Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[six7s]

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.

OK... that was past tense

What say you know?

Is Behe:

• innocuous
  
• right
  
• innocent
  
• wrong
  
• a liar

Please pick one or more options

 

[articulett]

Six7's-- read the Behe transcript excerpts (there are some in this thread and all over the web)-- you will get a feel for the way of the wedge strategy-- where words are used to confuse and then infer some "alternate" hypothesize (for which there is no evidence). If you get the basics of natural selection, you'll see how he dodges and weaves to obfuscate understanding of it. The Science Department of his own University

And real science, in the shape of his own department of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has publicly disowned him, via a remarkable disclaimer on its Web site: “While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.” As the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne wrote recently, in a devastating review of Behe’s work in The New Republic, it would be hard to find a precedent.

He's a buffoon. Here's his delusional semantic dance on this whole brouhaha.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2

He's paid well to obfuscate. The apologists on this forum, do it for free as they've been indoctrinated to do.

 

[six7s]

Six7's-- read the Behe transcript excerpts
<snip/>
The apologists on this forum, do it for free as they've been indoctrinated to do.

Thanks Articulet't

Doing it for free?

TANSTAAFL: see my current signature

 

[jimbob]

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.

OF COURSE I am trying to prove a point with my questions, but can you answer them without using a probabilistic treatment?

My approach lets me ask and answer such questions, does yours?

Which approach is vague?

If I was talking to primary-school kids I wouldn't use this language, but I hope that I am not.

 

[cyborg]

but can you answer them without using a probabilistic treatment?

Yes. It is always possible. The mathematical constructs allow an ambiguity in description. I pointed this out some time ago. It appears no-one gets this.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK... that was past tense

What say you know?

Is Behe:

• innocuous
  
• right
  
• innocent
  
• wrong
  
• a liar

Please pick one or more options

Hmm.. innocuous? I actually had to look up the word, just to make sure I was using it right. I was thinking "harmless", and I would say mostly harmless. However, there is another definition that I was unaware of, which is, "not likely to irritate or offend". I don't think we could ever apply that definition to Behe. So, no on the innocuous.

Right? Definitely not.

Innocent? Of what is he charged? I don't think he is morally culpable for anything he does. I'll go with yes.

Wrong? Definitely.

A liar? I don't think so.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I think that's a misplaced reading of what went on here.

To understand the phenomenon that has driven these threads, you can't separate the technical content from the personal attacks which have accompanied the commentary.

If you want to understand these threads forget biology and mathematics. Take up psychology.

But that's really where it all started, as well. I had a mild, but decidedly negative, reaction to Dawkins' discussion on the topic in "The God Delusion". As with my overall conclusion about the book, I thought it was basically good, but there was an underlying smugness and divisiveness about the entire book which I though was not all that bad, but which would inspire much worse in those who read it.

The discussion of randomness was one aspect of it. Dawkins' discussion wasn't all that bad, but I feared that the people who took it to heart would not be as reasonable even as Dawkins was. I think the events on these threads have demonstrated that the fear was justified.

As for whether or not that word is divisive, I just can't see it that way. If someone were to insist that other people use that word, or that other people not use that word, that would be divisive. It's just a word, and it isn't a commentary about any person. If someone has such an adverse reaction to it that they feel compelled to insult the user of the word, that's divisive.

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.

Works for me.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think that's a misplaced reading of what went on here.

To understand the phenomenon that has driven these threads, you can't separate the technical content from the personal attacks which have accompanied the commentary.

If you want to understand these threads forget biology and mathematics. Take up psychology.

But that's really where it all started, as well. I had a mild, but decidedly negative, reaction to Dawkins' discussion on the topic in "The God Delusion". As with my overall conclusion about the book, I thought it was basically good, but there was an underlying smugness and divisiveness about the entire book which I though was not all that bad, but which would inspire much worse in those who read it.

The discussion of randomness was one aspect of it. Dawkins' discussion wasn't all that bad, but I feared that the people who took it to heart would not be as reasonable even as Dawkins was. I think the events on these threads have demonstrated that the fear was justified.

As for whether or not that word is divisive, I just can't see it that way. If someone were to insist that other people use that word, or that other people not use that word, that would be divisive. It's just a word, and it isn't a commentary about any person. If someone has such an adverse reaction to it that they feel compelled to insult the user of the word, that's divisive.

Fair enough. But I do seem to recall some advocacy of others using the word and that it should be a part of the biological description of evolution. If some folks just want to use the word, what is the big deal?

 

[mijopaalmc]

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?

You still are.

I was arguing that one cannot dismiss the possibility of evolution being a stochastic process because evolution involves "the exponential growth of replicators". Such behavior is displayed by Galton-Watson processes. Therefore, one needs to address other points of evolution that may make random or non-random.

 

[six7s]

So, no on the innocuous.

Right? Definitely not.

Innocent? Of what is he charged? I don't think he is morally culpable for anything he does. I'll go with yes.

Wrong? Definitely.

A liar? I don't think so.

Thank you Meadmaker, for the concise yet detailed reply, I appreciate it

 

[six7s]

If so... who is missing the point?

You still are.

And your reply does not help, nor does it begin to convince me - with my rudimentary yet hopefully growing understanding of science - that you know what you are talking about

evolution involves "the exponential growth of replicators"

Really? Even during mass extinctions?

An expert has demonstrated why Galton-Watson processes are irrelevant to this discussion

Please desist from repeatedly clouding the issue with archaic and irrelevant dis-information. I does not help

 

[mijopaalmc]

And your reply does not help, nor does it begin to convince me - with my rudimentary yet hopefully growing understanding of science - that you know what you are talking about


Really? Even during mass extinctions?

An expert has demonstrated why Galton-Watson processes are irrelevant to this discussion

Please desist from repeatedly clouding the issue with archaic and irrelevant dis-information. I does not help

And that is precisely you problem. You consider the fact that random processes can display the same behavior and supposedly non-random evolutions to be "archaic and irrelevant dis-information". Furthermore, you have ignored the fact that extinction occurs with probability 1 when the mean number of offspring per individual is less than one. This occurs for all lineages of many species during a mass extinction.

Would you care to tell me which "expert" has demonstrated that "Galton-Watson processes are irrelevant to this discussion" when there is published scientific literature using them to model molecular evolution?

 

[articulett]

Yes. It is always possible. The mathematical constructs allow an ambiguity in description. I pointed this out some time ago. It appears no-one gets this.

I do... but then I alway did.
If clarity is the goal--stick with the words that have worked for many.

 

[Meadmaker]

And that is precisely you problem. You consider the fact that random processes can display the same behavior and supposedly non-random evolutions to be "archaic and irrelevant dis-information". Furthermore, you have ignored the fact that extinction occurs with probability 1 when the mean number of offspring per individual is less than one. This occurs for all lineages of many species during a mass extinction.

Would you care to tell me which "expert" has demonstrated that "Galton-Watson processes are irrelevant to this discussion" when there is published scientific literature using them to model molecular evolution?

I'm not absolutely certain you have correctly identified the problem here.

six7s,
Let me see if I can address the issue. Articulett's repsonse said that evolution was characterized by exponential growth of successful traits (or something to that effect). The context suggested that she thought that this was as opposed to random. Mijo was pointing out that exponential growth and stochastic processes were not mutually exclusive terms. Apparently, Galton-Watson processes fit in both categories.

 

[six7s]

Would you care to tell me which "expert" has demonstrated that "Galton-Watson processes are irrelevant to this discussion"

No, I wouldn't care to, for the simple reason that, going by your recent form, I don't relish being sidetracked into a pile of faecal matter emanating from an apologist hobby-horse that perpetuates the myth that natural selection must have been designed

Instead, I'll use my time to read some of the 1000s of sources that focus on adding to - not detracting from - our collecetive body of knowledge

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Myriad]

The problem with "evolution is random" isn't the definition of "random." It's the definition of "evolution." I'll work my way back to that point.

I accept that "random" does correctly describe loaded dice and other processes with skewed non-uniform distributions of outcome.

So, if you're playing craps with loaded dice, the outcome of one throw, or one pass, is still accurately described by "random."

But with loaded dice the outcome of the game is no longer random. That is to say, the answer to the all-important question of who goes home with more money than they came with, and who with less, becomes entirely predictable once we know who's using the loaded dice, and it is therefore not random.

The movements and collisions of gas molecules are unpredictable and random. Pressure is the movement and collision of gas molecules. So pressure is random. True or false?

Obviously, false, as we can tell by the ability to precisely predict the pressure of a given system, and even how it changes as we change such variables as its temperature or volume. But the reason it's false is not that the movement of gas molecules isn't really truly random. It's because pressure isn't the movement and collision of gas molecules. It's the result of the movement and collision of gas molecules. That's an important distinction. Getting it wrong leads to the false conclusion that gas pressure is unpredictable.

A similar distinction that's equally important, though it's often missed: evolution is not random variation and natural selection. Evolution is the long-term result of random variation and natural selection. The game, not the dice. The pressure, not the trajectories of the gas molecules.

This distinction is rarely clearly made, to the detriment of understanding. We casually call a lion pouncing on a slow gazelle "evolution in action." It's not. It's a lion and a gazelle in action. It's, to some degree, selection in action. It's the event that acts on evolution (in a small way), not the other way around. "Evolution in action" cannot be observed on that scale.

Random processes can have random long-term outcomes (like a fair craps game), or completely predictable outcomes (like gas pressure). Thus, the randomness of random variation, and the randomness (however skewed) in the effect of natural selection on individuals, tells us nothing about whether evolution is random.

So, it's reasonable to ask, what is the evidence that evolution, the long-term result of random variation and natural selection, is random? For instance, repeatable laboratory studies can be performed observing the evolutionary changes to populations (e.g. of bacteria) over many generations under controlled selective pressures. Are the results of such studies consistent from one repetition to another, or are they random?

We do generally regard the history of life's evolution on earth as "unpredictable" in the sense that we generally hypothesize that it could have gone very differently if, say, a certain geophysical or astronomical event hadn't occurred. But that doesn't necessarily make it an intrinsically random process, it makes it a process (random or otherwise) perturbed by external random inputs. Is there any scientific evidence that evolution is random?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[mijopaalmc]

No, I wouldn't care to, for the simple reason that, going by your recent form, I don't relish being sidetracked into a pile of faecal matter emanating from an apologist hobby-horse that perpetuates the myth that natural selection must have been designed

Instead, I'll use my time to read some of the 1000s of sources that focus on adding to - not detracting from - our collecetive body of knowledge

Duly noted and reported.

 

[cyborg]

Myriad, that's very insightful. It's very similar to what I had laid out earlier in other threads.

If you want to talk meaningfully about higher order concepts then you must not get bogged down in their constituent parts because - as I have demonstrated previously - mathematically it is always possible to create a black box ambiguity.

 

[articulett]

No, I wouldn't care to, for the simple reason that, going by your recent form, I don't relish being sidetracked into a pile of faecal matter emanating from an apologist hobby-horse that perpetuates the myth that natural selection must have been designed

Instead, I'll use my time to read some of the 1000s of sources that focus on adding to - not detracting from - our collecetive body of knowledge

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

If you want clarity and eloquence--Dawkins can't be beat. Steven Jones is great too. And Matt Ridley. And Stephen Pinker. And Neil Tyson Degrasse is a great speaker on the subject--you can download him (he's an astrobiologist). If you want simplicity-- Talk Origins has all levels... So does Berkeley's site. And the NCSE. On this forum-- there are so many. Cyborg is very simple, to the point, and accurate. If you aren't comprehending, it isn't you... and it isn't because the process is so complex or hard to understand. It's the "sender". Some just aren't really saying anything.

 

[articulett]

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.

Sure... just like it will for Behe--ha! In my experience the fruitless and pointless discussions will go on as long as there is someone to preach at.