|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: an example of ID research and paper | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Randman, what evidence of Intelligent design do you think the paper in the OP presents?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I could restate what the author says but I did not start the thread to get into the particulars of the paper. Otherwise, it'd be a proposed topic, but just pointing out that the attempt to claim no ID papers and research are done is incorrect, and that attempts to claim this doesn't relate to ID conflict with the author's concept of what the paper does, nor does it reflect the funding as it came from an ID organization.
If you want to claim that, yes, ID papers and research are done but in YOUR OPINION, the work doesn't properly address ID, that is fine. My point is to correct the oft-repeated slur by so many evos in pretending ID scientists are not doing research and publishing in areas they believe relate to ID. I would not expect evos to admit that the work is valid since they are so predisposed to rejecting any ID concepts a priori, but I do expect some honesty in admitting that it is wrong to smear such scientists as not doing research and publishing in areas they believe relate to Intelligent Design. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given. "Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Does that mean you won't say or that you don't know?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
That means exactly what I said and what I said in the OP. Perhaps you should reread it.
Are you prepared to admit ID scientists do indeed do research and publish and believe they are doing ID research? Just a simple question.....should be easy to answer yes or no. Edited by randman, : No reason given. "Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution." Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: A paper on protein dynamics isn't necessarily supportive of ID, nor is necessarily supportive of evolution. Before you can say that a paper supports a particular idea, you have to have established a clear benchmark to detail why that idea is supportive. ID doesn't have this at all... the major attempt was Irreducible Complexity and it utterly collapsed under examination on all fronts. If you had a proposal for a research project without a clear idea of how to reach an end goal, you're never going to get funding for it from anyone of any degree of critical intelligence. Sure you could say "Hey, in YOUR OPINION my work doesn't seem capable of reaching a solid conclusion," but frankly that's still not gonna cut it, Evo/ID bias or no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why don't you read the comments in the OP? Here they are again.
I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. Is it your opinion that positing 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion is something we should consider reasonably possible and likely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
I'm sure you don't take evolutionary biologists at face value until you read the research yourself. Please allow me the same benefit now that I have the papers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Are you prepared to admit ID scientists do indeed do research and publish and believe they are doing ID research? Yes, I am quite prepared to accept that, I have never suggested otherwise. What I question is whether that belief counts for anything. We don't base the strength of research on the beliefs of the authors but on how well that research actually substantiates some hypothesis or demonstrates some novel observation. I think Beaglebob just highlighted your double standard. You are quite prepared to accept that these papers offer evidence for ID just because the author says so but are prepared to deny that any paper offers evidence for evolution, no matter what its author's may say. So you claim that 'In fact, there are probably more ID papers than evo papers in the sense that at least there are some ID papers trying to establish ID related concepts whereas the fundamentals of Darwinism are merely asssumed.' just on the basis that the ID proponents tell you that is what they are doing? Can you actually give us any single example at all of an ID paper which tries to establish fundamental ID concepts experimentally, because these papers by Doug Axe certainly don't. On the other hand you have been given countless references for papers providing evidence for natural selection, the generation of genetic diversity by mutation, and common descent from various disciplines and seem quite happy to deny their strength as evidence. Is it just that an ID proponent's word is better to you than an evolutionary biologist's? shouldn't the important thing be the strength of the research and what that research shows? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Dr. Axe writes: I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails... I'd be perfectly happy to recognize that the ID movement is writing scientific papers, but given that the workings of ID are still as yet totally undefined I can't see how any paper can possibly claim to be providing evidence for them. This doesn't look like the testable ID hypothesis we've all been waiting for... Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4484 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
btw could ID ever be falsified? Wouldn't there have to be a way for it to be proven wrong for it to really be a legitimate scientific theory? Since ID presumes the existence of a supernatural designer, all the evidence that seems to show that much of biology doesn't appear intelligently designed can be explained away by saying something along the lines of "the intelligent designer (god) just chose to do it that way" or perhaps "god just guided evolution but hasn't controlled every aspect of it". If you can circumvent criticisms to your "theory" by saying such things, then your "theory" isn't truly scientifically viable. There's no way to prove it wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
As a theory, yes. As an attitude, apparently not.
Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" centered around the idea that there are some structures that are so complex that they no longer function when one component is removed (thereby making a stepwise construction through evolution grotesquely improbable). His favorite example was the bacterial flagellum. Behe's hypothesis was put to the test, and failed utterly. Researchers like Ken Miller later showed that the flagellum can, in fact, be built from more primitive precursors (in this instance, the type 3 secretory system that bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells). Behe was unperturbed, and in the Dover trial rewrote his thesis so that an irreducibly complex structure cannot retain its current function when one component is removed. While this definition certainly entails that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, it's meaningless since evolutionary processes can account for its development, regardless of its "irreducibly complex" nature. This is where ID as an attitude is unfalsifiable. Behe is stubborn and adamant that his thesis is true, and will bend over backwards to make sure it is so by ignoring all other relevant data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. So, another creationist halfwit who hasn't bothered to find out what the theory of evolution is, and thinks that whining about his strawman of "chance" will establish intelligent design. If that worked, the creationists would have won a long time ago. They'd have won the first time one of them was too lazy and dumb to find out what the theory of evolution is. Failed. Next. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Uh huh? So scientists getting published are half-wits if they are not evos? Is that by definition, Adequate?
It's really pathetic on your part to continue to hide behind the false smear that no one that disagrees with you really understands evolution in the first place. I suppose he having a Phd and is a published scientist means nothing. He JUST CAN'T understand evo theory and still reject it.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
randman writes: Uh huh? So scientists getting published are half-wits if they are not evos? Is that by definition, Adequate? Speaking of definitions, what's an "evo"? Looking at the arguments put forward by most creationists, Michael "common descent" Behe could be called one. And I think there are a few "front loader" I.D. people who go further than Behe, and are complete "evos". They just aren't "abios", as their intelligent designer created the initial life form. I.D. is a broad church, and inevitably always will be, because sectarianism is a characteristic of religion (anyone can make up different evidenceless versions of what the intelligent designer actually does and doesn't do, so theological differences automatically happen, as we can see in the entire history of the Abrahamic religions and their numerous sects). But directly on to the topic, and I think there are problems with the O.P.
randman writes: I really cannot debate the research itself and so am not proposing it for a thread topic except to mention it in the "In the News" section to show that as far as the author of the paper, right or wrong, he considers the paper and research to be evidence in favor of Intelligent Design. Fine, perfectly correct, and we can all agree on that, but:
To simply claim no ID research or papers are done is false. The problem sentence. If Dr Axe is wrong, and none of his papers show evidence for intelligent design, then it could be correct to claim that no I.D. research or papers are done, and, more importantly, there would be nothing in the O.P. that backs that single sentence up. It should have read "if Dr. Axe is right, then to simply claim no I.D. research or papers are done is false."
Keep in mind I am not saying anything about the veracity of his paper except it was published, is in the news, and the author considers it ID research and publication. That would be correct, except that with the sentence I italicized, you are, in a sense, assuming that Axe's paper supports I.D. So, this thread is obsolete, as a technical discussion of the paper in relation to I.D. is required, and, understandably randman does not want to do that here (or anywhere, I would guess).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Just correcting the blatant falsehood oft-repeated here that somehow there are no ID papers and research. It's a shame you are not just admitting that, yes, it's wrong for evos here to falsely claim no ID research and papers are done, but that appears to much to ask of some, I suppose.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024