The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 29, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Upright Here is a list of eye types http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye It seems to me that each different type of eye has "something removed" from it when compared to other types of eye. A light sensitive patch is a eye with everything but light sensitivity removed.
And if this is an actual emperical observation, then please provide a link to the research that accomplished this “part” removal and subsequently confirmed that sight was maintained.
Words are tricky. People can have their eyes damaged from disease and significant parts damaged by accidents etc yet "sight" remains. Please define "sight". If you mean "eyesight exactly as good as it was before the part was removed or damaged" then no, it won't be the same. If you mean "some degree of sight" then yes, you can remove parts (as shown by the list of eye types and diseases) and "sight" remains. What use is half an eye? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html Oh, but I guess because it's TO it's not worth reading. Try this instead http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Eye_Evolution Plenty more examples out there.Echidna-Levy_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 140 Ouch! That's like playing tiddlywinks on a roller coaster! I think the neo-Darwinists expect to still be playing with a ball of silly putty, (Goo) that when disturbed will yield similar results no matter what you do to it.IRQ Conflict_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Tajimas, You said "We can remove parts and the system will keep on working" Below is a description of chemical sight, can you please give me the specific "part" you can remove from the organization and the "system will keep on working" And if this is an actual emperical observation, then please provide a link to the research that accomplished this "part" removal and subsequently confirmed that sight was maintained. Thanks, I look forward to reading it. When light strikes the retina of the eye, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to form trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before interacting with activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Take it up with Behe. He's the one who defined "irreducible complexity", not me. And what you're doing is exactly what I said you'd do: move the goalposts.
A: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex! (And because it is IC, I'm not even going to waste my own time trying to disprove my theory! How convenient! I'm right by default!) B: No it's not. We can take away a bunch of its parts and get the TTSS. Also, its parts are homologous with other proteins that have other roles elsewhere in the cell. A: Okay, well then the TTSS is irreducibly complex! B: Despite the fact that we know the IC is a flawed concept because evolution CAN produce what you call "irreducible complexity", are you just going to keep labelling things "irreducibly complex" if we don't already have an precise explanation for their origin? A: Yes. B: And you're not going to investigate any of those things either right? A: No. B: Well, alright then.
Tajimas D_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

"For all three of the major examples of IC proposed by Behe (the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the blood-clotting cascade), we’ve examined them and determined that he’s wrong. We can remove parts and the system will keep on working" I have seen this argument tried again and again. But it is a straw-man argument. If an IC system exist, and then one adds a feature to it such as adding a muffler to an exhaust system, is the new system still IC. Yes, but taking the muffler away does cause the system to be dysfunctional and this does not disprove that the original system is not IC or the improved system with the muffler is not IC because a part could still be removed and it would still work as an exhaust system. There may be other parts that could also be removed and it would still operate as an exhaust system but that still does not mean it is not an IC system. If at some level there will be no parts to take away and still have the system function, then the system is IC. The whole point of an IC system is that there is no pathway that a single part could be added from a preceding system and the new system is a better system or a different system that leads to selection. An IC system is one such that one cannot take parts away one at a time until there are none and have the system still be functional at each level using all the parts available in a systematic way at that level. The function could change each time but at each level all the parts are contributing and the total is functional. If at any level the remaining parts are not functioning in some systematic way with each other then the system is considered IC. By the way at each level it does not mean that each part is essential, only that it functions as part of the system and improves the system and would lead to its selection. So for the exhaust system, the muffler is not necessary but useful. Suppose that one added another part which turned the exhaust system into a secondary source of energy, then the new system would also be IC because you could subtract the new part and the system would still be functional. Subtract the muffler and the system would still be functional but then there may not be any parts to subtract and leave the system functional using all the parts. If one wants to disprove an IC system, then one has to show a pathway such that each incremental part makes the system different or better. That is give it a reason for the new particular combination to be selected. That is, it is functional all the way down. I have seen some very speculative ideas for a series of steps for the step wise evolution of the flagellum. The question is how plausible each step is in terms of function and then selection and how easily each could be constructed in an orderly process in the genome. It is not enough that the parts exist but the genome has to assemble them piece by piece.jerry_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

...all science so far Icon. :)Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

icon,
"Ken Ham hasn’t started a museum on it yet. And I doubt if many American children are indoctrinated with a strict belief in alchemy from a pre-school age."
1) What does Ken Ham, or any other person, have to do with the observable evidence that chance cannot coordinate disperate objects within molecular systems? Or, that researchers know of no qualities associated with chance mechanisms that could create the patterns observed in the sequencing of nucleotides? 2) So, you have an ideological battle against how American parents raise their children, and apparently, your battle will be complete when no one does anything that violates your ideology. 3) You expect to be taken seriously on both counts.Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

UprightBiPed: "The NCSE hasn’t formed a public realtions campaign chase alchemy from its midst." Ken Ham hasn't started a museum on it yet. And I doubt if many American children are indoctrinated with a strict belief in alchemy from a pre-school age. "The interesting question is it that they fear from the evidence?" Evidence? You mean the stuff in the museums that "herb" was referring to?iconofid_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Joseph@115 said:
ID is based on observations and experience.
Last I checked, the ID movement was run almost entirely by philosophers, mathematicians and comp-sci or engineering guys. And lest I forget the lawyers. (PROTIP: None of these people are particularly well known for being acquainted with the "observations and experience" relevant to evolutionary biology.)
ID can be tested.
To the extent that ID has made some specific falsifiable claims, I agree, it can. (Although I will note that it's very strange that the ID advocates never try to do this testing themselves. Merely a coincidence, I'm sure.) Let's take one example: "Irreducible complexity". First, let's ignore the fact that IC (as defined by Behe) was originally a prediction of evolutionary theory made by H.J. Muller, and the falsity that Behe's IC cannot evolve. For all three of the major examples of IC proposed by Behe (the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the blood-clotting cascade), we've examined them and determined that he's wrong. We can remove parts and the system will keep on working. Test failed.
ID can be tested.
No. Individual cases, like the ones I've listed above can be tested. ID cannot. No matter how many examples of supposed IC we investigate and debunk, there will always be more unknowns lurking around that you can label IC. A good scientific theory doesn't shrink away from explanations, it expands explanations. That's why ID is not science, and that's why ID is a god-of-the-gaps argument. (It also explains why ID researchers never bother to look in the gaps themselves. This shunning away from investigation is also, I need not say, the very antithesis of science.)Tajimas D_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

"Poor science." The science of checking does not exist. It is an art.jerry_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

icon: Thanks, I stand corrected.herb_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

herb: I hear you, bro. However, I don’t think the solution involves violence. Rather, I believe we should focus on things like “Expelled”, “The Voyage that Shook the World”, Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, that Ark thing in Hong Kong, etc. Education truly is the answer Ken Ham will tell you that it is not his museum. I'm just correcting you on a technical point in...err... I.D. theory. Ken says that the museum actually belongs to the Designer.iconofid_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

"Don’t you think it’s funny watching people flail away at things they refuse to understand?" There are, of course, those who havent a clue, and others who swim in willful ignorance, but don't think for a moment they (the scientists) don't understand it. These ridiculous counter-arguments don't come from mis-understanding, but from the lack of a meaningful counter-argument to propogate in its place.. It's like someone saying "ID has been ignored not just by information science but by every established science." That reaches the territory of a gutteral laugh. Take an inventory of the continuous attempts to rebuke it and trash the reputations of anyone speaks of it in virtually any way possible. Paulie didn't drive a rusty nail through a "goddamned cracker" because he just happened to have one handy and had nothing else to do but photograph his delicious deed for all to see. Dawkin's buses weren't a call for joy to passers by. The NCSE hasn't formed a public realtions campaign chase alchemy from its midst. The interesting question is it that they fear from the evidence?Upright BiPed_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Great drill. Great game. Poor science.Nakashima_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
Right you are and that is why I am all for forgetting the talk and breaking out the baseball bats and brass knuckles just as PZ wants.
I hear you, bro. However, I don't think the solution involves violence. Rather, I believe we should focus on things like "Expelled", "The Voyage that Shook the World", Ken Ham's Creation Museum, that Ark thing in Hong Kong, etc. Education truly is the answer.herb_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

"Right you are and that is why I am all for forgetting the talk and breaking out the baseball bats and brass knuckles just as PZ wants." I know you have played hockey and my son played a lot of hockey and one of his coaches (a real hard ass from near Montreal) once told the parents that hockey is a sport of courage won in the corners. So if their son was going to play for him they better be ready to dish it out and take it when the puck was loose behind the net. It was a war there. One of his drills was to have two skaters from opposite sides of the rink go after a puck loose behind the net and then skate it out in front of the net and take a shot. If you lost and the other guy took a shot, then you went into the losers side of the rink. Those who came away with the puck the most were the ones who generally made the team. Nobody wanted to be on the loser's side of the rink. There was a lot of hitting fighting for the puck. Great drill. Great game.jerry_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Barb says: Haeckel’s embryos was already brought up. I'm pleased that you'll be informing the owner of this blog of your distaste for schematic illustrations. :)iconofid_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Archaeoraptor. In 1999, National Geographic published a fawning article about how this proved dinosaurs evolved from birds (or into birds, I don’t remember). The fossil was a fake and the magazine had to print a retraction.
That claim didn't pass scientific peer review. Wikipedia:
On August 20 Nature rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that National Geographic had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that "the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased" and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value." Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.[6]
It was establishment science -- the very peer review that IDers constantly bypass -- that rejected the claim.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

“I, personally, have not seen a SHRED of dishonesty among those that propagate pro-evolution ideas, while I cannot find a single honest proponent of ID.” Haeckel’s embryos was already brought up. The illustrations were fraudulent and Haeckel knew this. So did many scientists who continued to use it to point out how marvelous evolution worked. Piltdown man. Seriously, do I have to bring this up? Archaeoraptor. In 1999, National Geographic published a fawning article about how this proved dinosaurs evolved from birds (or into birds, I don’t remember). The fossil was a fake and the magazine had to print a retraction. You say that you have seen no dishonesty? I respectfully suggest you open your eyes.Barb_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Right you are and that is why I am all for forgetting the talk and breaking out the baseball bats and brass knuckles just as PZ wants.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, No worries, you can't offend me and your attempts just make me laugh.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

"Don’t you think it’s funny watching people flail away at things they refuse to understand?" Not really. There has only been one anti ID person here who I respected and he has not posted here in almost two years. That was great_ape. The rest I could do without because I seldom learn anything from them. Sometimes, Allen MacNeill is rewarding to talk with when he is not blustering away about things he does not like about ID. The rest are here only for some unknown need which drives an almost 100% negative flow of comments of baiting and put downs. I actually find it unpleasant trying to have a conversation with someone who I would excuse myself from after about 30 second in a bar. I don't mind differences of opinion but the complete lack of respect exhibited is not a desirable trait in anyone. And I think that most of them do understand the ID position but that isn't their objective. They are trying to bait people into unpleasant conversations. And far too often they succeed.jerry_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Jerry, It's entertainment. Don't you think it's funny watching people flail away at things they refuse to understand? It is almost as good as watching "South Park".Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

"It’s called grown ups talking real science. I’ll speak to you tommrow." Why would a person with such an attitude bother to spend one minute here? Why do any of the anti ID people come here? If I disdained anything I would not spend a minute there. They do not come here with a pleasant attitude or in the spirit of having a conversation. They come here in an attempt to put people down. What drives individuals to behave like this. Whatever it is, it is not very flattering.jerry_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim. David Kellogg:
Reminds me of Shelley:
Which is about all you know about nested hierarchies.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
By the way, Joseph, ID has been ignored not just by information science but by every established science.
And the theory of evolution is built on ignorance. Something in common. Also sciences can't ignore. However it is obvious that scientists aren't ignoring ID.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.
Reminds me of Shelley:
“My name is Joseph, blogger of bloggers: Look upon my words, Evolutionists, and despair!” Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
By the way, Joseph, ID has been ignored not just by information science but by every established science.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
The burden is on ID to provide something real.
ID is based on observations and experience. ID can be tested. That is as real as it gets. Your position doesn't have anything real- just a glossy narrative.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
Anyone can talk Echidna, anyone can mock.
No kidding, ScottAndrews. That's all you've been doing. The burden is on ID to provide something real. So far they haven't done it.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

ID's mechanisms are as simple as what Dr Spetner put forth in "Not By Chance" in 1997. "Built-in responses to environmental cues"- ie directed mutations- directed by the cells and/or organisms needs. For example a gene duplication with a rapid integration would be a good sign of a directed mutation. That is because in order for a duplicated gene to do anything it requires a new binding site. A whole new binding site within its regulatory region. And seeing that getting one mutation to turn on a binding site is pretty much out of the reach of undirected processes, getting a whole new binding site would then be evidence for design as it is specified.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply