Secrets of the Cell: Dr. Michael Behe

[The Pixie]

Ok, you say no proofs?? Would you explain.

What part of "no proofs" do you not get?

Further down you mention “evidence”.

Right. You spotted that. Well done.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence. ID has pretty much none.

What’s your rush, I’m not on your time table and I could care even less about your insinuations and your behaviors.

You claimed “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”. Either you really have some, in which case it will be trivially easy for you to say what they are, or you do not.

Apparently it is not trivially easy for you to say what they are.

Curiously, at this juncture, you claim your propositions “...are based on good evidence and good science.”
So you do have proofs or do you not? If “science has no proofs” then why do you? Perhaps your “evidence” doesn’t count as proof??
Where have your proofs or evidence come from if not from science?

I said there is good evidence, I did not say there is proof.

Do you understand the difference? I mean, clearly you do not, but perhaps you might take the hint and find out.

Before I open the floodgates of proofs and evidence for creation...

Hilarious.

Before I open the floodgates of proofs and evidence for creation, let’s come to an agreement on the use of terminology.
What exactly do you intend to convey when you use the terms “evidence” and “proof”?

As per the dictionary is fine. I would hate to stall this flood of proofs and evidence!

Oh you’re in such a hurry to gush forth with your own uninformed opinions.

What are you talking about DaGeo? What opinion have I expressed that you believe to be uninformed?

Or are you just going with accusation by insinuation here?

Maybe that explains your mad rush to believe in the molecules to man myth of evolution.

Pixie, some things just can’t be rushed, you come across as one desperate to belief anything in order to avoid the possibility of acknowledging God’s existence—that’s just my observation

Why do I get the feeling this is part of the stalling strategy. That supposed flood of proofs and evidence will be forever just a day or so away.

Furthermore, I’m sure you’re acquainted with the evidence I’m about to share and you will once again attempt to suppress it by drawing from your circle of opinions, pictures and conjecture consistent with yours.

If you mean I will trash it for the nonsense it is, then yes.

 

[Temujin]

What part of "no proofs" do you not get?


Right. You spotted that. Well done.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence. ID has pretty much none.


You claimed “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”. Either you really have some, in which case it will be trivially easy for you to say what they are, or you do not.

Apparently it is not trivially easy for you to say what they are.


I said there is good evidence, I did not say there is proof.

Do you understand the difference? I mean, clearly you do not, but perhaps you might take the hint and find out.


Hilarious.


As per the dictionary is fine. I would hate to stall this flood of proofs and evidence!


What are you talking about DaGeo? What opinion have I expressed that you believe to be uninformed?

Or are you just going with accusation by insinuation here?


Why do I get the feeling this is part of the stalling strategy. That supposed flood of proofs and evidence will be forever just a day or so away.


If you mean I will trash it for the nonsense it is, then yes.

I think we are headed for yet another session of why science, unlike mathematics doesn't do proof. Touching on "It's only a theory" and "How come there are still monkeys?" talking to creationists is like groundhog day, all over again.

 

[DaGeo]

I think we are headed for yet another session of why science, unlike mathematics doesn't do proof. Touching on "It's only a theory" and "How come there are still monkeys?" talking to creationists is like groundhog day, all over again.

Thanks for recognizing the fact Pixie needs assistance. I doubt anyone would want assistance from one who can’t define an ad hominem fallacy

 

[Temujin]

Thanks for recognizing the fact Pixie needs assistance. I doubt anyone would want assistance from one who can’t define an ad hominem fallacy

@The Pixie needs no assistance from me, or anyone else on this subject. Besides, the school cat would best you in an argument, without assistance.

 

[rossum]

Ok, you say no proofs?? Would you explain.
Further down you mention “evidence”.

Science does not do proof. Proofs are for mathematics, which is why mathematics has theorems instead of theories. Theorems are proved.

Scientific theories are never proved. Just as well, otherwise Copernicus' theory would never have replaced Ptolemy's theory of the solar system.

Scientific theories are supported by evidence. As the evidence changes, so the theories change to incorporate the new evidence.

I would suggest taking a good course giving an introduction to science. That way you will not make so many mistakes.

 

[DaGeo]

What part of "no proofs" do you not get?

Glad you asked even though in the form of an old and worn out attachment cliche.

Based on the fact you don’t understand “proofs” you might not understand the meaning of the word “cliche” either so here it is: cliché is a phrase that, due to overuse, is seen as lacking in substance or originality.

Which leads me to assume you are probably reading obsolete science books that introduced the worn out phrase in the first place.

Right. You spotted that. Well done.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence. ID has pretty much none.


You claimed “proofs and evidences that contradict evolution”. Either you really have some, in which case it will be trivially easy for you to say what they are, or you do not.

Apparently it is not trivially easy for you to say what they are

Yes, easy for me but not for you to comprehend based on your lack of unbiased understanding as evidenced in your responses to others. But—perhaps repetition of the true facts might just be the cure

I said there is good evidence, I did not say there is proof.

Do you understand the difference? I mean, clearly you do not, but perhaps you might take the hint and find out
Hilarious.

There are no proofs that would lead a rational mind to such an egregious form of mythology like the unscrupulously unscientific myth of evolution. Yes, quite hilarious you believe that it does. BTW You’re credulity is showing

As per the dictionary is fine. I would hate to stall this flood of proofs and evidence!

No worries, I’m having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have with your “no proofs” approach to understanding er “understanding”

What are you talking about DaGeo? What opinion have I expressed that you believe to be uninformed?

Not only have you clung to your legion of uniformed opinions, now you’re following through with uniformed questions as well. Oh well, one bad thing just leads to another

Or are you just going with accusation by insinuation here?


Why do I get the feeling this is part of the stalling strategy. That supposed flood of proofs and evidence will be forever just a day or so away.

I’m glad you’re beginning to recognize the fact that your feelings play a significant role in the formulation of your presuppositions.
Well done

If you mean I will trash it for the nonsense it is, then yes.

What have we here. Another presup based on your feelings? That’s ok, sometimes we occasionally miss one here and there but don’t give up

 

[DaGeo]

@The Pixie needs no assistance from me, or anyone else on this subject. Besides, the school cat would best you in an argument, without assistance.

Then why are you helping her

 

[Temujin]

Then why are you helping her

I'm posting here on my own account, showing that a poster who thinks that opinions are uniformed, that translational forms are anything to do with evolution and that science requires proofs is, as another poster put it so eloquently, the Emperor showing off his new clothes.

 

[DaGeo]

I'm posting here on my own account, showing that a poster who thinks that opinions are uniformed, that translational forms are anything to do with evolution and that science requires proofs is, as another poster put it so eloquently, the Emperor showing off his new clothes.

Glad you’re confidently moving forward. Congrats!!

But No, you have it wrong, Science doesn’t necessarily require proofs but it can be, in some contexts, appealed to as proof.

Very important to properly contextualize your terminology. You’re welcome

Hope that helps

 

[DaGeo]

My bet is Christmas Eve. 2023.

Perhaps your first

 

[docphin5]

Did you even bother to read the OP? I thought it was rather clear but apparently, it was above your reading level. Let’s try again. I posted:



So just to be clear, Behe committed his assertions to a book, the title of which was provided in the OP. Now do you understand?

I do not need to read his book for two obvious reasons,

1) all published peer-reviewed science supports evolution. Tens of thousands of studies in diverse science subjects: medical, geology, paleotology, etc. ALL correlate with the evolution as the explanation for biological diversity. I spent an entire lifetime in biomedical science immersed in all that medical science published in peer-reviewed studies and textbooks to know what is out there. One book is NOT going to change that fact.

2) If Pixie’s analysis of the You Tube presentation is correct (and kudos for him/her for taking the time to review it) then the book has nothing else to offer because presumably the author would have put his BEST arguments forward in a presentation outlining his argument.

What is obvious to me is that you found a book that told you what you WANTED to hear, and damn the peer-reviewed science accepted by the world, —no kidding, the entire scientific world gets it. You can now run off to your church and tell them what they WANT to hear so you can all pat yourselves on the back and commiserate how evil Satan is opposing what you have convinced yourselves must be true.

The real problem is not evolution or even reality but YOUR interpretation of the Bible. You need to start over because somewhere along the way, the church took a wrong turn if it has led you to take a position opposed to the reality you find yourself in.

 

[docphin5]

Science does not do proof. Proofs are for mathematics, which is why mathematics has theorems instead of theories. Theorems are proved.

Scientific theories are never proved. Just as well, otherwise Copernicus' theory would never have replaced Ptolemy's theory of the solar system.

Scientific theories are supported by evidence. As the evidence changes, so the theories change to incorporate the new evidence.

I would suggest taking a good course giving an introduction to science. That way you will not make so many mistakes.

I have been involved with science long enough to know that enough evidence is practically considered as proof of a theory. To say there is no proof of anything in science is misleading and serves no benefit other than to cast doubt on everything science teaches. Is that your intent? to cast doubt on all science?! Certainly, there is a difference between the scientific results of a graduate student studying how paint reflects sound waves to the results of a highly regulated clinical study.

 

[Temujin]

I have been involved with science long enough to know that enough evidence is practically considered as proof of a theory. To say there is no proof of anything in science is misleading and serves no benefit other than to cast doubt on everything science teaches. Is that your intent? to cast doubt on all science?!

I think that the intention was to promote the language of science when discussing science. The obfuscation is very much on the other side of the argument.

 

[DaGeo]

I do not need to read his book for two obvious reasons,

1) all published peer-reviewed science supports evolution. Tens of thousands of studies in diverse science subjects: medical, geology, paleotology, etc. ALL correlate with the evolution as the explanation for biological diversity. I spent an entire lifetime in biomedical science immersed in all that medical science published in peer-reviewed studies and textbooks to know what is out there. One book is NOT going to change that fact.

2) If Pixie’s analysis of the You Tube presentation is correct (and kudos for him for taking the time to review it) then the book has nothing else to offer because presumably the author would have put his BEST arguments forward in a presentation outlining his argument.

What is obvious to me is that you found a book that told you what you WANTED to hear, and damn the peer-reviewed science accepted by the world, —no kidding, the entire scientific world gets it. You can now run off to your church and tell them what they WANT to hear so you can all pat yourselves on the back and commiserate how evil Satan is opposing what you have convinced yourselves must be true. The real problem is not evolution or even reality but YOUR interpretation of the Bible. You need to start over because somewhere along the way, the church took a wrong turn.

A review of your entire post can be summed as follows:
Peers and friends of peers of the same mind, do not, in the slightest degree, meet the criteria for a reliably systematic peer review.

But what else would you expect from an “educational” establishment largely controlled by single party politics and censorship rather than being guided in an objective quest for knowledge

 

[docphin5]

I think that the intention was to promote the language of science when discussing science. The obfuscation is very much on the other side of the argument.

IMO, it creates confusion to assert that there are “no proofs in science“ because enough science saying the same thing over and over for all practical intents and purposes is proof of a theory. Case in point, evolution, there is enough data to definitively say that evolution is the best explanation for biological diversity. Nothing is going to change that fact.

 

[docphin5]

A review of your entire post can be summed as follows:
Peers and friends of peers of the same mind, do not, in the slightest degree, meet the criteria for a reliably systematic peer review.

But what else would you expect from an “educational” establishment largely controlled by single party politics and censorship rather than being guided in an objective quest for knowledge

You clearly have no clue what peer-reviewed science is. It means independently verifiable and repeatable. It means anyone can do the science for themselves and come up with the same results.

Unlike theology where a bunch of people sit around and interpret scripture however they want then declare any differing opinions as heretics.

 

[DaGeo]

IMO, it creates confusion to assert that there are “no proofs in science“ because enough science saying the same thing over and over for all practical intents and purposes is proof of a theory. Case in point, evolution, there is enough data to definitively say that evolution is the best explanation for biological diversity. Nothing is going to change that fact.

Oh, when will you guys make up your minds

 

[Temujin]

IMO, it creates confusion to assert that there are “no proofs in science“ because enough science saying the same thing over and over for all practical intents and purposes is proof of a theory. Case in point, evolution, there is enough data to definitively say that evolution is the best explanation for biological diversity. Nothing is going to change that fact.

I tend to agree with you. Except that physicists felt the same about Newtonian physics. It is certainly the case that evolution is a great Theory, not least because it works. Anything that sought to replace it would need to explain equally well the mass of data we currently have. In practice that means that only the odd tweak is possible. Perhaps we are talking about two different things. The fact of evolution, which as been proved to exist, and the Theory of Evolution, which provides an explanation of that fact. Other explanations, to be more successful than the ToE, would have to fit into a very small, and shrinking gap. No current contenders exist.

 

[docphin5]

Oh, when will you guys make up your minds

You demonstrate my point. Whenever someone says, “science proves nothing” then the religious fundamentalist ears prick up and he/she looks for that evidence which will overturn evolution, —a book, a website, an online forum, etc. This is a false hope, a dead end in a dark tunnel, a path to futility, an irrational belief in something that will never happen. It would be better for them to cut their losses, give up on their futile hope, and rewind to the point when they took the wrong fork in the road, and start again.

For all practical intent and purposes evolution has been proven. Get over it!

 

[rossum]

I have been involved with science long enough to know that enough evidence is practically considered as proof of a theory. To say there is no proof of anything in science is misleading and serves no benefit other than to cast doubt on everything science teaches. Is that your intent? to cast doubt on all science?! Certainly, there is a difference between the scientific results of a graduate student studying how paint reflects sound waves to the results of a highly regulated clinical study.

Science is based on the available evidence. The thing about evidence is that new evidence may be found at any time, hence all science is provisional pending the arrival of new evidence. A scientific theory is the best explanation currently available.

Newton's theory was provisional, and was replaced by Einstein's theory because new evidence about the precession of the orbit of Mercury showed that Newton's theory was not as accurate as it could be. Evidence observed from Black Holes shows that Einstein's theory has inaccuracies in conditions of very large mass and very small dimensions. Scientists are currently working on a theory of Quantum Gravity to replace Einstein's General Relativity.

Mathematical theorems do not rely on evidence. The conditions in which they apply are explicitly stated, and those conditions are included in the theorem.

Science has to allow for the fact that it does not know everything, so it has to allow more flexibility as new things are discovered.