Originally posted by sonhousesigh, yes i realise they are different issue, get a grip! soup is soup, vegetable, scotch broth, primordial, the answer my friend is blowing in the soup, the answer is blowing in the primordial soup!
You didn't answer my question, why you group evolution and origin of life in the same set? You do realize they are separate issues in the scientific community don't you? Also, it wasn't the 'organic soup', it was the 'primordial soup'. You really should get your recipes right🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasthat's correct professor M.J.Behe doesn't know anything about evolution, he became professor of biochemistry because he knew absolutely nothing, he simply threw a blank piece of paper out of the window and it evolved into a respectable curriculum vitae, i suggest you try it with your watch, see if it evolves into a PDA as it adapts to the environment, then if that works, you might like to try it yourself, as you descend at 9.81 m/s, depending on how high you jump, you may develop feathers, and a tail, and show an aptitude for flight, and if you make it across to Glasgow, we can go out, some beer for me and a packet of bird seed for you. 🙂
Those fundamentalists don't know anything about evolution, but yet they deny it categorically. Why learn anything that is wrong from the beginning? A waste of time... But they think they know it all anyway.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie what do you not understand about what i'm about to say.
that's correct professor M.J.Behe doesn't know anything about evolution, he became professor of biochemistry because he knew absolutely nothing, he simply threw a blank piece of paper out of the window and it evolved into a respectable curriculum vitae, i suggest you try it with your watch, see if it evolves into a PDA as it adapts to the environment ...[text shortened]... ke it across to Glasgow, we can go out, some beer for me and a packet of bird seed for you. 🙂
Michael Behe, a well respected scientist, claimed he had found 3 things that he believed were irreducibly complex and therefore claimed a 'designer' must be involved in life on this planet.
Let me be blunt.
HIS CLAIMS OF IRREDDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY HAVE SINCE BEEN PROVEN INCORRECT. HIS THEORY IS NOW WRONG. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REJECT THEM, EVEN HIS OWN EMPLOYERS REJECT THEM.
I know you like it because a respected (once respected) bio-chemist claims to have found evidence of a 'deigner' and it gives the creationists a bit of kudos, but he's been proven incorrect.
1 edit
Are you sure you know what M.J.Behe professes, for you may be attributing to him an erroneous view, as have others, for the professor has his own mind and his own evaluation of these things, what is it about this noobster that you do not understand?
Dear Readers,
The January 2009 issue of Trends in Microbiology contains an article entitled “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?” Unfortunately, like many people, the authors have a mistaken view of irreducible complexity, as well as a very shallow idea of what a Darwinian “precursor” to an irreducibly complex system might be. I wrote a letter to the editor of the journal to point out these difficulties. Alas, they said they had no room to publish it. Below is the letter that I sent.
To the editor:
In their recent article “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?” Snyder et al. (2009) [1] attribute to me a view of irreducible complexity concerning the flagellum that I do not hold. They write “One advocate of ID, Behe, has argued that the bacterial flagellum shows the property of ‘irreducible complexity’, that is, that it cannot function if even a single one of its components is missing”. That isn’t quite right. Rather, I argued that necessary structural and functional components cannot be missing. In Darwin’s Black Box I wrote, “The bacterial flagellum uses a paddling mechanism. Therefore it must meet the same requirements as other such swimming systems. Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts—a paddle, a rotor, and a motor—it is irreducibly complex.” [2] A particular auxiliary component of the flagellar system, such as, say, a chaperone protein, may or may not be needed for the system to work under particular circumstances. However, if it is missing a necessary mechanical part, it simply cannot work.
That shouldn’t be controversial. In fact Snyder et al (2009) avail themselves of the same reasoning when they write about a hook-basal-body complex recently discovered in Buchnera aphidicola, which “lacks ... the gene for flagellin”. [1] They conclude it “must have some role other than motility.” Well, why must it have some role other than motility? Because, of course, it is missing the paddle, and therefore can’t work as a paddling propulsion system. In other words, in my sense of the term, it is irreducibly complex.
Snyder et al (2009) think Buchnera’s derived structure “illuminates flagellar evolution by providing an example of what a simpler precursor of today’s flagellum might have looked like – a precursor dedicated solely to protein export rather than motility”. [1] I think that simplicity should be distrusted. The activity of a protein export system has no obvious connection to the activity of a rotary motor propulsion system. Thus the difficulty of accounting for the propulsive function of the flagellum and its irreducible complexity remains unaddressed. In regard to the flagellum’s evolution, Snyder et al’s (2009) advice to distrust simplicity is sound and should be followed consistently. [1]
Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015
was this your view also noobster or are you just another victim of the propaganda. you really should listen to more greenday my friend 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know anything about professor M.J.Behe, therefore I don't express anything about him.
that's correct professor M.J.Behe doesn't know anything about evolution, he became professor of biochemistry because he knew absolutely nothing, he simply threw a blank piece of paper out of the window and it evolved into a respectable curriculum vitae, i suggest you try it with your watch, see if it evolves into a PDA as it adapts to the environment ...[text shortened]... ke it across to Glasgow, we can go out, some beer for me and a packet of bird seed for you. 🙂
Fundamentalists don't know anything about evolution, therefore they shouldn't express anything about it.
Evolution is a correct theory however. Observations shows it reliable. Alternative theories has no observations that hold.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you emphasize the scientific credentials of Behe to support your argument that he is right about intelligent design? Other, equally qualified and equally educated scientists don't support intelligent design, but support evolution. And they vastly outnumber the intelligent design supporters. So why insist upon the scientific credentials of Behe, while you disregard the same credentials of scientists that don't support something that is in line with your own ideas?
Are you sure you know what M.J.Behe professes, for you may be attributing to him an erroneous view, as have others, for the professor has his own mind and his own evaluation of these things, what is it about this noobster that you do not understand?
Dear Readers,
The January 2009 issue of Trends in Microbiology contains an article entitled “Ba ...[text shortened]... u just another victim of the propaganda. you really should listen to more greenday my friend 🙂
Originally posted by DdVbecause my dear friend, this is exactly my point, each one must make his own evaluation of the respective interpretations and findings of the eminent scientists, to exclude one at the behest of the others, is hardly objective is it? Look at Fabians for example, he knows nothing of Behe yet he claims exclusive rights to decry that all in opposition are wrong, its the narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness that makes even the most ardent Christian fundamentalist look like a liberal secularist high on gay rights, if it were not so serious and indicative of the type of outright prejudice that encapsulates his narrow world, it would be laughable.
Why do you emphasize the scientific credentials of Behe to support your argument that he is right about intelligent design? Other, equally qualified and equally educated scientists don't support intelligent design, but support evolution. And they vastly outnumber the intelligent design supporters. So why insist upon the scientific credentials of Behe, while you ...[text shortened]... me credentials of scientists that don't support something that is in line with your own ideas?
why do I champion Behe, well naturally one is going to gravitate a little towards those who hold a similar view, plus and this is the real plus, he is a professor of biochemistry, therefore the type of drivel that he knows nothing about evolution is simply another absurdity, and the evolutionist must contend, not with mud slinging as is their usual and pitifully predictable mode of conduct, but with the science itself, is it not awesome? and if we never had Behe, the debate would be a rather one sided and dull affair, actually i myself am not entirely sure i agree with Behe himself, once i finish the Edge of Evolution, i will be better placed to make my own evaluation. 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe creationist Christian is claiming i'm a victim of propoganda!!! I've heard it all now.
[bwas this your view noobster or are you just another victim of the propaganda?[/b]
I'm curious, are there are any other branches of science you believe have got it all wrong or is it just evolution?? Because i see in another thread you're quite excited by quantumn computers, how come you're so sure they've correct in what they do?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobi enjoyed that lecture immensely my friend, come hither noobster, until i whisper something in your ear, shhhhh..... less Fabian hears us, creationists love science, for them it is an insight into the 'mind', of the creator, Romans 1:20, shhh.....states 'For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,' thus this perception of the divine, is reckoned to be evident from an examination of living things, that is why they love it...shhh.... .......creeps away whispering into the undergrowth, and fades into the night.....🙂
The creationist Christian is claiming i'm a victim of propoganda!!! I've heard it all now.
I'm curious, are there are any other branches of science you believe have got it all wrong or is it just evolution?? Because i see in another thread you're quite excited by quantumn computers, how come you're so sure they've correct in what they do?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI heard that!
less Fabian hears us, creationists love science,
That would explain why fundamentalists are so keen on mingling with real science people in the Science Forum, but not why the keep their ignorance about science things so desperately. They love science because they love to deny science.
Fundamentalists YECreationists thinks that dinosaurs was onboard the ark of Noa, they deny dendrochronometry, tectoncics, evolution, radiometric chronometry, BigBang theory, higher dimentional geometry, you name the science, they deny it. And they deny it becase they clearly haven't understood anything, or perhaps because doesn't fit into the Genesis myth.
I hear everything!
Originally posted by FabianFnasLol, drat, drat and double drat! perhaps its your highly evolved sense of hearing, do you have sonar? 🙂
I heard that!
That would explain why fundamentalists are so keen on mingling with real science people in the Science Forum, but not why the keep their ignorance about science things so desperately. They love science because they love to deny science.
Fundamentalists YECreationists thinks that dinosaurs was onboard the ark of Noa, they deny dendrochr ...[text shortened]... derstood anything, or perhaps because doesn't fit into the Genesis myth.
I hear everything!
but it seems to me Fabian that there are different degrees of fundamentalism, i, while being a 'creationist', have enough knowledge and common sense to know that they earth is zillions of years old, nor does it conflict with my view of the Genesis account, for it all boils down to the interpretation that you give to the period of time called 'day', these guys insist that it was a 24 hour period, what is there basis for doing so? who can tell? I on the other hand realise that the term 'day', is an indeterminable amount of time, as in the phrase, back in Newtons day, thus i am able quite readily to reconcile the Genesis account and that of the scientific, these guys on the other hand, have opened up a whole can of worms for themselves and have become cannon fodder for those who know anything about it!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGenesis, bah, days or billion of years, it's not even in the correct order. It's just a fabel of the time of when it's written, nothing more. If you really treat genesis as science, then you really are a fundamentalist.
Lol, drat, drat and double drat! perhaps its your highly evolved sense of hearing, do you have sonar? 🙂
but it seems to me Fabian that there are different degrees of fundamentalism, i, while being a 'creationist', have enough knowledge and common sense to know that they earth is zillions of years old, nor does it conflict with my view of the G ...[text shortened]... f worms for themselves and have become cannon fodder for those who know anything about it!
Fundamentalists cannot explain the flooding, yet take it as a scientific truth, inventing every possible way of explaining details, one more fantastic than the other.
And to their favourite pet to hate: Evolution. Despite all evidence, their only evidence is the word of genesis. Without any observation they believe religiously of their creation and their intelligent designer.
Do you also believe in the creationist dogma that there were dinosaurs in the ark of Noah?
Yes, there are different kinds of fundamentalists: Those who are silent, not showing their ignorance. And those who talks and quite clearly are showing their ignorance.
Originally posted by FabianFnaswhy would i believe that there were dinosaurs in the Ark? the Genesis account is silent and the scientific evidence suggests that they died well before this, therefore its fairly straight forward, so these are two areas or lines of thought that this 'creationist', does not advocate. actually the Genesis account can be perfectly reconciled to scientific thought, its not so hard, you just need to know what you are doing and carefully evaluate the 'variations', as you go along.
Genesis, bah, days or billion of years, it's not even in the correct order. It's just a fabel of the time of when it's written, nothing more. If you really treat genesis as science, then you really are a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists cannot explain the flooding, yet take it as a scientific truth, inventing every possible way of explaining details, one ...[text shortened]... t showing their ignorance. And those who talks and quite clearly are showing their ignorance.
actually my shower is broken in the house and our water is turned off, i need to do something drastic, at present to fix the problem, like buy a new thermostatic shower valve, we can talk or discuss these things later, if you are interested, not that i hope to convince you, but to show that it is possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…each one must make his own EVALUATION of the respective interpretations and findings of the eminent scientists, … (my emphasis)
because my dear friend, this is exactly my point, each one must make his own evaluation of the respective interpretations and findings of the eminent scientists, to exclude one at the behest of the others, is hardly objective is it? Look at Fabians for example, he knows nothing of Behe yet he claims exclusive rights to decry that all in opposition a ...[text shortened]... self, once i finish the Edge of Evolution, i will be better placed to make my own evaluation. 🙂
Yes -ideally according to the evidence/reason.
…to exclude one at the BEHEST of the others, is hardly objective is it?
..…
Which other scientist demanded that you should not perform your OWN EVALUATION of Behe’s work? -answer none. But other scientists have already debunked his central claims -so would you just ignore that when making your own ‘evaluation’?
…. he is a professor of biochemistry, THEREFORE the type of drivel that he knows nothing about evolution is simply another absurdity
…
He has already demonstrated he understands little about evolution.
Knowing a lot about biochemistry in modern living things doesn’t necessarily mean you must know about evolution although it may sometimes help to know about biochemistry when assessing a hypothesis of molecular-evolution (if that is the correct term) -they are still two different fields of knowledge so being good at one doesn’t necessarily mean that makes you any good at the other. He should have stuck to his own field.