Posted on 11/01/2007 5:53:26 PM PDT by truthfinder9
This will be interesting, a documentary movie by Ben Stein on the new wave of thought police and academic suppression in academia and science:
Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.
In theatres near you, starting February 2008
Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!
Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
To which Ben Says: "Enough!" And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
***
At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.” And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.
But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.
As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”
As you know…last year we had the misfortune of “presupposition of design” rearing its ugly head, with several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design.
They were all Expelled, of course – but still: it just goes to show where academic freedom can lead, if not shut down immediately!
Sincerely,
Charles Darwin Principal, President, Admissions and Diversity Affairs Officer, Big Science Academy “No Intelligence Allowed”
[[But if it is to be challenged, it must be challenged by an alternative having greater explanatory power, which means the alternative must explain the how, when and where in greater detail.]
Why is that? Eveolution didn’t explain why where and how for 150 years- all they did was give their religous opinion about what happened- the evidence however didn’t support their ideology
[[Invoking ghosts as explanations won’t cut it.]]
The same type of ghost as phantom mutaitons that violated the law and did the biologically impossible?
“Invoking ghosts” is a dysphemism for what is otherwise an honest epistemological stance. Given that our knowledge is limited, there is always an x that must serve as a the wildcard of our ignorance.
Its a big theory. For the common origin side of it I'm inclined to agree, I consider it only marginally scientific, though I also think it happens appears probable. However, adaptation within a species can be demonstrated by experiment and is well grounded in science.
Darwin recognized that Common Descent implied that as more fossils were found there would be a pattern of transitional organisms bridging the gap between species. Interestingly he did not totally commit to predicting this would happen, but recognized that observers would "have a right to disregard" his theory if this was not the case. Later he seemed to back away even further. And modern variations of common origin only make vague "safe" predictions based on experience with the evidence more then the theory itself. The fossil evidence, as it turned out, did not really pan out as expected. Instead it is simply worked into the theory as it is found.
That said, I think it probably happened, it just annoys me when people insist Common Origin be given the status of a hard science.
Thanks for increasing my vocabulary. Indeed, dysphemism seems prominent among the tools naturalists use to fend off reason.
Although those calculations have already been debunked by mathematicians and biologists, who by the way, understand the nature of biology much better than mathematicians, I'll take a quick stab anyway.
From the discussion of WISTAR on this site:
"*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years.
The math is probably accurate depending on the size of the genes being calculated but it has nothing to do with reality or biology. It is based on irrelevant assumptions.
No genes were produced by random chance. No evolutionary biologist claims they were. This by itself debunks this 'proof'.
Chemistry is deterministic, not random.
Mutation varies, selection directs.
Many more than one protein is capable of performing the same job.
"He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
If evolution had to start with E. coli, and could not rely on the determinism of chemistry, the guidance of selection, and the tendency of simple processes passed through multiple iterations to result in complex structures, then he might have a point. However, that isn't the case, life began from much simpler molecules and through the process of imperfect replication (just as happens now in DNA/RNA) filtered through selection (just as happens today) and through multiple iterations of those two, has developed complexity. If you are interested in how iterated simplicity creates complexity look up Chaos Theory.
Since the author of this blurb is attacking a straw man of his own design, his point is not just wrong but irrelevant.
You know, if you are going to model naturally occurring processes that model should at least attempt to reflect nature and be based on observations.
He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!
Why in the world would anyone try to calculate the probability of alpha changing into beta when it hasn't been suggested that it happened that way. Why in the world would any change be limited to single nucleotides in the original gene? This makes no sense.
The standard understanding is that both Alpha and Beta have a common ancestor, which handled nitric oxide, not oxygen, and are the result of gene duplication and subsequent modification.
Had the author of this really made "extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin " he would have known this.
These probabilities you put so much faith in are nonsense, they do not reflect the level of understanding nor the reality of genetic change. Because of this they are worthless. Find some calculations where the numbers take into account reality and then we'll talk.
This is why I asked for you to exhibit your understanding. If you had a better understanding of the math and biology you would have recognized this work of WISTAR for the straw man beating it is.
Now, could you please tell me where to find this number 10350 you just threw out.
Whether the scientists at WISTAR, or any where else for that matter, are secular or rabidly theistic is irrelevant, what matters is the accuracy of the models they produce. What I have seen so far is the models, and the data used by WISTAR are extremely poor and have no link with reality what so ever.
I did not belittle you, unless you believe not having enough information, or having the wrong information, is a personal affront. I don't believe that. I consider it an opportunity to gain correct information.
Don't be impressed with big numbers (or extremely tiny ones either) without first understanding the relevance of those numbers to observations.
It’s a tool available to the rich and poor, the wise and the simple, the naturalist and the pneumatologist, the tall and the short. It isn’t a respecter of persons and is handy for anyone willing to sacrifice good for advantage. The honor of the intelligent is knowledge, and before honor comes humility, which is the hallmark of a true scholar.
Ever read “Mask of the Red Death” by Poe?
I beg your pardon. In post #152 you said:
I highly recommend you read the chapter “The Enigma of Life’s Origin,” from a book called “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton.
Since you were so specific, citing title and chapter, I am curious as to whether you have examined Denton's latest book on the same subject.
What neutral term would you use for hypothetical entities that have no observable attributes, no specified capabilities or limitations, which do unspecified things at unspecified times and places for unspecified reasons, using unspecified tools and methods?
x
[[I suspect you haven’t a clue about either abiogenesis or information. I also suspect you haven’t a clue about probability.]]
" Gee- how quaint- And I suspect you will ignore Demski’s upper tolorance limits and insist mutations can still account for the vast variety of changes in species despite hte fact that Behe was being VERY generous in the allowances and still even one mutation couldn’t produce anythign close to the numbers needed for chance random forces to progress even one single system or cell- But please- do keep insinuating we haven’t a clue-
This still doesn't tell me you personally understand abiogensis, information or probability. How can you make an informed and critical evaluation of ideas without some basic knowledge?
Are you talking about Dembski's "perturbation probability"? I hope you are aware that he set both the "perturbation tolerance factor", and the "perturbation identity factor" arbitrarily with no real justification for either value.
I also hope you are aware that the application of his perturbation probability to the genome is in no way similar to the application to language. Many proteins have more than one function, many functions can be produced by more than one protein, many alleles are made up of more than one gene, and genes spread themselves among different positions. Language has none of these features. The use of perturbation probability on proteins, or groups of proteins, above a certain size identifies all of them as designed. However, CSI is supposedly not based on size. Dembski's perturbation probability is a failure, it is arbitrary, gives false positives and contradicts specificity.
If your point is not about perturbation probability then please, explain what you are talking about.
"Behe ignores the fact also that ENORMOUS societies are needed to advance just one mutation to a progressive state, and not simply an innocous benign state,
I have no idea where you get this from but doesn't make a lot of sense.
Whether a mutation is considered, or acts, as a positive is based on the environmental selection at work, not the population size. Population size can regulate the speed of a particular mutation fixing, but somehow I doubt that is what you mean.
Are you trying to say that advantageous mutations need an enormous number of opportunities to occur? That may be true if mutations occurred with equal probability and had to wait until a selection pressure already existed but that doesn't happen often. Most often the mutation is neutral, meaning it is invisible to current selection, and becomes either deleterious or beneficial only when the environmental selection changes. Your understanding presupposes that all mutations will be single nucleotide changes which just isn't so. You also seem to be ignoring regulatory sequences and the developmental environment. They all matter.
Obviously, it is harder to develop beneficial mutations in response to selection changes, approximately 99% of all living things have become extinct, but successful strategies are passed on from species to species as well as from generation to generation. Common descent gives us a pretty large population in which to experiment.
" and yet we have NO scientific evidence of the enormous societies that MUST have been present to accomplish this- pointing to bacteria and showing rapid MICROEVOLUTION in NO WAY is a defense for MACROEVOLUTION nor is it an evidentiary reality for it. I think it’s not ID proponents that are clueless but rather ...
Yet it is the 'clueless' evolutionary biologists which do all the research.
Until you can come up with a 'valid' argument against micro evolution becoming macro evolution through multiple iterations; some physical constraint perhaps, your assertion that there is an impediment is just that, an assertion. The valid argument you come up with has to be mathematically valid, logically valid, and biologically valid; it has to account for all current observations, not just a few cherry picked ones. So far all your arguments have failed one or more of those criteria.
No. Sounds disturbing.
And how would ID go about solving for x?
"Here is a Wikipedia version of the Classic definition
"A chemical reaction is a process that results in the interconversion of chemical substances.[1] The substance or substances initially involved in a chemical reaction are called reactants. Chemical reactions are usually characterized by a chemical change, and they yield one or more products which are, in general, different from the reactants. Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds, although the general concept of a chemical reaction, in particular the notion of a chemical equation, is applicable to transformations of elementary particles, as well as nuclear reactions"
I think you are misunderstanding what I said:
Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection, even remotely.
I was not saying that molecules are not produced through chemical reactions, in fact that is and has been my point many times. What I was saying was that the study of abiogenesis does not expect that a complex entity such as a modern cell appeared through spontaneous creation and that claiming it does is the creation of a strawman. What is hypothesized and is currently under research, is that a smaller less complex molecule, which in no way, other than possibly using amino acids, resembles a modern cell, through the processes of self replication and selection passed through many iterations, eventually developed into a modern cell.
This process takes into account and relies on common chemical reactions.
It was the complexity I was arguing against, not the chemistry.
Now, if this isn't your point, please expand on your original statement.
Well, "invoking ghosts" would not even be a denotationally correct term for what you describe. There are plenty of claimed observations of ghosts as well as explanations for their motivations (like unresolved issues in life). But being that most of us are skeptical of such observations and explanations it may be a rhetorically effective association for audiences that are sufficiently afraid of appearing foolish.
But then, there are always a couple of wise-guys out there that bother to think it through. Too bad.
How about practicing something simpler first?
Consider the imaginary value of i. What do we know about it? We know it is the square root of -1. Why? Because it is defined it to be just that.
So how do we "go about solving for" i?
Ghost, as in “ghost in the machine.”
It’s an older and more generic reference. Widely used.
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.