Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

Intelligent design v Devolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#101  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 11, 2020 1:01 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Everyone here is wasting their time.



Depends on what one's expected outcome is.

If you mean in terms of convincing Wortfish that his motivation to deny science in favour of his ancient doggerel is inane, then yes, people would be wasting their time - he's shown many times before how disinterested he is in truth, honesty, integrity, knowledge, reality and the likes.

But there are numerous other motivations that don't require anything of Wortfish other than that he continue exactly as he is wont to do, and while they may not serve some grand outcome, they can still be adequate. :cheers:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#102  Postby The_Metatron » Apr 11, 2020 4:23 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

So much wrong in so few words.

Let's see.

Sensitivity to light alone is not enough? No one would ever suggest that is all there is. Organisms already had flight responses when they detected they were being attacked, whether that be from pressure on their cell wall, or from perturbations in the medium around them - the solitary light sensitive cell simply gave them another way to detect the approach of a threat and to then employ existing behaviors in response to that detection.

Sensitivity to light is not a trivial development. It requires light-sensitive proteins and phototransduction circuits, the combination of which require more than just a couple of mutations.

No 'slight twitch' - a concerted effort to move away. Detect sudden loss of light - move. It doesn't need to guarantee successful evasion of a predator; it only needs to offer a statistically greater chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, or longer to reproduce more to ensure that the gene producing that photosensitive spot would be preferentially retained.


You don't seem to understand that a rudimentary system would not produce that kind of response. The robust response which you envisage would only happen once further changes and improvements had been made.

The thing is, this is such basic stuff, and the eye... I mean, seriously? Why do Creationists invariably rattle on about the eye when it's been studied from the context of evolutionary biology for the better part of a century? Just how outdated you folks are!

Maybe because Darwin wrote the following:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

No, Wortfish, He wrote this:

Charles Darwin wrote: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Read that part in bold red font. Read it again. Read it until you understand it, and forever forget about that quote mine of yours as any sort of support for whatever you believe.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21064
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#103  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 11, 2020 8:40 pm

campermon wrote:The eye? Bacterial flagellum?

Have we gone back in time by 10 years?

No, his arguments just never evolved. No wonder he has so much trouble with the concept.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14598
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#104  Postby laklak » Apr 11, 2020 9:36 pm

Anybody remember The Champion back on RDF? He used to say "My kind didn't evolve!". He didn't realize how true that was.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#105  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 3:11 am

Rumraket wrote:
Ahh the "specific / peculiar compotent" as opposed to the "generic" one. What the hell does that mean? Either two components work together or they do not. Some times they do, and when they do, natural selection can favor that association.


By specific/peculiar, I mean a component that is new, not something recruited from an existing inventory.

Yeah some of them do this just by themselves. Some proteins will naturally oligomerize into structures like pentamers, hexamers, octamers or what have you. Naturally oligomerizing structures, created by a single protein all by itself. A single protein coding gene is expressed continously, and as the number of proteins build up they self-assemble into larger structures. Good examples are evolution of beta-propeller structures. A bona fide molecular machine that evolved.


You can't seriously claim that the bacterial flagellum, or eukaryotic cilium, are just a bunch of proteins thrown together. Rather, both represent a "purposeful arrangement of parts" that produce a specific function...i.e. design rather than random assemblage.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#106  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 3:16 am

The_Metatron wrote:
Read that part in bold red font. Read it again. Read it until you understand it, and forever forget about that quote mine of yours as any sort of support for whatever you believe.


Reason tells me, that IF numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; IF further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and IF such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then [b][color=#FF0000]the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


A lot of "IFs"....just speculation rather than substance. But, as Mivart pointed out, the slight gradations required may not confer sufficient utility to the organism to be conserved and so would be liable to be lost.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#107  Postby Hermit » Apr 12, 2020 3:27 am

Wortfish wrote:[snip]

Happily ignoring comments by at least three of us about your dishonest quote mining, I see. How much longer do you hope to have got away with it by virtue of pretending it never happened?
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4329
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#108  Postby The_Metatron » Apr 12, 2020 3:44 am

Wortfish wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Read that part in bold red font. Read it again. Read it until you understand it, and forever forget about that quote mine of yours as any sort of support for whatever you believe.


Reason tells me, that IF numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; IF further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and IF such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then [b][color=#FF0000]the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


A lot of "IFs"....just speculation rather than substance. But, as Mivart pointed out, the slight gradations required may not confer sufficient utility to the organism to be conserved and so would be liable to be lost.

Do you use a hammer or simply put your head in a vise to come up with shit like this?

Every one if those conditional statements are true. "...as is certainly the case." It doesn't matter a toss what you believe to be true, cannot, or will not understand. Reality shows us otherwise.

Come back when your arguments are worthy. Or when you actually have one.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21064
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#109  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 12, 2020 3:48 am

Wortfish wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Read that part in bold red font. Read it again. Read it until you understand it, and forever forget about that quote mine of yours as any sort of support for whatever you believe.


Reason tells me, that IF numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; IF further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and IF such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then [b][color=#FF0000]the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


A lot of "IFs"....just speculation rather than substance. But, as Mivart pointed out, the slight gradations required may not confer sufficient utility to the organism to be conserved and so would be liable to be lost.



What a nasty little liar you are. It doesn't matter how many fucking IFs there are in Darwin's account from 150 years ago, because you were the liar trying to pretend that Darwin had said something else by cutting out 75% of the paragraph.

As for relevant knowledge, try modern scientific journals - not a Victorian naturalist writing prior to the advent of knowledge about genes, ffs.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#110  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 12, 2020 3:59 am

Trolls have been banned from here for less. Wortfish is probably a Poe. Why suffer this idiot liar one more second? We don’t need a chew toy badly enough to put up with a quote miner. Just show him the door and hand him his hat already.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#111  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 12, 2020 7:58 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Ahh the "specific / peculiar compotent" as opposed to the "generic" one. What the hell does that mean? Either two components work together or they do not. Some times they do, and when they do, natural selection can favor that association.


By specific/peculiar, I mean a component that is new, not something recruited from an existing inventory.

Then you're asking for a straw-man as nothing is completely new. Everything is always constructed from existing atoms and the like.
Just like the configuration of your body might be new, but the parts of which your body is made up have existed before your parents ever had sex.

Wortfish wrote:
Yeah some of them do this just by themselves. Some proteins will naturally oligomerize into structures like pentamers, hexamers, octamers or what have you. Naturally oligomerizing structures, created by a single protein all by itself. A single protein coding gene is expressed continously, and as the number of proteins build up they self-assemble into larger structures. Good examples are evolution of beta-propeller structures. A bona fide molecular machine that evolved.


You can't seriously claim that the bacterial flagellum, or eukaryotic cilium, are just a bunch of proteins thrown together. Rather, both represent a "purposeful arrangement of parts" that produce a specific function...i.e. design rather than random assemblage.

You trolling hasn't improved since the last time you shat in this thread. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#112  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 3:21 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Do you use a hammer or simply put your head in a vise to come up with shit like this?

Every one if those conditional statements are true. "...as is certainly the case." It doesn't matter a toss what you believe to be true, cannot, or will not understand. Reality shows us otherwise.

Come back when your arguments are worthy. Or when you actually have one.


Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf

The most obvious limit to natural selection is that suitable variation may not be available. This may be because certain phenotypes cannot be built, being ruled out either by physical law or by the properties of biological materials.


It isn't just that natural selection cannot promote traits that are not of immediate and sufficient benefit, the variations responsible for the traits may just not occur. Imagination and speculation have hard physical limits to overcome.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#113  Postby campermon » Apr 12, 2020 3:38 pm

The tide comes in. The tide goes out

can't explain that.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#114  Postby campermon » Apr 12, 2020 3:38 pm

It's throwback sunday :beer:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#115  Postby campermon » Apr 12, 2020 3:45 pm

Wortfish wrote:<snip bollocks>


"Seeing without eyes"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-eyes1/

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17434
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#116  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 12, 2020 5:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Do you use a hammer or simply put your head in a vise to come up with shit like this?

Every one if those conditional statements are true. "...as is certainly the case." It doesn't matter a toss what you believe to be true, cannot, or will not understand. Reality shows us otherwise.

Come back when your arguments are worthy. Or when you actually have one.


Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf


What on Earth are you talking about?

You're trying to use arguments from teleology - which is directly contrary and antithetical to evolution - in order to dispute evolution.

You'd save yourself time going and buying a 3 by 2 metre board and a tin of paint, scrawling "I'm abjectly fucking clueless" on it and sticking it up in your front yard.


Wortfish wrote:
It isn't just that natural selection cannot promote traits that are not of immediate and sufficient benefit, the variations responsible for the traits may just not occur.


Your arrogance is not a proxy for comprehension.

NS doesn't 'promote' traits - it is the process whereby traits are retained or eliminated statistically in a population based on the number of copies of the genes underpinning those traits. You're reifying NS - it's not a thing, it's an outcome, a process.

If the variations for a trait don't occur, then there is no trait there to be discussed.

You need to know the basics of what you're talking about to have any hope of blagging.


Wortfish wrote:Imagination and speculation have hard physical limits to overcome.


Whereas arrogance and ignorance are unbounded, particularly when comorbid.

Which bit of 'your argument from incredulity' is fucking useless don't you grasp?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#117  Postby felltoearth » Apr 12, 2020 5:10 pm

Wortfish wrote:

Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf


Like any cretinist creationist, a poorly posed question. What defines front from back? Why does anatomical position really matter in a non-teleological system. You may as well ask if your nose can be on top of your head. You’re engaging in wordplay to poorly make a point.

You know what they say, if your nose runs and your feet smell, you’re built upside down.
Last edited by felltoearth on Apr 12, 2020 5:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14006
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#118  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 12, 2020 5:10 pm

Image

Flounder is unimpressed with Creationist dreck.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#119  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 12, 2020 5:15 pm

campermon wrote:It's throwback sunday :beer:



It is: we're back to having a Creationist expounding the fucking Pokemon theory of evolution yet again.

Next up: crocoducks!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#120  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 5:27 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
What a nasty little liar you are. It doesn't matter how many fucking IFs there are in Darwin's account from 150 years ago, because you were the liar trying to pretend that Darwin had said something else by cutting out 75% of the paragraph.


I quoted the sentence showing Darwin's acknowledgement about the problem of the evolution of the eye. It is STILL a problem, 150 years later. All that Darwin did was make a suggestion without any supporting evidence.

As for relevant knowledge, try modern scientific journals - not a Victorian naturalist writing prior to the advent of knowledge about genes, ffs.


No scientific paper has been published that claims to account for the genetic basis of the evolution of the eye through random mutation and natural selection. We still don't know how an eye is put together, let alone its evolutionary origin.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest