Behe takes the stand in Dover

HairlessSimian · Oct 20, 2005

Loudmouth said:
I also noticed that BnS have written a rebuttal of the above critique but no abstract is available and the full paper requires a subscription. Anyone have access to it?

I tried getting it. The publisher's subscription arrangement with my university does not allow access to very recent issues. Boo-hoo-hoo. It's a response to a letter and so has no abstract either. Someone else got it?

MidnightBlue · Oct 20, 2005

GoSeminoles! said:
Well, putting ID in the same boat as astrology was not exactly a well thought-out scheme on Behe's part.

Neither was becoming the world's most renowned proponent of irreducible complexity. Lehigh ought to revoke his tenure.

GoSeminoles! · Oct 20, 2005

Paleontologist Kevin Padian's testimony is fantastic. In direct examination Padian reads extended quotations from Pandas and then describes in detail the evidence which directly contradicts Pandas. For example, Pandas says there are no transitional fossils for whale evolution. Paidan then presents and discusses all the amazing transitionals which allegedly don't exist.

Good times.

ETA: The attorney pointed out that many (but not all) of the transitional fossils in Padian's discussion were discovered after Pandas was published in 1993. Padian agreed, but noted how this could confuse the student. If the absence of whale transitionals was evidence of an intelligent designer, as Pandas asserted, then what becomes of Panda's assertion when transitionals are found? Padian explained further, "And so the fallacy is that if we don't have enough evidence for evolution, we must therefore that these things had a supernatural origin."

Jet Black · Oct 20, 2005

a new one successfully torn by Paidan.

cze_026 · Oct 20, 2005

nvxplorer said:
Its worth noting that separation of church and state is also implied by the free exercise clause.

What is really fascinating to me, is the 180 degree turn that has been made on this subject, in the last ~200yrs. In history, if you read the letters written to the founding fathers, by religious leaders, they feared having religion in the government. They were determinated not to have any reference to God in the the public workings of this country. In some respects those religious leaders are resposible for the wording of the 1st Amendment.

Now they are trying desperately hard to shove a particular branch of Christianity down the proverbial public throats. It is a most interesting change in discourse.

Cze

USincognito · Oct 20, 2005

Dangit! I wish I'd checked more closely before posting my seperate thread on this. Sorry 'bout that GS....

corvus_corax · Oct 20, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Prahaps you mean "separation of church and state", which, right or wrong, is no where stated in America's laws.

"seperation of church and state", as you said, is not spelled out in those exact words
Much like "the Trinity" is no where stated in the biblical scriptures.

Yet christians worldwide defend the doctrine.

In a similar way "seperation of church and state" IS stated, just not in those exact words

EvoDan · Oct 20, 2005

I have to say, little by little I'm beginning to like Judge Jones, even if he is a Bush appointee.

Quoted from transcripts posted on the ACLU PA site.

The new edition omits the terms intelligent design and intelligent agency and replaces them both with "sudden emergence," meaning that "various forms of life began abruptly [with] features already intact: fish [suddenly emerging with] fins and scales, birds with feathers" and, as the new edition adds, "mammals with fur and mammary glands."

So, Rothschild inquired, will we "be back in a few years for the sudden emergence trial?"

Judge Jones responded: "Not on my docket."

RightWingGirl · Oct 20, 2005

Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.

Is any part of the above false?
Unless part of the above statement is false, what is the problem in saying so on science textbooks?

GoSeminoles! · Oct 20, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.

Is any part of the above false?
Unless part of the above statement is false, what is the problem in saying so on science textbooks?

None of it is incorrect and there is nothing wrong with saying so in science textbooks. However, the "other theories" which are presented must meet the definition of science which ID does not.

Nice try.

Edx · Oct 20, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable.

The same for gravity and germ theory, but should we state that when we teach them? No. What should be done is explaining how the scientific method works, and what a theory really is.

Other theories exist.

Click to expand...

None that meet the criteria of science, or that explains the divercity of life.

Ed

benjdm · Oct 20, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.

Is any part of the above false?
Unless part of the above statement is false, what is the problem in saying so on science textbooks?

The part where 'other theories exist' is false. There are no other scientific theories of origins that have not been falsified by evidence*. The first statement is already taught when the scientific method is taught. EVERY scientific theory you have ever learned is not provable.

*Note that this does not say that there can't be other theories developed that explain the evidence better. But so far noone has thought of one.

USincognito · Oct 20, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.
Is any part of the above false?

Not semantically, but it is false in terms of implications.

- Evolution is a scientific theory.

True. It's stood up to the rigors of the scientific method for over 150 years.

- As such is not provable.

Semantics. Scientific theories aren't proven. They're "not falsified," which evolution has not been. Theories are explanations of facts (inherently not false). If one wishes to apply the colloquial usage of "proof" then the theory of evolution is definately proven.

- Other theories exist.

Anyone else notice that evolution is described as a "scientific" theory, but the wink wink nudge nudge "buuuuut..." isn't? The real problem though is that ID/Creationism doesn't pass muster as a theory period unless one defines it as "wild guess" or "argument from ignorance," which Creationists have tried to conflate for years now.

Split Rock · Oct 21, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.

Is any part of the above false?
Unless part of the above statement is false, what is the problem in saying so on science textbooks?

Would that include the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory?

Why or why not?

What if I used the same doctrine as the Church of the FSM, but replace him with the term " Unintelligent Pasta Designer."

Why or why not?

GoSeminoles! · Oct 21, 2005

Go here to see Barbara Forrest's exbitis demonstrating the evolution of the Pandas textbook.

mark kennedy · Oct 22, 2005

I thought I would add this:

"Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest routepoint mutation in duplicated genes. We show that for very large population sizes N, where at steady state in the absence of selection the population would be expected to contain one or more duplicated alleles coding for the feature, the time to fixation in the population hovers near the inverse of the point mutation rate, and varies sluggishly with the th root of 1/N, where is the number of nucleotide positions that must be mutated to produce the feature. At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 108 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 109.

Keywords: gene duplication; point mutation; multiresidue feature; disulfide bonds; ligand binding sites"

http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps.04802904v1

In case you missed it:

...where is the number of nucleotide positions that must be mutated to produce the feature?

notto · Oct 22, 2005

Mark, you're missing a few lambdas.

Dr.GH · Oct 22, 2005

The Dover cross examination touched on Behe and Snoke 2004, with this summary of the only 'significant' finding:

ROTHSCHILD,

If we exclude some of the mechanisms by which we
understand evolution to occur, like recombination, it's
hard to get there?

BEHE: Yes.

Dr.GH · Oct 22, 2005

Q.

And before we leave the blood clotting system,

can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which

intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?

A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design

does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one

important factor in the production of systems, and that

is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was

involved.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: This would be a good time

for a break, Your Honor.

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf

HairlessSimian · Oct 22, 2005

MidnightBlue said:
Neither was becoming the world's most renowned proponent of irreducible complexity. Lehigh ought to revoke his tenure.

I disagree. Tenure guarantees him the freedom to explore unicorns on Neptune and other fiction, if he so desires. I would not want to deny him the possibility of exposing the fiction he professes as truth. It serves Science, in a twisted way, to give non-Science or bad science the opportunity to come out in the open.

Behe takes the stand in Dover

Well-Known Member

June Carter, pray for us!

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Jack-of-all-Trades

a post by Alan Smithee

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

Conflation of Blathers

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Natura non facit saltum

Legend

Doc WinAce fan

Doc WinAce fan

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency