tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4976366402722140515..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Don McLeroy's idea of a real science bookUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77172368554381010992009-03-25T00:32:00.000-05:002009-03-25T00:32:00.000-05:00@ FreethinkerID proposes no mechanism. It just sa...@ Freethinker<BR/><BR/>ID proposes no mechanism. It just says it happens. The question is how.<BR/><BR/>Also you have revealed yourself as not respecting science in general. Stop pretending to be a free thinker when you just go "LOLZ THEY DONT LOOK AT TWOOOOOOOTH~!!!!" <BR/><BR/>the good thing about science is that you can test it again and again. If you want to argue the results then you can recreate the experiment watching for the random mutations. You don't understand science, you don't understand biology, you just don't understand. I realize I'm being rude now but it's been explained to you again and again and again why ID doesn't fit as science. You can't present crap and claim people are closed minded for ignoring it. Really you're fighting an uphill battle here. A good portion of the people seem to be at least scientifically literate and with some even having a good understanding of biology and microbiology in general so the flagellum argument doesn't fly. <BR/><BR/>The flagellum is not disprovable because the hypothesis isn't saying ANYTHING other than "It's too complex to happen normally" When someone points out evidence that to them would disprove this subjective statement you ignore it and mock science. <BR/><BR/>Look ID has two predictions it logically reaches. <BR/><BR/>a) God did it, or some other supernatural intelligent force like Zeus.<BR/>b) some alien life form did it.<BR/><BR/>God supposedly is supernatural and thus unobservable so it can't be tested and isn't science<BR/><BR/>The alien one has no evidence to support (such as the ruins of an ancient biochemical factory). Either one may be right but there's no reason to think they are.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Pick one, which do you think is the truth? If it's a) then it's religion and doesn't belong in science. If it's aliens go out and work on proving it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(I apologize for misspelling Lose. Typo. I'd presume that it wouldn't detract from the crux of the argument)Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49780241323910384862009-03-24T17:07:00.000-05:002009-03-24T17:07:00.000-05:00Freethinker: no, you presented a supporter of ID w...Freethinker: no, you presented a supporter of ID who made a prediction (like a scientific theory could). His theory, however does not seem to be related in any way to ID.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9421050368347782072009-03-24T17:01:00.000-05:002009-03-24T17:01:00.000-05:00Huh I wasn't presenting evidence for intelligent d...<I>Huh I wasn't presenting evidence for intelligent design. There are a number of books you could read if you really wanted. I was just showing how intelligent design was scientific and made testable predictions</I><BR/><BR/>...Except that it isn't, and doesn't. Something that is really scientific anticipates these sorts of objections and addresses them. ID just employs the typical pseudoscientific tactic of handwaving the problem away, saying "There are a lot of books about it. I'm sure the answer is in there somewhere."<BR/><BR/>The number of words written on a topic doesn't, in itself, lend any credibility to the subject. The number of books written on astrology most likely dwarfs what has been written about ID, but for all that, astrology isn't a science either.<BR/><BR/>Unless you <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178" REL="nofollow">ask Michael Behe.</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33847664684826346122009-03-24T16:51:00.000-05:002009-03-24T16:51:00.000-05:00"1) All other things equal flagellated and unflage..."1) All other things equal flagellated and unflagellated strains of the same bacteria when exposed to a negative stimuli survive and reproduce at the same rates."<BR/>I doubt it. You would probably say that the stimuli was probably not bad enough or conjecture some other random mutation.<BR/><BR/>"2) No DNA for the flagellum"<BR/>Are you saying that if there was RNA or something else in the flagellum it would falsify evolution? I doubt most Darwinists would agree<BR/><BR/>"3) No other physiological features in other species that are made from modifications of the protein structure for flagellum"<BR/>The Darwinists would probablyt conjecture that there wasw some kind of undiscovered structure that could make the flagellum evolve<BR/><BR/>"4) A trade mark logo on the flagellum"<BR/>Where should we look for this trademark? What language should it be in?<BR/><BR/>"5) A proposed other model/theory of adaptation that more accurately describes the behavior and emergence of flagellum bacteria."<BR/>Like ID<BR/><BR/>" (note that ID does NOT do this. It asserts that it can't be natural and provides no explanation on how it came about)"<BR/>No ID uses methods of detecting design we all use to conclude it came about as the result of intelligent agency.<BR/><BR/>"one is the most obvious one as basic microbiology experiments can be done to manipulate the evolutionary path of microbes. Microbes are easy to manipulate due to their circular genome and their plasmids and it's easy to control their environment."<BR/>Of course if this experiment does not work we could always say "not enough time, not enough pressure...yadda,yadda".<BR/>Random mutationdunit!!!MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44482687943428921892009-03-24T16:41:00.000-05:002009-03-24T16:41:00.000-05:00@AAHuh I wasn't presenting evidence for intelligen...@AA<BR/>Huh I wasn't presenting evidence for intelligent design. There are a number of books you could read if you really wanted. I was just showing how intelligent design was scientific and made testable predictionsMrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20000841631555655092009-03-24T11:18:00.000-05:002009-03-24T11:18:00.000-05:00AUM, In this day and age, the sad thing is that I'...AUM, In this day and age, the sad thing is that I've actually become used to "internet spelling" and just skip past them, forming the correct word in my own head. It's funny though that some people probably spell like that in real world situations. Kinda sad...Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16887579337378695820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39190110848839039812009-03-24T11:14:00.000-05:002009-03-24T11:14:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16887579337378695820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66396808356134098382009-03-24T11:00:00.000-05:002009-03-24T11:00:00.000-05:00It was Lui, up until he spelled lose with two O's....It was Lui, up until he spelled lose with two O's.<BR/><BR/>I just don't understand why all of a sudden people have forgotten 1st grade grammar and spelling.<BR/><BR/>To loose is not the opposite of to win, just as to lose is not the opposite of to tighten.AtheistUnderMaskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15835169901704552498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45560502145364677602009-03-24T10:13:00.000-05:002009-03-24T10:13:00.000-05:00Again, freethinker (who is anything but) has faile...Again, freethinker (who is anything but) has failed to provide any actual evidence.<BR/><BR/>Surely he stays awake late every night, tormented by the reality that the physical world just doesn't support his ancient beliefs.<BR/><BR/>freethinker: i beg you, for your own sanity, look at the evidence. if it shows you're wrong then i don't expect you to abandon your beliefs, but for the love of your god stop trying to peddle it as science to our children.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25323670790605892532009-03-24T05:09:00.000-05:002009-03-24T05:09:00.000-05:00Ing's response to Mr Free Thinker was a moment of ...Ing's response to Mr Free Thinker was a moment of sheer ownage.Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84690560343201367332009-03-23T00:13:00.000-05:002009-03-23T00:13:00.000-05:00Here's an example of the application experiment us...Here's an example of the application experiment using evolution<BR/><BR/>HIV evolves even though it is not alive it has the replicating material and process to evolve. It evolves quickly<BR/><BR/>based on its rates of evolution to develop immunity to drugs the best method for treating HIV is a cocktail of drugs to hit several weaknesses at once (simple odds, in order to survive the virus has to have immunity to all of the drugs given, much less likely than having immunity to just one). Inevitably doctors accept that the virus will gain resistance to that treatment so they use a different brew every few months. After a while, based on their predictions, they go back to the first one, knowing that the population of viral entities will no longer have been selected for that immunity and thus will be vulnerable again! This cycling has shown to be (since the last time I read up on drug treatments at least, I apologize ahead of time if I'm mistaken or out of date but for analogy sake I think this works well enough) the best method for keeping the viral population at a minimum. <BR/><BR/><BR/>ID may allow for herd immunity but would never predict that the population would LOOSE that immunity if it didn't have an evolutionary pressure selecting for it.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89134464142596513962009-03-23T00:00:00.000-05:002009-03-23T00:00:00.000-05:00"One question for those opponents of ID. I pointed..."One question for those opponents of ID. I pointed out what would falsify the assertion that the flagellum was irreducibly complex. What would falsify the idea that the flagellum came about due to undirected evolution."<BR/><BR/>1) All other things equal flagellated and unflagellated strains of the same bacteria when exposed to a negative stimuli survive and reproduce at the same rates.<BR/><BR/>2) No DNA for the flagellum<BR/><BR/>3) No other physiological features in other species that are made from modifications of the protein structure for flagellum<BR/><BR/>4) A trade mark logo on the flagellum<BR/><BR/>5) A proposed other model/theory of adaptation that more accurately describes the behavior and emergence of flagellum bacteria. (note that ID does NOT do this. It asserts that it can't be natural and provides no explanation on how it came about)<BR/><BR/>one is the most obvious one as basic microbiology experiments can be done to manipulate the evolutionary path of microbes. Microbes are easy to manipulate due to their circular genome and their plasmids and it's easy to control their environment.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61914781862290607912009-03-22T23:53:00.000-05:002009-03-22T23:53:00.000-05:00@Freethinker. Explain to me then, how a flagellum...@Freethinker.<BR/> Explain to me then, how a flagellum would work from an ID model? How does the ID predict that a cell with no true somatic or visual sense uses its flagellum to avoid harmful stimuli. <BR/><BR/>The flagellum is a horrifically bad example to hitch ID to since it's very nature shows that naturalistic random events can result in order. A flagellum has two states, run and tumble. When it is functioning in run it moves forward, when it is in tumble it causes the cell to spin in random directions. The bacteria largely go through phases of run and tumble in random intervals, however the flagellum is built so that certain chemical stimuli cause it's rate of entering tumble to increase, increasing the chance that when it enters run it'll be facing away from the stimuli and thus "avoid it". The closer it gets to the bad stimuli the more tumbles it does and thus the more opportunities to "run away". What appears to be a conscious decision to avoid an antibody is really a natural selection of metabolic behavior. Using only two rules this metabolic system effectively converts chaos into order.<BR/><BR/>The flegellum are not irreducably complex this is thouroughly debunked. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, your comment is false. ID can make no prediction based on the flagellum. Consider the question: Why do bacteria HAVE flagellum<BR/><BR/>Evolutionary Hypothesis: it is beneficial to avoiding negative stimuli and moving towards positive stimuli, thus all other things equal cells with flagellum will divide more than non flagellated. (easily testable by removing the DNA for flagellum in a test group)<BR/><BR/>Creationist Hypothesis: God made it that way.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80762210972897985822009-03-22T21:22:00.000-05:002009-03-22T21:22:00.000-05:00Kenneth Miller has already destroyed the concept o...Kenneth Miller has <A HREF="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html" REL="nofollow">already destroyed</A> the concept of irreducible complexity and the ID camp's attempt to hold up the flagellum as an example of it.<BR/><BR/>What would falsify the idea that the flagellum evolved would be if irreducible complexity were shown to be true, and that, as per Behe's definition of IC, the whole thing would fail to function if so much as one element were removed from it. This is not in fact what we see. Thus evolution, once again, has resisted falsification.<BR/><BR/>Really, why is anyone so clueless as to keep bringing up the flagellum any more?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11460406641687908872009-03-22T19:31:00.000-05:002009-03-22T19:31:00.000-05:00One question for those opponents of ID. I pointed ...One question for those opponents of ID. I pointed out what would falsify the assertion that the flagellum was irreducibly complex. What would falsify the idea that the flagellum came about due to undirected evolution.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7408544795796905012009-03-22T17:36:00.000-05:002009-03-22T17:36:00.000-05:00You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn'...<I>You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn't falsifiable.</I><BR/><BR/>So, ID can't be disproven, so it must be worthy of discussion? The FSM also can't be disproven, so should that share the stage with other items which can be proven? If so, that stage is going to fill up pretty quick with a number of ridiculous notions, all of which must be entertained because they're not falsifiable.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16887579337378695820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28900636519345868272009-03-22T15:23:00.001-05:002009-03-22T15:23:00.001-05:00"And to those who say intelligent design makes no ...<I>"And to those who say intelligent design makes no predictions we need only to look at the flagellum again. I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller debating over the flagellum. Miller predicts the flagellum evolved from a TYPE 3 secretory apparatus while Behe says the Type 3 secretory apparatus is a degenerative product of the flagellum. So we have 2 predictions, one from an ID biologist and one from an evolutionary biologist."</I><BR/><BR/>You have exposed yourself as a fool!<BR/><BR/>One prediction is a based on evolution. The other is a prediction, but I cannot see any way it is based on ID! If an intelligent designer had done it then why would something need to be a product of something else (e.g. evolution?)<BR/><BR/>To continue in a scientific debate, please supply evidence that the argument supports ID.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71743355553423739892009-03-22T15:23:00.000-05:002009-03-22T15:23:00.000-05:00You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn'...<I>You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn't falsifiable. Yes, all Miller has to do to falsify the Irreducible-complexity claim of Behe is to show a reasonable pathway from simpler progenitors.</I><BR/><BR/>That is what Behe and Miller are debating, whether the secretory system is a progenitor for the flagellum.<BR/><BR/><I>He and others have done that, while Behe admits during the Dover trial that he never read the stuff.</I><BR/><BR/>You should read Behe's blog or one of his books. Behe has responded to his critics and the criticism of ID including Ken Miller.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The way that unfalsifiability rears its ugly head, is that Behe and his ilk can always simply say that any claimed progenitor of an evolutionary pathway is actually a degraded progeny of an IC "designed" system. If Behe can always play that card no matter what his opponents say, then that kind of bait-and-switch fails the falsifiability test.</I><BR/>No because biologists can test to see which is ancestral and which is not. If scientific tests prove that secretory system is ancestral ,Miller is right.If they prove the flagellum i9s ancestral Behe is right. Behe cited several scientific papers from other biologists who argued the secretory is not ancestral. And Scott Minnich (a ID microbiologist) is conducting tests to see which is ancestral.<BR/><BR/>The point I was making is here is a prediction about the future made by an intelligent design proponent that can be tested and refuted. <BR/>Ing asked what predictions ID could make and I gave him one.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12086662944600775292009-03-22T14:16:00.000-05:002009-03-22T14:16:00.000-05:00"I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller deb..."I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller debating over the flagellum. Miller predicts the flagellum evolved from a TYPE 3 secretory apparatus while Behe says the Type 3 secretory apparatus is a degenerative product of the flagellum."<BR/><BR/>You see, this is the sense in which ID simply isn't falsifiable. Yes, all Miller has to do to falsify the Irreducible-complexity claim of Behe is to show a reasonable pathway from simpler progenitors. He and others have done that, while Behe admits during the Dover trial that he never read the stuff.<BR/><BR/>The way that unfalsifiability rears its ugly head, is that Behe and his ilk can always simply say that any claimed progenitor of an evolutionary pathway is actually a degraded progeny of an IC "designed" system. If Behe can always play that card no matter what his opponents say, then that kind of bait-and-switch fails the falsifiability test.Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74688584749693863892009-03-22T11:21:00.000-05:002009-03-22T11:21:00.000-05:00I was pointing out that the flagellum was a claim ...I was pointing out that the flagellum was a claim made by ID that could be tested and falsify=ied. You cannot claim something cannot be falsified in one breath and then you say it has been falsified in the other.<BR/>@Ing<BR/>And to those who say intelligent design makes no predictions we need only to look at the flagellum again. I read biologists Michael Behe and Ken Miller debating over the flagellum. Miller predicts the flagellum evolved from a TYPE 3 secretory apparatus while Behe says the Type 3 secretory apparatus is a degenerative product of the flagellum. So we have 2 predictions, one from an ID biologist and one from an evolutionary biologist. <BR/>Microbiologists can now perform tests to see whether Miller is right and the syringe came first or whether Behe is right and the flagellum came first.<BR/>This is a good example of a rediction from ID.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64770414202396615622009-03-22T02:00:00.000-05:002009-03-22T02:00:00.000-05:00additionally if that law on the doctorates is allo...additionally if that law on the doctorates is allowed can I get a duel one in "Science!" (note exclamation mark) and "Biological blasphemy" (with a symbol crest of a chimera as a school seal)Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76934480340630039412009-03-22T01:49:00.000-05:002009-03-22T01:49:00.000-05:00The whole creatonist debate ignores what I pointed...The whole creatonist debate ignores what I pointed out before. Creatonism has no use. What predictions can we make from it about life's past and future?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52146705239754987772009-03-21T12:58:00.000-05:002009-03-21T12:58:00.000-05:00For those Texas folks who can vote...and for those...For those Texas folks who can vote...and for those still employed who can donate to a campaign, Judy Jennings is running against Cynthia Dunbar.<BR/><BR/>http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjenningsmaddogdeltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657824720032887242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83513005884979789062009-03-21T10:55:00.000-05:002009-03-21T10:55:00.000-05:00WHY? I don't see your justification.So you think t...<I>WHY? I don't see your justification.</I><BR/><BR/>So you think that something more simple than us and everything on this planet created us...like some giant "slow kid" in space, who sneezed us all into existence?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16887579337378695820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17142554307326372802009-03-21T10:29:00.000-05:002009-03-21T10:29:00.000-05:00MrFreeThinker is A)anything but and B)refuses to e...MrFreeThinker is A)anything but and B)refuses to ever admit he is wrong. It is pointless to argue with him.BeamStalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17772110446629492132noreply@blogger.com