Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[articulett]

Nah... I just don't care anymore. It's semantic silliness. And Behe does not say a designer is necessary-- he just obfuscates understanding so the emphasis is on random... that makes evolution seem implausible without "help"-- it "infers" a designer. That is why Dawkins and all biologists go out of their way to explain natural selection and why it looks designed--but you guys don't even get that-- no matter how many examples are given. Dawkins has educated many; whereas, Behe is not respected by any peer-reviewed scientist.

But it's all semantics. Since my definition is on par with the vast majority and I actually teach the subject and understand the peer reviewed papers and Dawkins-- (Plus I pass genetic board exams on the topic), It seems that I'm not the one that needs further educating on why I and Dawkins are wrong. I bet Behe feels similarly... in fact, he says as much about Dawkins in his tangential amazon blog (or at least that's what I think he's saying.) If you think you understand and can convey natural selection with the confidence of Behe then I am pretty sure this is a tired road that I don't want to go down. It's just a rehash of the dover transcript from my perspective. And why? What's the goal of the conversation? Certain opinionated people will go on forever and never cede a point or say anything useful or of value. And I don't want to be sanctioned for showing my disgust with that Behe-esque "discussion technique". I see no evidence that this kind of conversation is different than Behe-speak or useful for anything except further confusion.

I aim to clarify and educate and learn. There's none of that on this thread.

And it isn't the topic of this post either. I just think it's best if I put the people I consider apologists on ignore. I don't think I'd be missing anything of value. It's like you are trying to force me to say you are being explanatory or saying something valid and useful, but I see it as valid and useful as what Behe says. And I think you guys are just as faith filled and righteous regarding your opinions as he is. Nothing will change your view as nothing will change his.

I'm sticking with Dawkins, Talk Origins, Berekely, Foster Zygote, cyborg, et. al. the majority-- and the science texts... and the peer-reviewed papers I quoted. Creationists and apologists are not able to convey understanding of evolution to anyone from what I can see.

Goodbye.

 

[Elind]

So, evolution happens, whether or not we have the ability to simulate it well, but if we create a simulation based on our theories, and that simulation seems to behave the same way the real world behaves, then it constitutes evidence for the theory.

So, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

The simulation does not constitute evidence for the theory. All it constitutes is our ability to represent the theory to the extent that a particular simulation describes a particular aspect of the theory.

I'll take that as a compliment, whether or not it was meant as one.

It was.

Now, though, to my point, which you brought up again. There's no reason to doubt that the opinions I express are anything other than honest, and that goes for the other participants as well. The opinion I present really is the opinion I hold.

I don't doubt that.

I might cause some confusion by standing up for people I disagree with. Because people assume that no one ever says something nice about "the other side", when I stand up for Behe, a lot of people assume I agree with Behe, and that causes some confusion. My tendency to stand up for those people has earned me the label "apologist", which label I do not object to. It's not perfectly accurate, but it's pretty close.

You should be on TV. You would get a lot more people willing to come on your show than O'Reilly. However you risk being a pansy like Larry King. Just out of interest, how would you deal with Sylvia Brown as a guest? She pretends to believe, as much as Behe does.

I make no apologies for my apologism. I think that people's beliefs should be presented accurately, and I think that whatever contempt we have for those beliefs should not be expressed as personal attacks on the believer. Specifically, go ahead and criticize Behe for believing what he does, but you may as well get it right when you talk about his beliefs, and there's no reason to assume he is lying about them. Similarly for everyone on this thread.

I can't prove it, but Behe doesn't strike me as a believer". If he was he would sound like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I think with him it's a business. Just my opinion.

 

[Elind]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc
My explanation of evolution through natural selection as "random" may not be simpler or easier to understand, articulett, but it is correct. Calling it "random" doesn't mean that I don't think it can happen. In fact, many apparently ordered natural process are at their most basic stochastic process. For instance, the van der Waals Gas Law describes the orderly and predictable macroscopic behavior of gases, while on a microscopic level, the movement of individual gas particles is described by a probability distribution. Similarly, a nuclear fission chain reaction can be predicted when the mean free path of the unbound neutrons in the material (i.e., the mean distance a neutron has to travel before it strikes another nucleus) falls below a certain value, but the free paths of all neutrons a described by a probability distribution. Diffusion is also dependent on the mean free path of solute molecules.

The mistake in the "747 in a tornado" straw man is the assumption that order cannot arise from random processes, which is what evolutionary biologists seem to be responding to when they say that evolution is non-random. As I have said before, even though evolution functions through probabilities on the individual short duration level, it is the mean of the probabilistic selection processes over many individuals and many generations that causes evolution to take on its deterministic appearance, just like gases, nuclear fission and diffusion.

articulett responded to this post, so she has no excuse for saying that it doesn't exist. In short, she knowingly lied about what I said in an attempt to discredit me. That is why I said I was thinking about reporting her to the moderators, although now I think that it is really not actionable because in does not constitute a breach on the terms of service.

You'd get more respect if you didn't automatically respond with "deliberately lied" so often. You've done it to me, and to others pretty regularly. Let me try to explain that disagreement, misunderstanding, non understanding do not have to constitute "lying", and seldom do. This is a personal deficiency that you need to deal with.

However, I never read the above earlier post you made. My apologies; we are now on page 11 or so. Had I done so I would have made the general observation that your comparisons of "random" processes like " gases, nuclear fission and diffusion." is invalid in this context.

Without getting myself into deeper water than I can write a textbook on, the reason relates to "systems" and entropy. Open systems behave in one way regarding increasing entropy and "randomness". Closed systems behave differently and can DECREASE entropy, and can INCREASE complexity in the process. "Randomly" describable processes that you reference are not equivalent to more complex combinatorial processes (which constitute closed, not open, systems).

To simple extents this can apply to chemical processes. To less simple ones, biochemical processes and to much less simple one, life.

Life however functions under closed system parameters, nuclear fission not, although eventually all will fission to the nth degree.

 

[articulett]

Moreover life replicates... gases don't... and the best replicators multiply their genetic info. exponentially--giving the appearance of design. But it's all been said before... to no avail. (It's all gases from those familiar with hot air.) They are all smarter than Dawkins.

 

[Meadmaker]

You should be on TV. You would get a lot more people willing to come on your show than O'Reilly. However you risk being a pansy like Larry King. Just out of interest, how would you deal with Sylvia Brown as a guest? She pretends to believe, as much as Behe does.

Difficult to say. To be honest, I haven't followed Sylvia, and only see a few pictures, and sometimes read Randi's comments. She's just another fraudulent psychic, and after you've seen a few of them, they all look (and sound) alike.

When I've seen Randi on TV, I mostly like his approach. On the few occasions I've seen him, he doesn't rant and rave, and tries to belittle through humor. In writing, he's somewhat crankier than I like, but on the whole he really is to be admired, and I would try to be a lot like him.

I can't prove it, but Behe doesn't strike me as a believer". If he was he would sound like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I think with him it's a business. Just my opinion.

This may sound strange, but the reason he doesn't sound like them is, in my opinion, because he's Catholic, not Baptist. Different culture.

 

[Elind]

Difficult to say. To be honest, I haven't followed Sylvia, and only see a few pictures, and sometimes read Randi's comments. She's just another fraudulent psychic, and after you've seen a few of them, they all look (and sound) alike.

When I've seen Randi on TV, I mostly like his approach. On the few occasions I've seen him, he doesn't rant and rave, and tries to belittle through humor. In writing, he's somewhat crankier than I like, but on the whole he really is to be admired, and I would try to be a lot like him.

You didn't answer the question. Think I would notice?

This may sound strange, but the reason he doesn't sound like them is, in my opinion, because he's Catholic, not Baptist. Different culture.

Sounds like you are impressionable by pomp and circumstance.

The Pope sounds pretty weird to me, most of the time. You just need to listen to what is said, not watch the waving blessings.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Moreover life replicates... gases don't... and the best replicators multiply their genetic info. exponentially--giving the appearance of design. But it's all been said before... to no avail. (It's all gases from those familiar with hot air.) They are all smarter than Dawkins.

Again, articulett is missing the point there are stochastic processes that were developed specifically to deal with the perpetuation of heritable traits, such as Galton-Watson processes and the extinction of aristocratic surnames in Victorian England. Basically, if individuals with a certain trait produce on average less than one offspring per individual, the lineage will become extinct with probability 1; if individuals with a certain trait produce on average exactly one offspring per individual, the lineage will become extinct with a non-zero probability; and if individuals with a certain trait produce on average more than one offspring per individual, the lineage will become extinct with probability 0 and grow exponentially. The a process does not need to be "non-random" (whatever that means) in order to exhibit the behavior that articulett ascribes to evolution.

This is not to say that evolution has to be random, but it does mean that the behavior that evolution does exhibit does not have to be by definition "non-random".

 

[six7s]

This may sound strange, but the reason he doesn't sound like them is, in my opinion, because he's Catholic, not Baptist. Different culture.

Key point: He sounds different

To my (catholic) ear, a (Southern) Baptist only has to read the weather and it sounds like they're announcing the arrival of the four horseman

The unholy Roman catholic church wrote the book on soft-sales techniques, and has had 1500+ years to refine their own brand of psycho-babble to the point where it sounds innocuous, to all but those who are really listening

 

[Elind]

Key point: He sounds different

To my (catholic) ear, a (Southern) Baptist only has to read the weather and it sounds like they're announcing the arrival of the four horseman

The unholy Roman catholic church wrote the book on soft-sales techniques, and has had 1500+ years to refine their own brand of psycho-babble to the point where it sounds innocuous, to all but those who are really listening

Catholic, or ex Catholic?

I don't think it sounds innocuous whether you just listen or really listen. Like when HE recently mentioned that the native South Americans were really just waiting for the word, and "wanted" to be conquered and killed so it could be proven true.

 

[six7s]

Again, articulett is missing the point there are stochastic processes that were developed specifically to deal with the perpetuation of heritable traits, such as Galton-Watson processes and the extinction of aristocratic surnames in Victorian England

Ermmm... excuse my ignorance but it strikes me that Galton and Watson derived a formula that described, not proscribed, an observable trend

If so... who is missing the point?

 

[Elind]

Again, articulett is missing the point there are stochastic processes that were developed specifically to deal with the perpetuation of heritable traits, such as Galton-Watson processes and the extinction of aristocratic surnames in Victorian England.

So?

Heredity, as traits, was well recognized long before Darwin. That by itself does not lead to the Theory of Evolution.

 

[articulett]

Ermmm... excuse my ignorance but it strikes me that Galton and Watson derived a formula that described, not proscribed, an observable trend

If so... who is missing the point?

And they use it to describe the change of the DNA (random mutations)-- not the non-random part (natural selection). But he can only hear the part he can tie to "random".
ETA-- oops... I was thinking of a current genetic search where they used last names and Y chromosomes to trace ancestry and the results were interesting... anything as old as Galton is old and out of date. We've only just mapped the human genome... if they aren't interested in current data... I guess that's a pretty good clue, eh?

If you can't follow them, rest assured, no one else probably is either. They have a talent for using words to say nothing at all. I have to put them on ignore because you are supposed to attack the argument, not the arguer, and their argument is impossible to pin down. I'm not even sure if they have one.

Unlike Dawkins or Darwin or other fine authors on the topic, the more the "Behe-esque" say... the less you comprehensible they are and the more you got lost as to what their point is. And then they'll call you and scientists liars while they defend creationists at every turn. Beware.

 

[jimbob]

Anyone care to answer whether the example questions I posted above are better answered with a probabilistic treatment?

Hidden below for size and repetition:

In a stable population, a single advantageous mutation provides a 10% selective advantage, and arises in a single (asexually reproducing) organism.

The average brood size for this type of organism is 10.

1) At the birth of this organism, what is the probability of the mutation spreading through the population?

2) The organism makes it through to breed,

a) What is the probability of the mutation spreading now?

b) What is the probaility of the mutation remaining for 5 generations?

3) The mutation is now in 1% of a large popluation, now what is likely to happen?

I think these are usefull types of questions, and ones that can be only answered probabilistically, how would you answer such questions?

Are such questions valid?

You don't need genetics to understand how evolutioon works, however it can help to atack part of the irriducible complexity argument:

Offspring are usually somewhat like their parents; sometimes, however single mutations causing e.g. neotony can cause a viable offspring with a significantly different suite of traits. Most of the time these would be disadvantageous, but sometimes it is enough to open up a new ecological niche...

 

[jimbob]

And they use it to describe the change of the DNA (random mutations)-- not the non-random part (natural selection). But he can only hear the part he can tie to "random".

What is, "a reproductive advantage of 1:1000", if not a probabilistic statement about natural selection?

Natural selection is precicely the sort of process that the poisson distribution was developed to explain. It is a signature of random behaviour..

Further to my other statements, you can have an estimation as to the maximum selective advantage a trait could confer:

The pepered moth.

Suppose that 30% of moths were killedby bird predation before reproducing. Thus 30% is the maximum selective advantage of any traits that only reduce the liklyhood of bird predation. This is large; there are many ways of failing to breed.


Evolution works, is an elegant theory, and some of its implicatons can be thought through with simple assumptions and basic maths; this is part of its fascination for me.

ETA:

I mean you're nice and trying to make friends, but your explanation is just not clear or clean or simple-- Cyborgs was. Dawkins was. Ichneumonwasp was-- and many dropped by that other thread to say pretty much what they said-- what I said-- but it goes in one ear and out the other. Sure you can describe it however you want-- but you might want to get someone who understands the process to evaluate whether they think you are being clear. I pass board exams on this subject. You would fail.

Why would I fail? Because I say that sleective processes would follow a poisson distribution, and that to quantify selective advantage, you need to treat it as probabilistic?

 

[articulett]

It's irrelevant and tangential jimbob, and insincere since you are trying to prove a point that your way of describing evolution is best. As far as I can tell, only you think so. Dawkins et. al. are a thousand times better than this "probabilistic" semantic verbiage. Plus it's been answered by me several times. You don't seem to be able to show how the appearance of design comes from the random mutation. Yes I have posted multiple examples (Dawkins, Jones, Ayala, even MSNBC) where they do.

Maybe you'll find another sucker.

 

[jimbob]

Why?

Dawkins uses a probabilistic treatment.

I am saying that if you want a remotly technical discussion about natural selection, you need a probabilistic treatment.

How is that insincere?

I am only talking about natural selection, evolution follows from this, but evolution is not only natural selection.

Is "probabilistic" a confusing term? I agree that "random" is, for natural selection.

ETA:

How I would answer the "appearence of design" question is as follows:

Traits that are advantageous are more likely to get passed on. Over time, more advantageous traits will tend to build up in the populations.

Little difference from you, except for the qualifiers "more likely" and "tend to".

 

[mijopaalmc]

So does anyone have evidence that only individuals with a certain set of genes reproduce and all others don't?

Such evidence, which would make evolution by natural selection a non-random process, has yet to be presented.

Also, it has repeatedly stated that no credible scientist would say that evolution is a stochastic process. That is blatantly false. Motoo Kimra said it 1955 in "Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection", and Graham Bell said it again in 1997 in Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. There are also at least 22 other books that that evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process.

Would anyone like to revise their position that there is no evidence that evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As if to illustrate the point, someone started a thread specifically on the subject, mijo made a rather innocent comment in support of randomness and someone (look up who if you're interested) said "you don't understand science". It was a sort of confirmation of my suspicions expressed in the original thread.

So does anyone have evidence that only individuals with a certain set of genes reproduce and all others don't?

Such evidence, which would make evolution by natural selection a non-random process, has yet to be presented.

Also, it has repeatedly stated that no credible scientist would say that evolution is a stochastic process. That is blatantly false. Motoo Kimra said it 1955 in "Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection", and Graham Bell said it again in 1997 in Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. There are also at least 22 other books that that evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process.

Would anyone like to revise their position that there is no evidence that evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process?

So the emphasis was wrong in the first reply to mijo. I don't think that he doesn't understand science. I think he doesn't understand language. This constant insistence on importing the technical definition of random from probability theory into a description for evolution is misplaced and divisive. Just witness the amount of time spent on discussing it.

It has a place in technical descriptions only. It has no place in the greater world in which we teach evolution. That is the world Articulett inhabits and that is why she is so insistent.

For the love of God, words share family resemblances. Virtually all words have numerous interlocking definitions that overlap and share resemblances as family members to one another. There is no such thing as THE ESSENCE of a word. Treating 'random' as though it has some central essence and means only 'occurring in a probabilistic distribution' is fine if that is the way you want to speak. But it isn't how others speak and Articulett, for all her bluster, is correct on that score. Words obtain their meaning in the greater context of a language. We do not have the surrounding structures in our biological language to support 'random' in the way you are using it so as not to create confusion. If you guys want to work on creating a whole new vocabulary for biology as the behaviorists have done for psychology so as to clear up these conflicts, then go to it. But we still have long debates about 'free-will' and 'consciousness' because others do not share the language assumptions of the behaviorists and continue to use language as the rest of the language community does.

Mijo, I'm sorry, but you are not saying anything worthwhile in that last post. You are simply repeating the same truism based on your restrictive definition of a few words. It doesn't tell us anything fundamental about evolution. It is an example only of the way we describe it. And that description is a truism, so it is essentially worthless.

Articulett, chill. Please?

Won't you guys even make an effort to understand each other?

I still like Jimbob's 'probabilistic'. That term does not carry all the connotations of 'random', and I think is a very accurate description of the process.

 

[Elind]

So does anyone have evidence that only individuals with a certain set of genes reproduce and all others don't?

Such evidence, which would make evolution by natural selection a non-random process, has yet to be presented.

Of course it has been presented, starting with Darwin, except that you have it wrong. The correct term is "reproduce more successfully than others", which is well demonstrated.

So does that close the issue? Please.

 

[Meadmaker]

The unholy Roman catholic church wrote the book on soft-sales techniques, and has had 1500+ years to refine their own brand of psycho-babble to the point where it sounds innocuous, to all but those who are really listening

I didn't say it was inoccuous, just different. Behe is a much more soft-selling sort than some of his firebrand cohorts. He comes from that tradition.