Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Note, I was careful not to attribute the obfuscation. (In a way it's the most maddening thing about the debate, because both sides use the same confusions in their polemics.)
At one level I agree with you: Behe's wrong because his assertions of non-evolvability are based on a priori probability estimates, which are necessarily bogus since we don't have an adequate understanding of the genome to functionality mapping and no one seems to have done the necessary work on the probablistic and information theoretic properties of actually occuring DNA transcription errors.
On the other hand, I'm dubious about the claims made on behalf of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, partly on the basis the fact that I hold a probably extreme view of falsifiablity and the predictive part--natural selection--usually ends up being tautolgous, and partly because the other part 'random variation' either has randomness defined away in any statistically meaningful sense, or is untested. (Try a Google search for DNA, transciption and "test for randomness" to see what I mean. Google is usually pretty good at turning up scientific papers, so the paucity is evidence of lack of evidence, if you take my meaning.)
"The Helianthus experiments were designed to repeat what happened naturally
I'll point out that sunflowers have been commercially hybridized for decades before these experiments. The experiment was designed to to create not an atmosphere of natural selection that would create a new, mutated species, but to recreate an existing species from hybridized variants.
The experiment shows that recrossing these hybridized variants results in a "new species" which "is virtually identical to H. anomalus" - I suspect that this new species virtually identical to H. anomalus can actually be cross-bred with H. anomalus and is not therefore a truly unique species.
This experiment tends to show the remarkable phenotypic stability of the sunflower, and does not demonstrate a naturally occurring mutation radical enough to even achieve the level of alteration typical of horticultural hybridization."
Now we are getting somewhere.
1. If you read more carefully, you will see that the laboratory derived H. anomalus does indeed cross with and is fully fertile with wild H. anomalus.
2. The parental species are wild, natural Helianthus species. H. anomalus is a wild, natural species of Helianthus.
3. Genetic analyses of the putative parents and H. anomalus indicated that the 'parents" were evolutionary precursors to H. anomalus. The laboratory experiments fully support that hypothesis.
4. I know you'd like to think this is "just horticulture" and "hybridization", but these experiments clearly show a mechanism for the evolution of wild, natural H. anomalus from other wild, natural Helianthus spp. It has nothing to do with horticulture and everything to do with evolution.
5. Experts in the field of plant evolution state that about 40% of today's plant species have arisen from a hybridization mechanism. It is quite common. That hybridization is the mechanism for the formation of H. anomalus does in no way denigrate H. anomalus as a natural species.
6. If you do not think that H. anomalus arose by the mechanism described in these experiments, then show where the experiments are faulty and offer a better explanation for the origin of H. anomalus.
He broke a legal agreement.
A better question might be, what was Galileo's punishment?
Is it your position that the church should be above criticism?
Since ArGee criticized the Church in his last post, I have to assume this question is rhetorical.
Dawkins might lean left, but he's certainly no Marxist.
The "Selfish Gene" aims at the heart of socialist/communist doctrine that behavior is infinitely malleable.
Dawkins, Wilson and other Sociobiologists actually take quite a bit of flak from the radical left.
Uh huh. How many heretics did Galileo burn at the stake?
was much more complicated than a simple "proof" that faith and science can not exist.
Insofar as I know, there was no wrestling match between faith and science in Galileo's mind, only the churches--rather as is now the case with creationists and biologists.
These thread tend to be, moreover, screaming matches not merely between people with positions set in concrete, but between people who have a bed of Procrustes on which to fit all their opponents so that they can't see any nuance, variety or distinction among any possible positions contrary to their own.
I don't care about the "total." The FACT is, there are quite a few scientists that hold Ph.D's (not pseudo scientists or Talkorg. regurgitators) who are anti-darwinists. Why do you think that is?
Scientists routinely review the data of their colleagues, to check the validity of their conclusions, and to try to devise alternative explanations. The difficulty of the creation "scientists" is that their peculiar re-interpretations just don't jibe with those pesky "problem areas of geology, archaeology, anthropology, and astronomy" that Morris mentioned. In other words (if I may be bold enough to reinterpret Morris, a self-admitted re interpreter) they're trying to construct an alternative reality, but the world just won't cooperate.
Perhaps you are unaware of Dawkins' notorious quote "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"?
The hottest polemicists on both sides see such a conflict.
Ah Pascals gambit.
You do realize there are more then two religions in the world. More then one condemn you.
I share Mark Twains attitude. I paraphrase.
'I'm not sure where I'm going, but I'm glad its not the same place as the people who go around condemning everybody who does'nt share there beliefs!'
All though you either didn't read all the thread or understand it completly, that you for at least making the effort.
Twain also said, "Heaven for climate. Hell for society."
It's great stuff. Appreciate your postings too when I have time to peruse these threads. Who, btw, is Ich?
How many Christians have atheists and non-Christians killed throughout the ages? Your question is no more germaine to our discussion than mine.
Insofar as I know, there was no wrestling match between faith and science in Galileo's mind,
Look harder. Actually, you may be right. But Galileo had a bone to pick with the Church and he used his scientific idea to pick that bone, loudly and publicly. Whether for good or ill (and I choose ill) the Church was a powerful political force at the time. They didn't like Galileo attacking them, period. The fact that he used science in his attack was irrelevent to them. They didn't react to his science. They reacted to his politics.
only the churches--rather as is now the case with creationists and biologists.
Broad brush bigotry again.
Shalom.
Phylloscopus trochiloides trochiloides has one daughter species called Phylloscopus trochiloides viridanus and another called Phylloscopus trochiloides plumbeitarsus which although in the same geographic area do not interbreed and are now considered separate species.
Yeah, this is great news for conservatives.
This is exactly why many of us take part in these threads. The conservative movement is about to derailed by the theocons.
Damn! Can't even say "Thank You" right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.