Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry
You can't read contextually, can you. This was for HIGHER VERTEBRATES. Remember that? Guess not.
Nobody rebutted by asking "What about bacteria?" Yes, higher vertebrates, slow reproduction. So what?
The rebuttals were that 1) the "cost of substitution" is less than Haldane figured," 2) Haldane's model was not allowing for the massive parallelism of substitutions in nature, and 3) ReMine was using a bad model to rebut a hard fact.
This misbegotten effort by you to obfuscate your chalatan ways....is manifest.
My irony meter is staring to overheat.
And medved was the one always thumped on the Haldane Dilemma, not vice versa. Seems to me he did the same as you, misquoting.
I have to my own knowledge misquoted no one. I mentioned medved merely as a poster who often trotted out ReMine on these threads. You have no basis that I can see for announcing that he has misquoted ReMine. If anyone at all has misquoted ReMine, I don't see it.
You're acting like a cornered rat.
Vade,
Pardon me but I have never heard the term "furniture-chewing" before - what does it mean? I googled and all I could find was stuff about getting your dog to stop chewing the furniture.
Thanks
-LVD
Who doesn't love and admire actor Ben Kingsley and his riveting performances as Gandhi or Don Logan in Sexy Beast or Behrani in House of Sand and Fog? But now comes word that the actor born Krishna Banji insists on being called "Sir Ben" in social situations. (Sir Ben was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in the New Year's Eve Honors List of 2001). This year, Academy Awards voters reportedly aren't too impressed with Sir Ben's requirement. And the actor only seems to have dug himself deeper with this defense: "I think 'Sir Ben' is lovely. The word 'mister' has just disappeared for me. It's like, when you become a doctor after years of study. I suppose after years of chewing the furniture, I get the 'Sir' for being a thespian."http://www.bensherwood.com/weblog/2004_02_01_bensherwood_archive.html.
Now it is possible that someone who thinks like a crackpot may have hit on the truth, but is it really practical to tell the time with a stopped watch?
Let me get this straight - you are claiming you speak for every literate person from Thomas Aquinus on? Wow!
It has always meant "transcending the powers or ordinary course of nature"
Which can also be phrased as "beyond our current understanding of the natural world". Transcending means " To pass beyond the limits of" - "powers or ordinary course" are fluff and your definition used the word nature while I used " understanding of the natural world" - unless you are trying to argue nature (or better put: man's understanding of nature) is a fixed unchanging commodity, there is no conflict between the definition you cited and the one I posted.
But if your "what will eventually discovered to have a natural explanation" is to be used, how will that erxplanation ever be found if science declines to look for it.
That really does not make any sense.
Perhaps you can tell us how science can abandon empiricism and still be science.
You are not making any sense. I never claimed science should abandon empiricism.
I was into acting in my youth - I am familar with that term.
Ah, that brings back memories. When I was interviewing with the drama department at college - I told them I was a charter member of my high school's thesbian society.
That might be another good question sometime. ReMine apparently has written forest-destroying quantities of words here and there on Message Theory. Does anybody but ReMine profess to understand it?
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."- and -
(Behe - Darwin's Black Box)
In fact, intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal... In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process.The claim is bacterial flagellum was "irreducibly complex" and an evoluntionary sequence was impossible.
(Behe - Biology and Philosophy. Nov 2001
Please point to any scientific article which delineates the actual, not hypthetical, merely conceivable, or logically possible, but ontologically possible, confirmed by experimental evidence, origin of the bacterial flagellum by purely Darwinian means, i.e., by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
I hear the scraping noise of goalposts moving ...
Raphidiophrys pallida - axopodia that aren't used for motility.
A choanocyte from a freshwater sponge - Choanoflagellates critters with flagella that don't swim.
Synechococcus - A nonflagellated swimming cyanobacterium.
Halobacterium salinarum - flagella unlike the E. coli "motor".
Analysis of the motA flagellar motor gene from Rhodobacter sphaeroides - I guess the designer forgot the reverse gear in this model.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified - Swimming Systems
Yersinia enterocolitica - Type III Secretion Depends on the Proton Motive Force but Not on the Flagellar Motor Components MotA and MotB
Evolution in (Brownian) space - a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
Secretion by bacterial flagella - Linking the Type III secretion system (TTSS) to flagellum.
It's stupid to pursue things you have demonstrated are impossible. Chemists don't waste time trying to make stable compounds of Helium Oxide and Physicists don't waste time trying to build perpetual motion machines. Spontaneous generation is the perpetual motion machine of biology, yet folks continue trying to convince people that you can build one.
For the record, IIRC additional responses to Haldane's Dilemma are 4) nearby genes will hitch a ride on the ones being selected and 5) no one knows just how much of the genetic difference really makes a difference (i.e. how much is neutral and therefore not subject to Haldane's analysis).
Yes, but do you have nanosecond-by-nanosecond photo sequences of the process reporodued in a lab? That's how far those goalposts have moved at this point. Move them any farther and they'll start circling around back to each other.
Did she have a lisp?
I once saw a couple of thespians masticating in the dining room of the Four Seasons.
At least, neither expectorated in public.
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.
