Secrets of the Cell: Dr. Michael Behe

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.
Especially not when Behe himself has published a peer-reviewed paper which supports evolution: Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
 
Science is based on the available evidence.
Evidence is not all the same. There is both qualitative and quantitative degrees of evidence. At some point the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence becomes irrefutable. Newton saw an apple fall from a tree is not the same evidence either in quality or quantity that Einstein had. To equivocate between the proof of their theories is a failed comparison.

The theory of evolution is based on so much quantity and quality of data that it is for all intents and purposes PROVEN. Nothing will change the fact that evolution is the best explanation for biologic diversity. We would have to be transported to an alternate universe, a matrix, a computer simulation, for that to happen. Is that a practical consideration? No. Religious fundamentalists just need to get over it and move on.

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.
Again, you erroneously lump all science in to one thing as if a graduate student and a highly regulated clinical study produce the same quality and quantity of evidence. They do not. The evidence of a clinical study performed by a Harvard M.D. and published in a peer-reviewed medical journal is NOT in the same category as evidence produced by a graduate student studying at Texas Christian University.
 
Evidence is not all the same. There is both qualitative and quantitative degrees of evidence. At some point the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence becomes irrefutable. Newton saw an apple fall from a tree is not the same evidence either in quality or quantity that Einstein had. To equivocate between the proof of their theories is a failed comparison.

The theory of evolution is based on so much quantity and quality of data that it is for all intents and purposes PROVEN. Nothing will change the fact that evolution is the best explanation for biologic diversity. We would have to be transported to an alternate universe, a matrix, a computer simulation, for that to happen. Is that a practical consideration? No. Religious fundamentalists just need to get over it and move on.




Again, you erroneously lump all science in to one thing as if a graduate student and a highly regulated clinical study produce the same quality and quantity of evidence. They do not. The evidence of a clinical study performed by a Harvard M.D. and published in a peer-reviewed medical journal is NOT in the same category as evidence produced by a graduate student studying at Texas Christian University.
Doc and Ros; this disagreement is merely about a more technical definition of "proof/prove" versus a more causal use of those words. Casually, Doc's point about evolution is correct: it's proven, for all intents and purposes. Similarly, Jerry Coyne has said, in reference to this very issue, that it's hard to imagine that any scientific discovery is going to overturn the conclusion that DNA is a molecule that carries and transmits genetic code from one generation to the next via reproduction. One usage of the word "proof" fits just that.

But, it is also true that, in a technical sense of the word that distinguishes between what science and math does, science doesn't prove, but math does.
 
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!
You have expressed your hopes and you have indirectly inferred your underlying fears quite well.

l am sympathetic to your fears. After all, you’ve placed your proverbial eggs in a single basket that can be likened to a mythological faith in make believe and you just hope you won’t be disappointed again by the influx of contrary evidences.

Sweet dreams
 
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.
So happy we’ve proceeded on to discussing science instead of rehashing evolution mythology
 
So happy we’ve proceeded on to discussing science instead of rehashing evolution mythology
You are not discussing either science or evolution. You are listening to some people who understand these things, discuss a few points. You are like a toddler listening to adults discussing Olympic equestrianism by saying "I can draw a horse! Look at my crayons!"
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw94qm4qdn8&t=1562s

This is just a "taste" of Dr. Behe's latest book: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

In a previous thread, "the Pixie" refers to him as a "huckster". And she brags that she's spent a massive10 years researching the subject of evolution. I personally have spent over 40 years, but who's counting. Evolutionists who want to debate evolution vs ID in this forum yet refuse to read books of this caliber are either fools or willfully ignorant, if not both.


evolution is correct as a fallen world paradigm, as a corruption in the current reality adam caused.

In His creation in the other reality, it doesnt exist.
 
In this one the projection strong is.
I used to attribute projection like this to Christian fundamentalism, but today we see the same phenomenon in right-wing conservative Republicans, too.

I wonder what causes it...
 
Glad you asked even though in the form of an old and worn out attachment cliche.
It seemed apt.

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.
The logic in evidence here is delightful.

Premise 1: I asked what part of "no proofs" you do not get
Conclusion 1: this leads you to think I do not understand "proofs"

I would love to know the thinking behind that, but I am going to guess that they is none beyond wishful thinking. But it continues...

Premise 2: I used an old cliché
Conclusion 2: this leads you to think I do not understand "cliché"

Again, I would love to know the thinking behind that too. My suspicion here is that you want to score a cheap point by getting to tell me the definition of something, and you are not to sure what "proof" means, so you have gone with another word altogether. Am I close?

Based on the fact you don’t understand “proofs” ...
Let us suppose I do not... Can you enlighten me?

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
What is stopping me from understanding them is that you repeatedly refuse to present them. Right now, I think that that is because they do not exist.

However, I have started a new thread for you to do that. We can either focus on your claims there, or we highlight the fact that you have nothing. I am guessing the latter from your performance so far.


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
There are no proofs of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics either.

You ignorance of science is showing.

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”
You claim there are proofs of creationism, so that is what I will expect.

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
What is your point? You come of this form claiming to have a flood of "proofs and evidence for creation". Naturally all the evolutionists will ask you to substantiate that.
 
I used to attribute projection like this to Christian fundamentalism, but today we see the same phenomenon in right-wing conservative Republicans, too.

I wonder what causes it...
As someone not from the US, I have always understood right-wing conservative Republicans to by-and-large be Christian fundamentalists. Is that not the case? Or was this sarcasm?
 
As someone not from the US, I have always understood right-wing conservative Republicans to by-and-large be Christian fundamentalists. Is that not the case? Or was this sarcasm?
Not sarcasm, but not exactly a claim that they're two separate groups, either.

There is definitely a lot of overlap, but the behavior of rightwing conservatives (re. in the context of this post) is distinctly different from people who'd call themselves "Christian": lies, hatred, anger, etc.

I made the distinction because I've known 2 Christian fundamentalists who were highly educated conservatives, who'd be aghast at the behavior of some of the Christians here. It's possible to belong to one group but not the other - but I'm not sure how common this is, here in the US.
 
It seemed apt.
Exactly, I didn’t expect originally
The logic in evidence here is delightful.

Premise 1: I asked what part of "no proofs" you do not get
Conclusion 1: this leads you to think I do not understand "proofs"

I would love to know the thinking behind that, but I am going to guess that they is none beyond wishful thinking. But it continues...

Premise 2: I used an old cliché
Conclusion 2: this leads you to think I do not understand "cliché"
Are you referencing your old high school philosophy notes as a guide for speaking syllogistically?

Nice try but let me help you

First of all, a syllogism has 3 parts not 2 like yours. AND you must also construct it properly.

Briefly, a logical syllogism has at least 3 parts: a major promise, a minor premise (both must be true) and finally a conclusion
For example:
  1. All A are B. (major premise)
  2. All C are A.(minor premise)
  3. Therefore, all C are B (conclusion)
Again, I would love to know the thinking behind that too. My suspicion here is that you want to score a cheap point by getting to tell me the definition of something, and you are not to sure what "proof" means, so you have gone with another word altogether. Am I close?
Once again you've revealed the basis for your thinking (your suspicions here and your feeling in another post)
Let us suppose I do not... Can you enlighten me?


What is stopping me from understanding them is that you repeatedly refuse to present them. Right now, I think that that is because they do not exist.

However, I have started a new thread for you to do that. We can either focus on your claims there, or we highlight the fact that you have nothing. I am guessing the latter from your performance so far.



There are no proofs of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics either.
Where did l say anything about the laws of thermodynamics? Your anticipation must be eating away at you
You ignorance of science is showing.
In your mind? Never mind that!
You claim there are proofs of creationism, so that is what I will expect.
Stop worrying
What is your point? You come of this form claiming to have a flood of "proofs and evidence for creation". Naturally all the evolutionists will ask you to substantiate that.
I will calm your anxious curiosities, just grab a cool drink and relax
 
Especially not when Behe himself has published a peer-reviewed paper which supports evolution: Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
Oh, this is more than I could have hoped for. Thank you so much for such an astute observation!

Remember Behe’s book that I recommended in the OP (Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution?)? Had you read it, you could have saved yourself from embarrassment. He devotes several pages of the book (beginning on page 237) to this paper and it most certainly was NOT intended to “support” evolution. If you were as knowledgeable as you pretend, you would have realized that he published Darwin’s Black Box in 1998. I still have my copy. By 2004, he was among the most well-known proponent of ID within the scientific community.

Regarding the paper, he writes, “Emails soon flooded the journal’s editorial office demanding an explanation for the journal’s publication of a paper by a known intelligent design advocate”. Dr. Michael Lynch, a mathematical geneticist, wrote a rebuttal. In the final analysis, they came to essentially the same conclusion. And it most certainly did NOT “support” evolution. For the details and to expand your horizon a bit, READ THE BOOK!

And for all of you morons who are constantly blathering that ID produces no peer reviewed science, you are simply exhibiting your arrogant ignorance!
 
[]Oh, this is more than I could have hoped for. Thank you so much for such an astute observation!

Remember Behe’s book that I recommended in the OP (Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution?)? Had you read it, you could have saved yourself from embarrassment. He devotes several pages of the book (beginning on page 237) to this paper and it most certainly was NOT intended to “support” evolution. If you were as knowledgeable as you pretend, you would have realized that he published Darwin’s Black Box in 1998. I still have my copy. By 2004, he was among the most well-known proponent of ID within the scientific community.

Regarding the paper, he writes, “Emails soon flooded the journal’s editorial office demanding an explanation for the journal’s publication of a paper by a known intelligent design advocate”. Dr. Michael Lynch, a mathematical geneticist, wrote a rebuttal. In the final analysis, they came to essentially the same conclusion. And it most certainly did NOT “support” evolution. For the details and to expand your horizon a bit, READ THE BOOK!

And for all of you morons who are constantly blathering that ID produces no peer reviewed science, you are simply exhibiting your arrogant ignorance!
If you have a point to make, make it by quoting, or at least summarising what was said. At the moment all you are doing is writing sub-standard click bait in an attempt to make us buy a book. If you cannot reproduce the main findings in a form that can be posted here, then I for one am not interested. I will look out for the clamour as soon as evolution is disproved. Should be a big story. In the meantime, colour me unconvinced.

Forgive me for reducing the size of your font to normal. I don't like shouting.
 
Thank you so much for such an astute observation!
Not just my observation. Behe's paper showed that a simple IC system could evolve in a small population of bacteria in about 20,000 years. This was confirmed by Behe's own testimony at the Kitzmiller trial shortly after the paper was published.

Behe's idea of Irreducible Complexity was partly correct in that IC systems cannot evolve by the direct route. However, they can evolve by indirect routes. Behe's paper was a calculation of just how likely such an indirect route would be. As it turned out, 20,000 years is relatively fast on an evolutionary timescale.
 
If you have a point to make, make it by quoting, or at least summarising what was said. At the moment all you are doing is writing sub-standard click bait in an attempt to make us buy a book. If you cannot reproduce the main findings in a form that can be posted here, then I for one am not interested. I will look out for the clamour as soon as evolution is disproved. Should be a big story. In the meantime, colour me unconvinced.

Forgive me for reducing the size of your font to normal. I don't like shouting.
THIS IS SHOUTING. I'm 77 and have a hard time reading small font. I use larger font to make my posts easier to read, If it offends you, don't read it.

I'm not a biochemists and am certainly not going to waste hours of my time trying to summarize a complicated subject only to have it thoroughly trashed in this forum.

I can't "make" anyone here buy a book. And I frankly don't care whether you're interested or not.

Yesterday, I received a copy of Dr. Daniel Dennett's relatively recent book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. I have a keen interest in the so-called mind-body problem as it relates to evolution and I'm keen to read an evolutionist's view on the subject. As I understand it, the major purpose of this forum is to debate evolution vs ID. Personally, I view this debate as similar to a defense lawyer defending someone accused of murder. A good lawyer will demand to see all of the evidence that the prosecution has accumulated and is required by law to provide. Evolutionists here who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to read anything written by proponents of ID are simply ill equipped to engage in a meaningful debate making most exchanges a pure waste of time. This thread has certainly devolved into an exercise in futility.
 
Yesterday, I received a copy of Dr. Daniel Dennett's relatively recent book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. I have a keen interest in the so-called mind-body problem as it relates to evolution and I'm keen to read an evolutionist's view on the subject. As I understand it, the major purpose of this forum is to debate evolution vs ID. Personally, I view this debate as similar to a defense lawyer defending someone accused of murder. A good lawyer will demand to see all of the evidence that the prosecution has accumulated and is required by law to provide. Evolutionists here who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to read anything written by proponents of ID are simply ill equipped to engage in a meaningful debate making most exchanges a pure waste of time. This thread has certainly devolved into an exercise in futility.
IDists have a long history of recycling the same nonsense again and again. As far as I can tell from the video, Behe is just trotting out arguments refuted long ago. We have discussed on CARM numerous times, see for example here:

I have several books by Christians on Christianity, more than I have on evolution or atheism, so I agree with your sentiment. If I thought creationists had an argument, I would definitely research it, but that does not seem to be the case here.
 
Back
Top