• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Bacterial resistance and Michael Behe's new book

Status
Not open for further replies.

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the thread called "The appearance of design" Shernen wrote:
I think I've found what I'm going to ask for for Father's day.... Michael Behe has a brand new book due out today, June 5, 2007: THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism Amazon apparently has it in stock...

From the first link:
Through a combination of experimental evidence, genome research, and mathematical law, Behe analyzes three key case studies of the tens of thousands of generations of malaria, E. coli, and the HIV virus, and the human genomic response to those invaders. We now know exactly what mutations have occurred in the struggle between these parasites and their human hosts. We know their rate of occurrence. We know all possible types of mutations, and their natural rate of occurrence. Armed with all this, it is a simple matter of extrapolation to determine the limits of Darwinian randomness in the entire tree of life on earth.
 

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
His math is questionable and there are several reviews online that show this to be the case.

That is why Behe chooses not to publish in peer reviewed journals. His work and cherrypicking doesn't have a good track record on standing up to critical analysis.

Will you actually take the time to seek out reviews of Behe's work and not accept it at face value? After all, the process he follows doesn't force him to adhere to objective and testable methods or conclusions. He can say whatever he wants in his book and it should not be considered evidence that has been validated nor objective without scrutiny.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/05/behes_dreadful_new_book_a_revi_1.php

If you accept Behe as a valid source, do you accept his conclusions about the age of the earth and common descent?
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is why Behe chooses not to publish in peer reviewed journals. His work and cherrypicking doesn't have a good track record on standing up to critical analysis.

Huh? He has over 35 articles published in peer reviewed biochemistry journals. Please get your facts straight before you start an
[SIZE=-1]argumentum ad hominem attack.[/SIZE].

One should note that Behe accepts common descent... at least for now. He is not a YEC by any means. I'm thinking that this book could probably best be described as reinforcing the "T" in TE. On the other hand, it also looks like great research into the specifics of these particular bacterial cases.

Here's a review at amazon.com:
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ

Huh? He has over 35 articles published in peer reviewed biochemistry journals. Please get your facts straight before you start an
[SIZE=-1]argumentum ad hominem attack.[/SIZE].

But oddly his ID stuff isn't. Why is that? My argument was not ad hominem. I was stating a fact related to his work and his publishing methods This book is not peer reviewed and is not held to objective scientific, analytical, or mathematical standards.
Here's a review at amazon.com:

So what? I notice that this review doesn't actually critique Behe's work, just accepts it without validation. Exactly the problem with his publishing this way - nobody validates it before it is published.

Did you read the critique of his mathematics?

There are several large problems with his conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes I read the critique. This particular blog is not exactly unbiased, to put it mildly -- I want to read Dr. Behe's book myself before I trust the analysis in any blog, but particularly this one. I can already see problems in the blog's analysis, but I want to confirm my ideas with the actual book first.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ

That's great. Let us know what you find. I would be particularly interested if you find any problems with the blogs mathematical analysis. Please show your work and use as much detail as you can.

When you are done with Behe's book, I could suggest some additional books on evolution with favorable reviews on amazon that come to exactly the opposite conclusions of Behe's. Maybe you should read one of those as a followup.

I could also probably dig up a few books on amazon that attribute humans to being the product of transdimensional aliens who will use us for breeding stock in the near future. I'll see if I can find one with a good review.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'll try -- I'm a computer geek, not a rigorous mathematician -- but I do OK. In terms of other books, I'm specifically interested in the discussion of these particular bacteria. The review seems to say that the book explains that even in these cases the bacteria in question are less fit after the mutations. If so, that would be fascinating. If not that's OK too. It is also implied that the book develops limits on the rate of mutations, etc. If so, this could have interesting implications on the topic of bariminology and the limits on "kinds".
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ

And it would be a lot more interesting if Behe actually published original research on the subject for peer review or academic scrutiny.

That would be cool but I won't hold my breath.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Huh? He has over 35 articles published in peer reviewed biochemistry journals. Please get your facts straight before you start an [SIZE=-1]argumentum ad hominem attack.[/SIZE]

Uh, says who? - as in, source?
 
Upvote 0

theIdi0t

Veteran
May 22, 2007
1,874
80
✟25,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have a question. Does anyone know if Behe drops those examples of irreducibly complexity, when they are shown to be reducible? like the eye, and the motor in the cell's flagellum in his subsequent books? Or does he rehash these things over and over again, hoping to find an unknowledgeable prey?

He seems like a decent man, I assume he would abandon one ship when it's sunk, and jump on another one?

Anyone know if this is a case though. It seems that everyone and their mothers killed the eye , and flagellum argument; so has Behe declared some sort of defeat for these two arguments for irreducible complexity?
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know about the eye, but I've looked at the arguments about the flagellum in some detail in the past. The TT-S discussions do not address the irreducible complexity, they just try to postulate a hypothetical evolutionary development path. There are several problems with this supposed path, as I have cited previously in this forum. Beware of folks claiming "victory" when indeed the discussion is ongoing and not conclusive by any means.
 
Upvote 0

theIdi0t

Veteran
May 22, 2007
1,874
80
✟25,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Have you seen the Ken Miller video on youtube, that breaks down the motor in the cell's flagellum? I couldn't think of a more sound case for a naturally selected structure.

But what I truly wonder, is if creationist understand what Behe is getting at. There's a Bob Barker on evolution article in the Onion, that is floating around here in a thread somewhere, and I think everyone sees the silliness of Bob Barker's case, but that is exactly what Behe's argument is getting at: Evolution explains 99.9% of our biological composition, and God intervened for that additional .1%. God allows the eye to form naturally, but needed to divinely intervene in the construction of the motor in the flagellum?

If you can see the silliness of Bob Barker's argument, why does one not see it in Behe's? I think what happens is that the creationist gets so bent on Behe's examples, that a cloak gets placed over their eyes which does not allow them to see the big picture.

Behe presents a case for irreducible complexity; some group of believers immediately jump on, soon thousands of articles prove the case other wise; Captain Behe abandons ship, while the group of believers drown, unaware the ship had been sinking for some time. The process repeats itself, with Behe finding another ship, it sinks, and few more believers drown.

When does someone realize that there are casualties and no life-preservers, to not board Behe's ship again?
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'll check out the video. I'll admit what I am expecting to see is speculation without data support -- I'll be pleased if it is different. Of course that's one way I'm particularly pesky -- its not enough to me to have a possible explanation or theory -- I want observed data in support of it. Its too easy for a theory to overlook something. I've designed and built too much electronic hardware and done too much programming to put total faith in a postulated set of steps. There are always things you can look back on and realize in hindsight that you should have seen them earlier.
 
Upvote 0

theIdi0t

Veteran
May 22, 2007
1,874
80
✟25,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'll check out the video. I'll admit what I am expecting to see is speculation without data support -- I'll be pleased if it is different.

Well, if you can see why the eye is not irreducibly complex, then you should have no problem seeing why the motor in the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.




...but "kind" works fine for you.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK, I watched the video. He misrepresented the position of ID, although it may have been accurate with early ID writings. He claimed that ID says that *all* parts of an IC object need to be useless. This is just not true. Its fine if some of the parts are similar to other parts in other units.

He also failed to mention that more recent evidence points to TT3 structures as being *degraded* flagellum, not precursers.

He failed to account where all the other pieces came from.

In general 6 minutes of happy face evo clap yourself on the back aren't you smart talk.
 
Upvote 0

theIdi0t

Veteran
May 22, 2007
1,874
80
✟25,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

hum.......for something to be "irreducibely complex" as ID defines it, the something cannot be in a "reduced complexity" form. Perhaps you can explain why you agree that the eye arguement has been defeated, but not the motor in the cells flagellum. They were both defeated the same way.

He also failed to mention that more recent evidence points to TT3 structures as being *degraded* flagellum, not precursers.

Another play on words. What's the difference between "degraded", "reduced complexity", and "evidence of precursers"
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship


OK I'm a little confused here and I have an honest question (no sarcasm). Can someone define Theistic Evolution for me? Or better still what is the difference between TE and ID. Isn't Intelligent Design a form of Theistic Evolution?






+
The lowdown:

TE believes that God's big enough to use evolution to do whatever He wants.
ID believes that God - oops, the Intelligent Designer - must have had to short-circuit evolution at some point or It just wouldn't have gotten what It wanted.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.