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

#41  Postby laklak » Apr 09, 2020 10:03 pm

Why? You'll just hand wave it away. I'm not going to engage with you, it's fruitless. Believe whatever you want.
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: 67
Male

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

Ads by Google


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

#42  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 09, 2020 10:07 pm

Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:He's a tricksy cunt, this Intelligent Designer. He purposely designs things to look exactly like they evolved through random mutation and natural selection. He even makes things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve to really fuck with us. He designed smallpox, and bubonic plague, and dental caries, and cancer, and a host of other things that would, to the uninitiated, be proof that none of it was actually designed! A Mighty Designer is our Designer!


Show me one molecular machine that looks like it evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

Viruses donate important regulatory elements and keep our immune systems active...as we are seeing today.


You mean one that ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS would qualify? Covid-19 has at least 7 mutations that clearly show an evolutionary pathway that makes it a NOVEL strain that DID NOT EXIST just a few short months ago.

Do we need to remind you of the citrate digesting E. Coli that evolved from a strain that could not digest citrate?

Hell, we could show you a billion examples of evolution in action in both the micro and macro biosphere and it still wouldn’t be enough for you. You have an ideology that prohibits you from ever ever ever accepting empirical evidence if it counters your insane dogma.

You’ve been schooled on this very forum several times on such matters, and yet you post this stupid shit? What a joke, and laklak nailed it. You are a waste of time.

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

#43  Postby Rumraket » Apr 10, 2020 12:29 am

Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:He's a tricksy cunt, this Intelligent Designer. He purposely designs things to look exactly like they evolved through random mutation and natural selection. He even makes things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve to really fuck with us. He designed smallpox, and bubonic plague, and dental caries, and cancer, and a host of other things that would, to the uninitiated, be proof that none of it was actually designed! A Mighty Designer is our Designer!


Show me one molecular machine that looks like it evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

All of them. Things produced by mutation and selection are what things produced by mutation and selection look like. Hence all the molecular machines known from biology look like they evolved through mutation and selection.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

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

#44  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 1:53 am

laklak wrote:Why? You'll just hand wave it away. I'm not going to engage with you, it's fruitless. Believe whatever you want.


DARWIN SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT!
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

#45  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 1:56 am

Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:He's a tricksy cunt, this Intelligent Designer. He purposely designs things to look exactly like they evolved through random mutation and natural selection. He even makes things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve to really fuck with us. He designed smallpox, and bubonic plague, and dental caries, and cancer, and a host of other things that would, to the uninitiated, be proof that none of it was actually designed! A Mighty Designer is our Designer!


Show me one molecular machine that looks like it evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

All of them. Things produced by mutation and selection are what things produced by mutation and selection look like. Hence all the molecular machines known from biology look like they evolved through mutation and selection.


Except that, as Behe points out, selection either keeps functional systems in place, or it breaks them when the environment requires disposing of them. Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.
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

#46  Postby felltoearth » Apr 10, 2020 2:39 am

Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:Why? You'll just hand wave it away. I'm not going to engage with you, it's fruitless. Believe whatever you want.


DARWIN SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT!

Jesus. You are dense.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14070
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#47  Postby felltoearth » Apr 10, 2020 2:42 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:He's a tricksy cunt, this Intelligent Designer. He purposely designs things to look exactly like they evolved through random mutation and natural selection. He even makes things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve to really fuck with us. He designed smallpox, and bubonic plague, and dental caries, and cancer, and a host of other things that would, to the uninitiated, be proof that none of it was actually designed! A Mighty Designer is our Designer!


Show me one molecular machine that looks like it evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

All of them. Things produced by mutation and selection are what things produced by mutation and selection look like. Hence all the molecular machines known from biology look like they evolved through mutation and selection.


Except that, as Behe points out, selection either keeps functional systems in place, or it breaks them when the environment requires disposing of them. Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.

A system devoid of teleology obviously lacks foresight because it isn’t necessary. Read a fucking book.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14070
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#48  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 10, 2020 2:54 am

felltoearth wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:

Show me one molecular machine that looks like it evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

All of them. Things produced by mutation and selection are what things produced by mutation and selection look like. Hence all the molecular machines known from biology look like they evolved through mutation and selection.


Except that, as Behe points out, selection either keeps functional systems in place, or it breaks them when the environment requires disposing of them. Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.

A system devoid of teleology obviously lacks foresight because it isn’t necessary. Read a fucking book.


He has, and that’s the problem. He has read a book by a liar for Jebus. His cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias, then kicked in and he thinks the shit written by Behe is factual. Wortfish should read a few dozen peer reviewed papers about the shit he thinks Behe has nailed, but without the baggage of dogma blinding him to learning that his hero(s) for Jebus are playing him and his ilk for fools.

Two words.

Wedge document. That’s all one need to know about intelligent design. The entire idea is based on a lie. All of it.

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

#49  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 10, 2020 3:55 am

felltoearth wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:Why? You'll just hand wave it away. I'm not going to engage with you, it's fruitless. Believe whatever you want.


DARWIN SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT!

Jesus. You are dense.


Thick as two very thick shits.
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: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#50  Postby laklak » Apr 10, 2020 4:02 am

In terms of trustworthiness, Behe ranks somewhere between a three-card Monte dealer and a Subic Bay hooker.
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: 67
Male

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

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

#51  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Apr 10, 2020 7:13 am

WayOfTheDodo wrote:What the hell? Is Behe still going on about this?


Hey, I'm milking a forty year career out of a single research hypothesis.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13519
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#52  Postby campermon » Apr 10, 2020 7:37 am

Wortfish wrote:
Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.


Indeed. But there are lots of replicators, lots of time and therefore lots of opportunity for a fraction of them to solve the problem of survival and reproduction,

: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: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#53  Postby newolder » Apr 10, 2020 7:41 am

Wortfish wrote:... Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.

And yet there are eyes.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7320
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

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

#54  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Apr 10, 2020 8:33 am

The complex molecular machine develops step by step with most "versions" at every step being selected against or ignored. Natural selection doesn't need to plan it. The bits that work hang around and the bits that don't, don't. It's social. Over time the complexity of the machine increases. Sometimes those complex machines play different roles at particular steps. Sometimes a single mutation results in a molecular machine performing a different function that is selected for.

If foresight were involved it would happen much faster than it does via natural selection, which is gradual, and probably wouldn't fulfill intermediate roles. There would be a distinct endpoint goal to work towards. Nevertheless, natural selection worked for a long time. Now we regularly avoid being selected against because we research and plan and experiment. Natural selection has happened up until now without us exerting any influence though.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13519
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#55  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 10:39 am

laklak wrote:In terms of trustworthiness, Behe ranks somewhere between a three-card Monte dealer and a Subic Bay hooker.


I would offer a more nuanced response. Natural selection can do the following in molecular biology:

1. Keep things as they are: a conserving force that rejects changes which degrade functionality.
2. Destroy a functional system if it provides a reproductive benefit in an extreme situation: as with antibiotic resistance.
3. Tweak an existing feature to optimize its effectiveness: as with the novel coronavirus' protein coat.

What natural selection cannot do, as Darwin envisaged, is cumulatively build up a complex system from scratch.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#56  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 10:42 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The complex molecular machine develops step by step with most "versions" at every step being selected against or ignored. Natural selection doesn't need to plan it. The bits that work hang around and the bits that don't, don't. It's social. Over time the complexity of the machine increases. Sometimes those complex machines play different roles at particular steps. Sometimes a single mutation results in a molecular machine performing a different function that is selected for.

If foresight were involved it would happen much faster than it does via natural selection, which is gradual, and probably wouldn't fulfill intermediate roles. There would be a distinct endpoint goal to work towards. Nevertheless, natural selection worked for a long time. Now we regularly avoid being selected against because we research and plan and experiment. Natural selection has happened up until now without us exerting any influence though.


You need to have something functional and useful already in place for which to "select". That is the fundamental flaw in the Darwinian argument.
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

#57  Postby Hermit » Apr 10, 2020 10:45 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The complex molecular machine develops step by step with most "versions" at every step being selected against or ignored. Natural selection doesn't need to plan it. The bits that work hang around and the bits that don't, don't. It's social. Over time the complexity of the machine increases. Sometimes those complex machines play different roles at particular steps. Sometimes a single mutation results in a molecular machine performing a different function that is selected for.

If foresight were involved it would happen much faster than it does via natural selection, which is gradual, and probably wouldn't fulfill intermediate roles. There would be a distinct endpoint goal to work towards. Nevertheless, natural selection worked for a long time. Now we regularly avoid being selected against because we research and plan and experiment. Natural selection has happened up until now without us exerting any influence though.

With 426 posts on the topic of creationism in almost four years under his belt, Wortfish has yet to grok that evolution functions without intention or plan. It is therefore unlikely that he'll get your point now. Perhaps he'll even bring the analogy of the jetliner spontaneously appearing from a random collection of bits and pieces contained in a scrap yard to prove that he still has not twigged to it. It won't surprise me if he'll follow this up by trundling the fine-tuning thing out yet again. Creationists are immune to empirical methodology. Theological precepts form an impenetrable umbrella to keep it at bay.

ETA: And right on cue:
Wortfish wrote:You need to have something functional and useful already in place for which to "select". That is the fundamental flaw in the Darwinian argument.
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: 4386
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

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

#58  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 10:54 am

newolder wrote:
Wortfish wrote:... Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.

And yet there are eyes.


Let's read the Origin of Species: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/12 ... k2H_4_0008

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated


The incipient stage in the development of the eye:

1. A nerve cell has to become sensitive to light (Darwin didn't know how).
2. That process has to trigger some sort of response.
3. That response has to improve the organism's survival chances.


In the case of 1) a gradual approach won't do since each step must confer some improvement on the previous one. Selection won't select anything which does not make the nerve cell more sensitive. Mivart heavily criticized Darwin's theory, claiming that the incipient and intermediate stages in the hypothetical evolution of a new feature probably conferred no biological utility or could even be harmful.

In the case of 2) and 3) sensitivity to light alone is not useful, however functional, if it does not trigger a response that improves the survival of the organism. If all it does is cause the animal to twitch ever so slightly, then it won't be selected for, and therefore, 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

#59  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Apr 10, 2020 10:59 am

We look to Darwin's works as nothing more than contributions to the science of evolution. We don't accept his musings as accurate. We think about the research hypothesis underlying them, look at our own research and ask "why" questions.

I had to take a course in "how evolution isn't really science" during my BSc. :lol:

It wasn't remotely what it sounds like. It was actually terrific. I pull from it and the instructor of the course to this day (and get paid to do so!)

Wortfish wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The complex molecular machine develops step by step with most "versions" at every step being selected against or ignored. Natural selection doesn't need to plan it. The bits that work hang around and the bits that don't, don't. It's social. Over time the complexity of the machine increases. Sometimes those complex machines play different roles at particular steps. Sometimes a single mutation results in a molecular machine performing a different function that is selected for.

If foresight were involved it would happen much faster than it does via natural selection, which is gradual, and probably wouldn't fulfill intermediate roles. There would be a distinct endpoint goal to work towards. Nevertheless, natural selection worked for a long time. Now we regularly avoid being selected against because we research and plan and experiment. Natural selection has happened up until now without us exerting any influence though.


You need to have something functional and useful already in place for which to "select". That is the fundamental flaw in the Darwinian argument.


No, you just need something that a) isn't selected against and so gets a chance to be selected for in a later generation or b) is selected for. Something an environment selects for doesn't need to be complex. It can be as simple as pelage, which is usually only functional within an ecological context. It can also be something complex like a molecular machine which may perform different roles throughout its development and adaptation, which is one contention Behe has consistently failed to address.

As previously stated, it's made for a lucrative career. I totally get why he's still beating a dead horse. Why attempt to reject competing hypotheses when you can just sequentially test your research hypothesis and generate inconclusive result after inconclusive result but portray it as exclusively supporting you assumption? I wish I were in it to expand reliable knowledge but, bitch, I need to eat. I want to build a house. I want goats for dairy. I need reliable employment.

I'm strongly in favour of emphasising application over theory in science education, btw.
Last edited by Rachel Bronwyn on Apr 10, 2020 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13519
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#60  Postby newolder » Apr 10, 2020 11:28 am

Wortfish wrote:...

Let's read the Origin of Species: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/12 ... k2H_4_0008

What use is Darwin's book when the subject is molecular biology?

Oh, look. Darwin even says as much in the snippet you posted.

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated


The incipient stage in the development of the eye:

1. A nerve cell has to become sensitive to light (Darwin didn't know how).
2. That process has to trigger some sort of response.
3. That response has to improve the organism's survival chances.


In the case of 1) a gradual approach won't do since each step must confer some improvement on the previous one. Selection won't select anything which does not make the nerve cell more sensitive. Mivart heavily criticized Darwin's theory, claiming that the incipient and intermediate stages in the hypothetical evolution of a new feature probably conferred no biological utility or could even be harmful.

In the case of 2) and 3) sensitivity to light alone is not useful, however functional, if it does not trigger a response that improves the survival of the organism. If all it does is cause the animal to twitch ever so slightly, then it won't be selected for, and therefore, lost.


Your problems with evolutionary molecular biology are clear and you've even labelled them. There was a time before eyes, there was a time before the first light sensitive cell and indeed, there was a time before cells. That you fail to grasp the ideas of evolution through natural selection remains a sad reflection on your education.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7320
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest