<< Nelson:
She replied by asking me about what I consider designed and what I
considered "natural". Thus she returned to the main point. I took that as an
agreement that she was being "ad hominim"
>>
FMA:
She just posted and disagrees with your 'inference'.
Nelson:
Of course she did, thats the nature of the game. But did she show how her
statement was at all relevant to what we were discussing? Nope.
>>
So the nature of the game is that you made an inference about someone that
this person does not agree with? The statement was very relevant to the issue
discussed.
<< << FMA:
I do not think that you discussed why it was an ad hominem.
Nelson:
Why not?
=========================
Susan:
If you can do that, you can get around the major legal roadblock to having
Christian dogma taught in public schools--in science class, no less.
Nelson:
That is a clear cut unsubstantiated assertion.
Really?
Susan:
This
is one of the major objectives of the Discovery Institute which, at least
in part, bankrolls Behe, Dembski and Johnson.
========================================
FMA:
Is it an ad hominem to claim that it is a major objective of the Discovery
institute?
Nelson:
Yes. It does not address the evidence for intelligent design or it's
concepts. It has absolutely nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of
the flagellum.
>>
FMA:
You are correct but that's not why this remark was made so your comment is a
non sequitor.
Nelson:
Until she can demonstrate what "bankrolling" has to do with the irreducible
complexity of the bacterial flagellum then I don't see how her statement was
not ad hominem.
>>
YOu are confused. The issue was not irreducible complexity. Your comments are
a non sequitor.
<< << FMA:
Is it an ad hominem to claim that Behe et al are fellows at this institute
and are likely receiving funding for their research?
What is exactly the ad hominem.
Nelson:
What does that have to do with the irreducible complexity of the flagellum?
>>
FMA:
Nothing but that was not the argument. The argument was getting around legal
roadblocks.
Nelson:
Actually it was the argument. I was discussing the evidence for intelligent
design. She came out with "bankrolling" what does that have to do with
>>
Cool but that was not the argument she was discussing so it was not an ad
hominem.
a<< nything? She has also been equating intelligent design with Christian
motivations, more confirmation that her only objection to ID is an ad
hominem.
>>
Nope, merely an observation. You seem confused about the meaning ad hominem.
<< <<
<< "This
is one of the major objectives of the Discovery Institute which, at least
in part, bankrolls Behe, Dembski and Johnson."
Now this is unsubstantiated assertion. Not only that but it has absolutely
nothing to do with Behe's thesis of irreducible complexity among molecular
machines. Thus it is an ad hominim attack on Intelligent Design theory.
>>
FMA:
Why? How can you attack a theory with an ad hominem. Note that we were not
discussing Behe's thesis of IC-ness.
Nelson:
Yes we were. We were discussing intelligent agency and IC. Read the post.
>>
FMA:
Not in this context.
Nelson:
Actually that was the entire context of the post.
>>
That's incorrect the context was provided by susan. It was not about IC.
<<
<< << FMA:
I raised
quite a few important issues in the posting you responded to but you only
included a minor side discussion on whether or not Susan's comments were ad
hominem.
Nelson:
You didn't raise any issues, your entire post was simply "no it's not", "yes
it is". That is called "handwaving".
>>
FMA:
I told you before, you seem to have a problem reading. My arguments went
beyond "no they are not" and provided my reasons.
Nelson:
No, they were simple handwaves. For example, your statement:
"Now that it has been shown that IC have a evolutionary pathway, do you
still think that ID is useful" (paraphrase). You say this without providing
any reasons at all.
>>
FMA:
I apologize, I thought that you were familiar with the evidence.
Robison
showed on talk,origins how an IC system could arise naturally.
Nelson:
No he didn't. He showed how he could guide neutral steps intelligently to a
selectable cascade. That is not showing how anything can arise naturally.
That is showing how creative a graduate student can be.
FMA:
Note that he
did not have to show that such a pathway was actually followed. Even Behe
considers such routes possible though unlikely. But then Behe has a problem
since he has to show that they are indeed unlikely.
Nelson:
That was confirmed by Robison's attempt, which is the _only_ attempt. >>
No it was not shown by Robison's attempt. The validity of an argument is not
determined by the attempts of others to show you wrong. Nor does the fact
that Robison brought this up show that they are unlikely to happen. Your
logic is totally flawed here. Furthermore others than Robison have raised
similar issues.
If Behe's argument is that such pathways are unlikely then he has to show it.
You seem to infer it from the 'fact' that you believe Robison was the only
one to raise the issue.
<<
<<
<< FMA:
There is a far more interesting issue: Can ID exclude natural designers. My
argument is that it cannot based on its claims that it does not identify
designers.
Nelson:
Your argument is a strawman. As my Dawkin's quote illustrated, irreducible
complexity fits the definition of a system that is devoid of functional
precursors.
>>
FMA:
Your Dawkins quote does not show this. Dawkins addresses a direct path but
as
Behe admits himself, indirect paths exists and indeed those are paths that
evolution far more likely is to follow.
Nelson:
No, it is indirect paths that try to make the system "functional" at least
in part in order to arrive at the IC system. Indirect paths are exactly what
Dawkins , and even Darwin , wanted to stray away from since it invokes pure
chance.
>>
FMA:
Not at all. See Robison's argument for instance. A support was built for the
arch and then later removed. Indirect paths do not necessarily mean pure
chance. Evolution does however use and reuse whatever is available to it. To
exclude such paths without supporting evidence does not make them go away.
Nelson:
It is pure chance, the odds that a scaffold piece would arrise by chance and
by chance would enhance the function of one protein that would by chance
become well-matched and interactive to another. This is all
>>
You are making an unsupported assertion. Of course there is chance that such
a scaffold piece arises, since chance is what governs part of the Darwinian
pathway but to claim that it would be mere chance remains unsupported. If
your argument is that chance does not happen then you reject Darwinian
mechanism not based on ICness but based on their chance characteristic.
n<< on-Darwinian.Scaffolding predicts variability among IC systems. All the
parts of IC systems are universal.
>>
Actually scaffolding predicts the opposite. The fact that systems are IC is
what evolution would predict. Take away the scaffolding and the system will
stay where it is. Perhaps you would like to support your claim about
scaffolding though?
<<
<< FMA:
Behe dismisses these paths as
unlikely but provides no supporting evidence.
You seem to be using a strawman as well though. Dawkins argument merely
addresses a direct path. It does not address if by identifying design one
can
exclude a natural designer. Of course one cannot since ID is so proud to
claim that it does not do this. What ID'ers thought to be the strong point
of
their thesis now has become their achilles heel.
Nelson:
See what I mean? Why no details? Why not give an example? It does, Dawkins
thinks that the "blind watchmaker" mechanism is what makes these systems.
Thus if a system is actually an "abrupt precipice" or a discontinuity, then
we have successfully eliminated the "blind watchmaker" as the designer.
>>
FMA:
Do you want a quote from Behe where he admits that such paths exist but that
he considers them unlikely?
Nelson:
No I want you to support your claims and accusations you made about ID. >>
I have. I quoted Behe, I showed you how ID cannot exclude a natural designer.
I have shown how natural pathways to IC systems exist. I notice that the
response from ID'ers has been largely to deny that I have done this. Fine, if
that is what defines ID then let it be so.
<<
FMA:
Do you want me to show that he does not support
his argument with evidence?
Nelson:
Yes.
FMA:
I already showed you how Dawkins refers to a
direct path, not the indirect path that Behe admits could lead to an IC
system, although unlikely.
Nelson:
And I already refuted this argument by showing that indirect paths are
either non-Darwinian, or indistinguishable from direct paths.
>>
<<
FMA:
Behe's argument also presumes that a path is
reversible, but that is not necessarily the case. Unless of course you add
what might have been lost for instance.
Nelson:
So you still don't want to give any details?
>>
Shame on you for trying to distract. Of course I would love to give details.
I have given plenty already. Details you seem to be willing to dismiss as
hand waving.
Let say that you have a system that arose through scaffolding and then the
scaffold was removed, you cannot take the system apart in small part without
it stopping to function but adding a scaffold would allow one to reverse the
process. Your argument is that the path should be direct, no scaffolding
allowed, only removal of parts.
<< <<
<< FMA:
Combine this with the fact that we know that natural pathways
leading to IC systems exist and the absence of independent evidence of a
designer biological system and we have 'stumbled' on some very big problems
for ID.
Nelson:
Again, which natural pathways have led to which IC systems? The pathways you
have shown amount to speculation and error in analysis.
>>
FMA:
Unfounded assertions to the latter.
Nelson:
Another handwave.
FMA:
As far as the former: Since Behe claims
that no evolutionary pathway can exist, it is sufficient to show in rebuttal
that such pathways COULD exist.
Nelson:
Nope. Science requires evidence. If you propose that it evolved, you have
support your proposal showing how it can be falsified, make predictions,
etc.
>>
FMA:
You are confused now. The argument is not that it evolved but that it could
have evolved. Therefor IC by itself is not a reliable indicator of design or
against Darwinianism. Quite simple.
Nelson:
The "could have" is what I'm talking about. Nobody will ever know with
certainty how exactly these things evolved. Science requires evidence. If
you propose that it evolved, you have
support your proposal showing how it can be falsified, make predictions,etc.
>>
Fine let this be a lesson for ID. But the issue is that it has been shown how
IC systems could arise naturally therefor ICness is not a reliable detector
of ID. Quite simple. If the argument is that there might still be systems
that are IC and are designed then show the data. But so far ID has failed to
provide any positive evidence of design. Design is infered from absence of
knowledge and/or data.
<< << FMA:
Even Behe admits that such pathways could
exist. So now the thesis "Natural selection could not create IC structures"
has been shown to be wrong.
Nelson:
See what I mean? Why not show it is wrong instead of just asserting it?
>>
FMA:
It follows from the evidence. Simple as that. What do you expect me to do
more? I have shown that indirect pathways could exist and that therefor
Darwinian pathways could have lead to an IC system. Therefor IC is not a
reliable detector against Darwinian pathways or for design.
Nelson:
Still no details?
>>
Shame on you dear. I notice that you are trying to deny that I made an
argument. Is that the best ID can do? Then it seems to prove my assertion
that ID is not a scientifically viable thesis.
<< << FMA:
If Behe wants to argue for individual systems
that they did not evolve, fine but he cannot use IC-ness as a distinguishing
factor.
Nelson:
Why not?
>>
FMA:
See above
Nelson:
Saw above, just the same old handwaves.
<< << FMA:
Or do you disagree with that conclusion?
Nelson:
Of course not.
>>
FMA:
You do not disagree with the conclusion and yet you support ID? That's
surprising. Or should I read your comments differently?
Nelson:
Typo. I meant Of course.
>>
Of course.
<< FMA:
Please show btw the error in analysis in for instance Robison's excellent
rebuttal of Behe as found on talkorigins.
Nelson:
Behe responded to this. Robison's steps were neutral. Selection would depend
on his fourth step. This is non-Darwinian and assumes an already functioning
system. He also states:
>>
FMA:
Behe seems to believe that neutral steps could not happen or that the steps
were truely neutral. WIthout knowing the details this is hard to tell
because
it presumes that every step is neutral towards the functionality of the
system that is IC but it could very well be that the mutation was neutral to
the IC system but advantageous to another system. It's hard to exclude a
pathway if you cannot look at the full picture.
Nelson:
Your problem here is that you are not familiar with this material. Robison
himself admitted that these steps were neutral:
>>
Perhaps, perhaps not but these are the initial steps. Genetic drift could
lead to such changes. Actually many instances of neutral changes (mutations)
exist. Most mutations are neutral.
<< "The initial steps are neutral, neither advantageous nor disadvantageous."
>>
And it might even be argued that these steps could have been advantageous but
that they are not is no objection. Evolution uses variability that used to be
neutral all the time. But Robison argued that the change was neutral to the
IC system but not necessarily neutral to other systems. Behe's simplistic
view of evolution is duely noted.
<<
<< "one step in the population for the scenario would be expected to occur
only
once every ten billion generations."
>>
FMA:
And that is based on what evidence? You cannot merely quote Behe's
assertions
as if this proves something.
Nelson:
Do I detect a double standard? Will you now go back to all your posts and
demonstrate what you assert? Behe actually based this comment on standard
mutation rates:
"the neutral mutation rate is usually stated as about 10^-6 per gene per
generation, that is for any random mutation in the gene. When one is looking
at particular mutations such as the duplication of a certain gene or the
mutation of one certain amino acid residue in the duplicated gene, the
mutation rate is likely about 10^-10. Thus the fixation of just one step in
the population for the scenario would be expected to occur only once every
ten billion generations. Yet Robison's scenario postulates multiple such
events. "
>>
"likely about 10e-10" All that is required is neutral mutations and
variability. Also how do we now that there is only one gene that could lead
to the required structure? Neutral mutations happen all the time, could it
not have happened? Hard to tell. If the IC systems go back far enough then
10-10 is hardly a small number. How many billion bacteria exist in this
world? How many mutations would happen in a typical environment? Behe has to
establish how many genes could lead to the structure and show that it is
unlikely for this mutation to happen. It might seem to be a small number but
it is hardly an insurmountably small number.
For example:
"Serratia is a very small bacteria which grows quickly and easily under ideal
conditions in a laboratory. Because of this fast reproduction and growth
rate (sometimes as fast as giving rise to a billion descendants in just ten
hours), Serratia is widely used in experiments dealing with evolution and
other changes which could take years to study in other living things
(Campbell 1996)." http://11-9.net/thinker/biolab.html
"So how many prokaryotes share the planet with us? According to William
Whitman, a microbiologist at University of Georgia, the number is 5 x 10E30 "
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/count_bact.html
That makes a probablity of 10e-10 look quite big....
So has Behe admitted that such neutral mutations, assuming that they were
neutral, are rare? The facts seem to show otherwise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 00:27:18 EDT