Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
I hope you have more of a life than just the Crevo threads on FR... :-)
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: JUST KIDDING!
I prefer "wasted" energy...Hey! Don't bogart that joint my friend...
Most of the reactions on FR's crevo threads appear to happen spontaneously:
therefore we have either a small energy barrier or significant tunnelling. :-)
Cheers!
Give us a definition of science and the scientific method, please.
For someone who is a stickler for rigorous claims, you're sure playing fast and loose with the rules on this one.
The proof is left as an exercise to the interested reader :-)
Cheers!
Sorry son, just trying to help you understand.
OK, I agree with that one as far as it goes. :-)
b_sharp: No, but your explanation for its origin *is* based on a feeling.
Fester:So when you see an automobile and assume it is designed, it is just because you have a "feeling?" Baloney.
How is this an answer to my post? Sometimes your logic escapes me.
So when you see a puddle of water do you assume the hole was designed to fit the water? (I hope this makes sense to you, I tried to follow your logic as closely as possible).
Amazing what a little curiosity can bring about.
"The more we learn about the microscopic world, the less likely it seems that non-physical (or non-mathematical) principles are needed to explain its behavior."
I do think that you're jumping the gun a bit with that statement, at least as it pertains to this experiment. There are elements of this that are clearly influenced far beyond the natural situation. First, the glass beads must have some effect on the mechanics of the transcription, so who knows yet whether the one pair selection is natural or the result of taxing the net available energy beyond the limit. Second, until you can identify the exact chemical process that causes the increment of selection, it is a bit presumptive to assert that you know what is or is not needed to explain it.
" Perhaps an ID'er would suggest that a higher intelligence designed the chemical structure of RNA to do just what it does. That may or may not be, but, clearly, it's not an hypothesis of empirical science. As a consequence, prolonged examination of such a hypothesis—as if it were a scientific hypothesis—has absolutely no place in a science classroom."
I would say that if you mean only with regard to real-world biological processes such as in the above experiment, I fully agree; it's not relevant to what is being observed (or if it is relevant, there is no observable way of detecting that relevance) but the same has to be said of evolution by the same logic.
Krebs cycle has been covered elsewhere. If you ask nicely, Ichneumon on PatrickHenry can probl'y point you to a link.
Full Disclosure: How about the Armstrong Cycle (many Tour de France wins :-) ?)
Either you did not read the post, or you dishonestly (yes, that word) forgot to include the very next sentence. Let me help you with that: it was "Of course not."
So the full phrase, is: Oh? Are you God, then? Are the folks who produce my son's insulin, God? Of course not. (emphasis mine)
The extra sentence rather changes the meaning of my comment, doesn't it? Unfortunately, your history on this thread leads me to suggest once again that you did not make an honest mistake in your selection of quotes.
Oh, for pete's sake...
Anyone interested in actually understanding the context of the comment should go back and read the conversation from which my comment came. It was a discussion about whether "supernatural" is a necessary part of an ID hypothesis -- which it clearly is not. The context of my comment is important to its interpretation. Your failure to include (or perhaps even to understand) the context led you to make an irrelevant but typically uncivil response.
This comment was made in a post ADDRESSED TO YOU, and you HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO IT, so you can hardly pretend that you didn't see it. [snippet moved for clarity of presentation]
Alas, I confess that I responded to a different (and obnoxious) part of your post, and never got beyond that. Truly I had not seen those particular comments before now. My apologies. So we'll address them now.
Yawn -- yet another dishonest straw man. Look, son, no one has ever denied that "intelligent design" as a *process* works. That would be immensely stupid, which is a) why no one ever makes that claim, and b) why it's immensely stupid *and* dishonest for you to try to imply that we ever had.
OK, so it works as a process, and it would be "immensely stupid" to dismiss it as a process, and, as we've since seen, this point is crucial in showing that "supernatural" is not a necessary ingredient in an ID hypothesis ... but for some reason it's an invalid hypothesis? That is a discussion I've been attempting to have with you on this thread, so the fact that I didn't respond to this particular iteration is not important.
Instead, as we are quite clear to anyone with working reading comprehension (admittedly, this leaves out a lot of "IDers"), is that the "Intelligent Design postulate" (as held by the Intelligent Design movement) which hypothesizes that there was "design" in the formation of life as we know it is, in its current state, utterly unscientific and untestable.
Three points on this.
First, if your selection of quotes is not actively dishonest, then one must conclude that your own reading comprehension is substandard at best. Either way you should leave out the insults, lest you be branded a hypocrite.
Second, you and I discussed a specific claim made by Behe, and I suggested a test by which that particular claim could be falsified. "Falsifiable tests" is the one consistent claim made by ID opponents, and I've suggested one. Clearly that specific claim is not "untestable," at least in the abstract.
Finally, in our discussion of that test, a very interesting question came up: has the claim that flagella evolved ever been tested? Perhaps such a test has been done -- but you seem not to have actually heard of one, and neither have I.
For some reason, whenever we talk about THAT movement and its positions, *YOU* want to keep blathering on about the fact that people can design things.
I've never denied that people such as the fellow you quoted exist. I don't agree with them, so I've also never expended any effort defending their wilder claims. If you go back on this thread, you'll notice that I generally try to limit my remarks to looking at the scientific basis of your position, and I try to push in the other direction to see if there's any rational reason to oppose an ID hypothesis on logical or scientific grounds. To date I have learned that you, personally, are not able to present a consistent, logical objection to an ID hypothesis, but that you are very good at insults, derision, and the dishonest use of quotes. I cannot help thinking that your unpleasant approach to what could be a civil discussion is due at least in part to personal biases, and not a pure and simple devotion to science.
Yes, that indeed is the question, and further, in a complex animal (bird, fish, reptile, or mammal) how would the changed molecule excape destruction by the immune system?
For some definition of science perhaps, but not the definition scientists use. The supernatural, or God in your parlance, is untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and is therefore not science. If you want to believe in God and his hand in the creation of the universe and natural laws that fine, but it is not science. Because of the way science is done, there needs to be a way to rule out some hypotheses otherwise all hypotheses, no matter how loony (I'm not talking about religion here), have the same value. If you truly believe there is a way to scientifically investigate nature while not testing your hypotheses, please explain the methodology.
Making the assumption that everything is the result of God's design may be a valid world view but it is not science.
Great parody!!!
Now wait just a Hamiltonian minute!
Are you implying that "zero-point" energy is, well...
...POINTless?
Cheers!
I thought I was being nice. ;)
LOL!
I think you're 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.