When a Fact Is Not a Fact

[Jerry Smith]

If yes, then let's drop it and move on to something constructive.

How about let's drop it anyway, and move onto something constructive. My momma taught me to turn the other cheek, but it isn't a lesson I learned very well. You flamed me, and I responded as politely as possible while still properly addressing your rude remark. I'm done if you are.

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: Oh! That was supposed to be funny. Oh. Ha ha ha.

DNAunion: So you don't think sarcasm can be use for humor? That makes me wonder about all of the sarcasm you dished out in your past dozen or so posts...what were they?

(1) Attacks?
If so, then you have attacked me more than I attacked you.

(2) Humor?
Then I did no more to you originally than you have done to me repeatedly since, and you have no justification for claiming that I was starting a flame war.

So, which is it?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: After I made the above post, I saw your post where you agreed to move on to something more constructive. Sounds good to me.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Jerry Smith: Oh! That was supposed to be funny. Oh. Ha ha ha.

Sorry, if the atmosphere wasn't so belligerent already, I would rib you for "misquoting" me.. That was LFOD's response... not mine.

So you don't think sarcasm can be use for humor?

Oh, actually it can.. but "ROFL! You wouldn't know X if it came up and bit you on the ****" doesn't appear to be an attempt at humor at all.

 

[Jerry Smith]

After I made the above post I saw where you agreed to drop it and go on to something constructive. I'll see you this weekend in the other thread.

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: If there was a misunderstanding, we will find out its nature and its source. If there was none, we will clarify whether you are on track or way off base in your attack on Miller.

DNAunion: That's from Jerry Smith's invitation to me to come over here and address things on his terms (he can't understand the biology I used to make my point - for example, Jerry thinks eubacteria have cilia).

Note the "loaded" nature of his statements:

1) If I am correct, well, not much happens: Jerry mentions nothing about Miller being guilty.

But...

2) If I am wrong, then I have been found guilty of falsely attacking Miller.

Note the bias built into Jerry's unbalanced treatment? That's the kind of masked bias Jerry employs frequently: the kind that you might miss if you aren't careful (of course, Jerry has displayed blatant bias some times too).

 

[Jerry Smith]

DNAunion: After I made the above post, I saw your post where you agreed to move on to something more constructive. Sounds good to me.

I guess it sounded good to you until you thought I had logged off, and now you are right back into attack mode...

You yourself invited us to believe that Miller misunderstood Behe's criteria and his examples, and that it was his misunderstanding which led him to "misrepresent" Behe.

I will qualify further: if evidence emerges that over and above a misunderstanding that Miller intentionally misrepresented Behe, then we will have that out in the open as well.

There, "balanced" enough for you?

Actually, the material quoted me on the posssibility that you were "on track" in your attack on Miller, so its not like I am now restoring balance by making that possibility more explicit. Nevertheless, you, as the atttacker, bear the onus of demonstrating your accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

he can't understand the biology I used to make my point - for example, Jerry thinks eubacteria have cilia

The fact is that I do not think that eubacteria have cilia (as a matter of fact, I do not know whether they do or not). However, if I did think so - that would not render me incable of understanding the biology. That would render me incorrect on a matter of a single fact. Since I have the potential to correct that wrong thinking very quickly if necessary, it should be no great barrier to understanding the biology you use in your attack. Therefore you have two wrong statements here - falsehoods if you will:

1) he can't understand the biology I used to make my point
2) Jerry thinks eubacteria have cilia

Now would be a good time to correct both. When you run across a bit of biology that I cannot understand if properly explained, then you could perhaps re-state #1 truly. Until such a time as I believe that eubacteria have cilia, #2 will remain a falsehood.

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, why was it you were waiting until the weekend to post your identifying criteria in the other thread? It seems like it had something to do with doing a good job of it and taking the necessary time... If that's the case, why don't you use this time for that purpose instead of attacking me?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DNAunion
Note the bias built into Jerry's unbalanced treatment? That's the kind of masked bias Jerry employs frequently: the kind that you might miss if you aren't careful (of course, Jerry has displayed blatant bias some times too).

This is one of those times I wish this board had the "violins" smiley like Infidels does.

Poor, poor innocent DNAunion. (Sniff!)

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: You need to make up your mind. We know you don’t know the biology, but exactly which set of mistakes do you wish to own up to?

First, you used the term eubacterial a total of three times, in three consecutive paragraphs: no mention of eukaryotic in there.

Jerry Smith: “You neglected to answer my question – the only question I think could be used to test whether [those “missing parts”] belong in the category or not. The question I am talking about is perhaps the only one that Behe has given us that we can use to check this theory. If you remove the hub, spokes, and linking arms from the eubacterial cilia – does it, or does it not, continue to function?? Unless you can give us a pretty good reason to believe that it does continue to function, your whole book is based on a premise not in evidence. If it does not function, then Miller is quite right to treat them as part of the IC core of the cilium, and his refutation is then very strong (and the charge of misrepresentation moves into the fast lane of the sewer line).

I honestly don’t know if the eubacterial cilium could function without one or more of those complex and interdependent parts. I suspect that it could not, and that your tome o’rants is based nothing on your desire to pick fights.

I could be wrong. If the eubacterial cilium could function without those parts, then, at least on this point, Miller’s refutation is poor – and it remains for you to demonstrate that his poor refutation is evidence of misrepresentation.” (bold added)

DNAunion: When I pointed out your lack of knowledge of the biology involved in the discussion, you tried to wiggle out:

Jerry Smith: I just want to acknowledge my mistake in typing "eubacterial" where "eukaryotic" was intended.

DNAunion: Really? Then let’s take a look at what your 3 statements say if we do the substitution you claim was intended.

Jerry Smith: If you remove the hub, spokes, and linking arms from the eukaryotic cilia – does it, or does it not, continue to function?? Unless you can give us a pretty good reason to believe that it does continue to function, your whole book is based on a premise not in evidence.

DNAunion: Well, silly, Miller himself showed an example of a eukaryotic cilium that functions without those parts. In fact, Miller’s “counterexample” has been one of the central topics of discussion throughout this and the previous thread! So why in the world are you asking me for an example that’s been there all along? Your statement, with your substitution, makes no sense.

Furthermore, in a post that preceded yours, I even presented a quote from a molecular cell biology text that stated the central pair is not required to have a functional eukaryotic cilium, and I also presented a quote from that same text that showed the dynein outer arms are not required to have a functional eukaryotic cilium. So again, why would you be asking me for an example of a eukaryotic cilium that lacks one or more of those parts - I’ve already given you more than one.

Either:

(1) You did mean what you said – eubacterial – and then tried to squirm out of your mistake when I called you on it

or

(2) You did mean the substitution – eukaryotic - which would show that you know so little about biology that you don’t realize that the Miller example that has been being discussed all along makes your question look foolish and based on ignorance.

So now we see what your attempt at saving face demonstrates: it’s not that you didn’t know the biology, it’s that you didn’t know the biology. Good save dude!!!

Jerry Smith: If it does not function, then Miller is quite right ...

DNAunion: No, then Miller is quite wrong because he himself stated that the eukaryotic cilium he presented as a counterexample DOES function. You are so confused, aren’t you.

Jerry Smith: I honestly don’t know if the eukaryotic cilium could function without one or more of those complex and interdependent parts.

DNAunion: Right, because you don’t understand the biology involved.

Miller’s example and the two different quotes I presented from a molecular cell biology text already showed that a eukaryotic cilium could function without one or more of those parts.

Jerry Smith: I could be wrong.

DNAunion: Could be??? That’s an understatement.

Jerry Smith: If the eukaryotic cilium could function without those parts, then, at least on this point, Miller’s refutation is poor...

DNAunion: What do you mean “IF”? Miller himself said the eukaryotic cilium he offered could function.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: While pulling that post to show Jerry Smith's lack of knowledge of biology - no matter which way he tried to squirm - I noticed more of Jerry's aggressive behavior. Remember, Jerry said this stuff before I said anything in this thread.

Jerry Smith: If ...then ...(and [your] charge of misrepresentation moves into the fast lane of the sewer line).

Jerry Smith: I suspect ... that your tome o’rants is based nothing on your desire to pick fights.

DNAunion: Tome o'rants? My position moves into the fast lane of the sewer line? You mean to tell me that there was no nicer way for Jerry to make his point - that he had no option but to be "nasty"?

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say that Jerry Smith was trying to start a flame war.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: In fact, let’s see the very first statement Jerry Smith made to me in that other thread.

Jerry Smith: Hey, a one-man circus!

DNAunion: Jerry, what did I do to deserve such venom!

 

[chickenman]

DNAUnion vs Lucaspa was sort of entertaining

DNAUnion vs Jerry Smith is kind of boring really

 

[Jerry Smith]

In the context of our discussion, eubacteria never came up. Since the I/C system under discussion was eukaryotic organisms and their cilia, I think it is reasonable for you to accept my apology for unfortunately substituting the erroneous term "eubacteria" while intending to discuss "eukaryotes."

Furthermore, in a post that preceded yours, I even presented a quote from a molecular cell biology text that stated the central pair is not required to have a functional eukaryotic cilium, and I also presented a quote from that same text that showed the dynein outer arms are not required to have a functional eukaryotic cilium.

I may have missed that, or even have been involved in composing my own post during the time that one was posted. It isn't a rare occurrence that I complete a post and find that the thread has grown significantly longer since I began. I assume you are composing your posts ahead of time on a text editor of some sort, then quickly copying them to the board. In any case, I will go check this reference.

DNAunion: What do you mean “IF”? Miller himself said the eukaryotic cilium he offered could function.

He offerred it as a counterexample. It does not show that removing the linking arms, spokes and central doublet under question from the flagellum or cilia of the cells that has them will not eliminate function. To do that would require knocking out those components (possibly by knocking out the genes for them, or possibly by culturing them in an agar that lacks an important amino acid used in their synthesis). Perhaps your reference has found a more clever way of testing whether eukaryotic cilia or flagella can do without those components.

One way or another, whether eubacteria have cilia or not is tangential to this question in the extreme, and my professed ignorance of that trivia should have little impact on my understanding of the concepts involved. Try me.

As to my rudeness in the earlier threads. I apologize. Please understand that I was infuriated by your habit of posting whole pages multiple times where a few well chosen words and a link to the reference would do. That does not excuse me for being tacky in those threads and you do have my sincere apology. Hopefully I will have the same from you for your comments in this thread and we can continue in a civil and productive manner.

 

Edited to change [eukaryotic bacteria] to [eukaryotic organisms] before my typographical gaffe was pounced upon (hopefully)

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, I looked at the last few of the posts preceding mine in the old thread & couldn't find your reference. I won't hold it against you if you briefly repost just that portion of the text that speaks to the expendability of the components Miller discussed.

 

[DNAunion]

Jerry Smith: [Miller] offerred it as a counterexample. It does not show that removing the linking arms, spokes and central doublet under question from the flagellum or cilia of the cells that has them will not eliminate function.

DNAunion: First of all, what in the world do you think Miller’s point would have been if his “counterexample” was non-functional? If he showed that removing parts left the cilium incapable of functioning, how could he have possibly used that against Behe? Simple logic dictates that the cilium was functional.

But there’s more.

In post #3 of the thread dealing specifically with the cilium, I quoted Miller saying:

Miller: The cilium provides us with a perfect opportunity to test that assertion. If it is correct, then we should be unable to find examples of functional cilia anywhere in nature that lack the cilium's basic parts.

Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many examples of fully-functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compelling is the eel sperm flagellum (Figure 3), which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).” (Ken Miller from above URL)

DNAunion: I did split his quote originally, and here recombine it, but that should not have disturbed the logical link between the two paragraphs.

Going back to the older thread, I quoted the same thing.

Miller: The cilium provides us with a perfect opportunity to test that assertion. If it is correct, then we should be unable to find examples of functional cilia anywhere in nature that lack the cilium's basic parts.

Unfortunately for the argument, that is not the case. Nature presents many examples of fully-functional cilia that are missing key parts. One of the most compelling is the eel sperm flagellum (Figure 3), which lacks at least three important parts normally found in the cilium: the central doublet, central spokes, and the dynein outer arm (Wooley 1997).” (Ken Miller from above URL)

DNAunion: In fact, in that original thread, I quickly counted how many times I posted those statements of Miller: I end up with 5 instances by page 5 (I stopped counting at that point). Perhaps if you guys bothered to read even once what I kept posting, instead of complaining about my repeating myself, you would have noticed this.

In the newer thread, I also provided a link to Miller’s page where he said this when he presented the eel-sperm flagellum “counterexample”.

“A cross section of eel sperm flagellum. In other organisms, this "irreducibly complex" structure includes a central pair of microtubules, spokes linking the central pair to the outer doublets, and dynein outer arms linking the doublets. Each of these structures are missing in the eel sperm flagellum (the arrow shows the location of one of these missing dynein arms), and yet the structure is fully-functional.”

DNAunion: And in the older thread, I either posted a link directly to Miller’s web page (don’t feel like looking through the whole thread to find out), or I posted a link to the Infidels thread where I posted that link.

 

[Micaiah]

Something I've observed on numerous occasions:

Some claim evolution to be a scientific fact. This usually ends up an argument over semantics, the kind that you'd expect from lawyers, not scientists. Many outside the scientific community would interpret this statement to mean that there is conclusive evidence that fish evolved into land mammels, or man evolved from apes. Of course this is not the case. What these people, and people debating in forums really mean is that we have observed populations undergo some genetic change. If pressed, that could mean many things including the loss of genetic information, and harmful mutations. It could mean a change as small as one nucleotide in the DNA.

Personally I find the argument deceptive. The dictionary definition for evolution is given as a 'gradual development from a simple to a more complex form.' or 'a process by which species develop from earlier forms as an explanation of their origins.' Concise Oxford Dictionary, Edition 8

No one has yet provided conclusive evidence of genetic change that increased the complexity of the DNA, let alone changing a lifeform from something simple - a cell, to something complex - a dog. Evolution as an explanation of the origin of the species from simple forms is theory.

 

[sulphur]

Evolution is the best fit explaination of observed facts

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: First of all, what in the world do you think Miller’s point would have been if his “counterexample” was non-functional? If he showed that removing parts left the cilium incapable of functioning, how could he have possibly used that against Behe? Simple logic dictates that the cilium was functional.

I think you are still missing the crux of my original defense of Miller.  It is important to understand that I was trying to show that it was possible that Miller's counterexample applied against Behe's I/C core - since your complaint was that his argument went against an older and discarded idea of what I/C meant. With that in mind, showing whether those components that Miller pointed out were missing from the eel sperm flagellum could be removed from other cilia without eliminating function is important. If they cannot be removed from other cilia without eliminating function, then they are part of the I/C "core" of most cilia. If parts that exist within the I/C "core" of most cilia are missing in other functional cilia, then that is a powerful argument against the newer definition of what "I/C" means.

In order for the parts that Miller is discussing to qualify as part of an I/C "core", their removeal from the cilia that use them must eliminate function. However, giving a counterexample where a cilium has evolved that can function without those parts does not prove that they can be removed from cilia that have evolved to function with them without eliminating function.

Thus you see the point I tried to make in all of those threads, and how the fact of Miller's counterexample does not answer that point. As I have mentioned in the Behe's Bulldog, I no longer feel that this point is part of the correct explanation.

In fact, in that original thread, I quickly counted how many times I posted those statements of Miller: I end up with 5 instances by page 5 (I stopped counting at that point). Perhaps if you guys bothered to read even once what I kept posting, instead of complaining about my repeating myself, you would have noticed this.

What did we not notice? Sometimes, if just posting the quote doesn't get your point across, the best answer is to explain what its direct application to that point is, instead of just pasting the quote again. I have read that same quote quite a few times now, and I still do not see the relevance. Maybe you thought I was missing something I wasn't because you didn't understand my point, as I described it in detail above. Maybe you meant for us to get something else out of it. To the best of my knowledge, I got every ounce of information possible out of this quote.

Whatever it is we were supposed to notice, perhaps if you had explained it instead of reposting it, we would have noticed it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

. Many outside the scientific community would interpret this statement to mean that there is conclusive evidence that fish evolved into land mammels, or man evolved from apes.

There is conclusive evidence of both. You may not be aware of the many different lines of evidence, including anatomical and molecular homology, and evidence from the fossil record, that point conclusively to both of these facts.

Of course this is not the case. What these people, and people debating in forums really mean is that we have observed populations undergo some genetic change. If pressed, that could mean many things including the loss of genetic information, and harmful mutations. It could mean a change as small as one nucleotide in the DNA.

This is because they are discussing the mechanism, not the fact, of evolution.

Since the theory of the mechanism is one that depends on "adaptation" but not necessarily "information", there is little discussion of "information" and no precise language dealing with it. Still, the common creationist canard that there is no new "information" introduced by mutation+natural selection is, depending on how the term "information" is defined, either wrong or irrelevant.