highly conserved during evolution.






    1 to be fair this came out after Behe wrote his book, but before Bergman wrote his review.
    Last edited by rogue06; 03-28-2021, 09:48 AM. Reason: better link

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    I wonder what folks here, either creationists or evolutionists, have to say about these points?
    Behe's getting old, and he's running out of ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Behe argues it is not evidence that causes people to believe that evolution does all kinds of wonderful things, like turning dumb apes into intelligent men, but rather what is called in sociology groupthink, which has mesmerized the public and scientists alike
    Never have I heard something sound more like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz telling folks to "pay no attention to" what they can see behind the curtain. It is the epitome of the old Marx Brothers line about "who do you believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

    The fact is and remains that cross correlating, corroborating, consilient positive evidence from a quite literally dozens of different and independent scientific disciplines continues to amass for it on a daily basis. And don't try to hand me that "same evidence, different interpretation" garbage that they occasionally try to slip past us either.

    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Attach the name ‘science’ onto some claim and it implies the claim is fact.
    As evidenced by their success in getting fellow travelers to buy their pseudoscientific claptrap that they slough off as "science"?

    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Behe gives three nutrition examples that have been pushed for decades and are still widely believed, but which have turned out to be incorrect.
    Aside from nutrition research being an absolute cesspit with peer review of it being a well-known bad joke, pointing out old wives tales that tend to cling on is hardly evidence. How often do you still hear that cold weather gives you a cold? Does that mean we chuck all of medical science out the window and start wearing magical charms to ward off sickness?

    Besides, pointing to problems in nutrition as a way of saying that, say, genetic research, is a mess is faulty thinking in the extreme. It is like saying that finding a problem with the seat on some bicycles automatically equates to jet aircraft being unsafe.



    I'll continue this deconstruction later but for now point out this 40-plus page thread on the book from 2019: The book Darwin Devolves

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    started a topic CMI reviews ''Darwin Devolves''...

    CMI reviews ''Darwin Devolves''...

    The 2019 book by the biochemist Michael Behe.

    The review was done by Jerry Bergman. Posted on their website on March 26, 2021.

    Link: https://creation.com/review-darwin-devolves.

    Some interesting excerpts:

    ''Behe argues it is not evidence that causes people to believe that evolution does all kinds of wonderful things, like turning dumb apes into intelligent men, but rather what is called in sociology groupthink, which has mesmerized the public and scientists alike. Attach the name ‘science’ onto some claim and it implies the claim is fact. Behe gives three nutrition examples that have been pushed for decades and are still widely believed, but which have turned out to be incorrect. These are, consuming foods high in fat, cholesterol, and salt are major contributors to heart disease, strokes, and cancer. We now realize these nutrients “may not significantly … increase the risk of heart disease: but high levels of sugar can” (p. 27).

    As Behe notes, if nutritionists “can’t easily determine how one particular diet factor affects modern humans,” in spite of leading academics spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching this question using millions of intelligent subjects, often doctors and nurses, then the claim that evolutionists “know which—if any—of countless environmental factors drove evolutionary change in innumerable organisms in the distant past is ludicrous” (p. 28).''.

    ''Principle of Comparative Difficulty Concept

    The Comparative Difficulty Concept idea is, if a task that requires a small amount of effort is too difficult to accomplish by natural laws alone, such as the origin of the spliceosome, then a task that requires more effort, such as the origin of mitochondria, is also too difficult to achieve by natural laws alone (p. 28). Unable to explain the origin of the simpler building blocks for evolutionary change, such as the origin of many critical polypeptides, many Darwinists jump to over-arching explanations for what they believe must have happened in evolution in order to obtain the many life forms existing today, but if

    “… modeling even minor evolutionary effects is quite problematic, then the types of studies done by Stuart Kauffman, Andreas Wagner, and many others—which hope to account for massive evolutionary changes that occur over lengthy time frames—are simply pushing mathematical tools far past what they already labor unsuccessfully to explain. Mathematical models can’t explain greater evolutionary changes if they can’t account for lesser ones. They yield only a pretense of knowledge” (pp. 113–114).''.

    ''Behe cites a report that the observed six species of ground finches are actually one species. Thus, rather than 14 total species, there are far fewer, possibly even one (p. 147)! Furthermore, this study, one of the most detailed evolutionary studies ever completed, found that millions of generations and billions of birds produced only minor swings of a few traits, and no new trait. In Behe’s words,
    “If millions of years of such intense selection on finches as documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant can’t produce anything other than a finch, then what reason … is there to suppose it could produce significant new variations on a preexisting flagellum?” (p. 290).''.



    ''Many of the arguments against Behe include the claim that his ideas are creationist rhetoric, not science, by claiming he is arguing that “God did it”. Ironically, many reputable scientists use the same argument, only reverse it, claiming “God wouldn’t have done it that way”, basing their “conclusions almost completely on a sort of reverse theology. What God would or would not do is not within the competency of science to inquire” (p. 290).''.



    ''In chapter 9 Behe expands on the IC concept with the ‘comprehensively complex’ systems and ‘Mini-IC’. The basic idea is that, as one moves research analysis closer to the biomolecular level, many of the IC systems Behe discussed in his first book are actually made up of many Mini-IC systems. Not only are the parts IC, but so also are the mechanisms that must identify and supply the proper raw components in the right proportions at the right locations at the proper time in the proper order to function.''

    ''The lack of knowledge of the cell’s workings was the theme of Behe’s first book, appropriately titled Darwin’s Black Box. In short,
    “The appropriate straightforward criterion is this: if there are good physical reasons to think Darwinian routes wouldn’t work, and if after a diligent search no evidence is found that they do, then the [evolution] theory has failed” (p. 232).''.

    Richard Lenski’s research

    ''The results show that, after tens of thousands of generations and multibillions of bacteria, they are all still the same species, identical in most ways. Few, if any, substantive changes have occurred. As shown by the latest technology used to compare genomes, virtually all of the changes, even those that appear to add new functionality, occur by subtracting existing genetic information, not by the addition of new information. Thus no ‘gain-of-FCT’ occurred. The Darwinian mechanism does not occur in the direction so many people have assumed since Darwin’s Origin of Species was published.''.

    ''Behe also points out other examples that found the same result as the Lenski research, such as the African cichlid population whose time in their natural lake home was supposedly 500 times longer than Lenski’s bacteria were observed, i.e. 15,000 years. After all that time, all the cichlid varieties are still in the same family. Behe also cited the Lake Malawi cichlid study that produced a few million estimated years of random mutation and natural selection, and the Lake Tanganyika study that produced an estimated 10 million years, or about 333,000 times longer than Lenski’s in-lab results. These studies, contrary to the goals of each study, have provided no support for any type of evolutionary change beyond the genus level.

    If nobody can point to contrary biomolecular evidence, then Behe’s argument stands. As he explains, the reality today, at least for the short term, is that the facts boil down to who can tell the best story, or who has the most power to control what is presented and taught as truth in the universities and in the media; actual truth be damned.''.

    I wonder what folks here, either creationists or evolutionists, have to say about these points?


    Last edited by Seeker; 03-26-2021, 10:30 PM.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 07:38 PM
1 response
9 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by shunyadragon, 06-06-2021, 08:32 AM
62 responses
254 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by oxmixmudd, 06-01-2021, 01:10 PM
4 responses
47 views
1 like
Last Post TheLurch  
Started by shunyadragon, 05-26-2021, 08:26 AM
4 responses
23 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 05-22-2021, 07:57 AM
0 responses
21 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X