Lesson for all: Don't use bare assertions to accuse someone of making them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"No matter how much evidence and arguments are given in contradiction to irreducible
complexity, he still claims it is?"
Making a claim without substantiating it so...
"Logical Fallacy Fail!"
QED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_falla...
If you're going to claim Behe simply wrote two books based around bare assertion alone, then
at least give specific examples. Then the irony of your comment won't be as apparent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=8NfD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Comment on the Definition and Nature of Irreducible Complexity
This is continued from my last comments in the previous post. Because I'm dealing with a lot of stuff related to how Irreducible Complexity is defined (as well as misdefined), these comments require a separate post altogether.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
drs said: "Perhaps my understanding of "Irreducibly Complex" is incorrect..."
While it's not a total misunderstanding, I think it misses the point.
"...but I thought the concept meant that certain systems are too complex to have evolved."
Here's a good starting point on this subject:
Primer: Irreducible Complexity in a Nutshell
And in case you have some beef with the mousetrap example because an intelligent agent
can modify the parts to get a one-piece system (in which the analogy would no longer apply to
features in question), see the following:
A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=a89w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
drs said: "Perhaps my understanding of "Irreducibly Complex" is incorrect..."
While it's not a total misunderstanding, I think it misses the point.
"...but I thought the concept meant that certain systems are too complex to have evolved."
Here's a good starting point on this subject:
Primer: Irreducible Complexity in a Nutshell
And in case you have some beef with the mousetrap example because an intelligent agent
can modify the parts to get a one-piece system (in which the analogy would no longer apply to
features in question), see the following:
A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=a89w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
My First (Really???) Comment on Uncommon Descent
I have followed this blog every once and a while but until a friend took the initiative for me, I was never sure about whether or not I should take part in any of the discussions on UD.
Can't believe this is my first comment there...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
For several years now, I have considered joining a site like this. A friend finally registered me
saying I could use the fresh air, so I guess that settles it.
I would say more but to keep under the radar there’s a limit to what I can say for now. I’ll just
state right now that I’m honored to be a part of a community like this - period.
In terms of physics, I think front-loading should almost universally be the default view for
anyone in the ID camp. So far as we can tell, such constraints have remained the same since
the singularity.
What I do in my reasoning is I try and take a minimalist view on apparent intervention;
meaning that I start with the assumption that everything is front-loaded. From there I look for
examples that place a limitation on how far this can go (abiogenesis for instance).
For this reason I totally agree with that last paragraph of yours, life and physics (along with
chemistry) are in an entirely different class when it comes to the efficacy of front-loading
explanations. Unlike laws, the constituents of life depend on more than just pure existence
to achieve their purpose.
This reminds me of the “Humpty Dumpty” dilemma that Jonathan Wells has highlighted in
the past. Break a cell membrane so the contents leak, and you no longer have a living cell
despite the presence of organic materials.
I think this gives us a clue as to where we can draw the line on front-loading. Simply ask
yourself, “Does the presence of a given law, element, or some set of circumstances allow for
living systems to thrive or does there appear to be something else added to the picture for
this to happen?”
As an example, Meyer has repeated countless times the fact that DNA and it’s chemical
properties by itself cannot arrange into anything functional, hence front-loading loses it’s
potential in the origins of life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=kW8b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Can't believe this is my first comment there...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
For several years now, I have considered joining a site like this. A friend finally registered me
saying I could use the fresh air, so I guess that settles it.
I would say more but to keep under the radar there’s a limit to what I can say for now. I’ll just
state right now that I’m honored to be a part of a community like this - period.
In terms of physics, I think front-loading should almost universally be the default view for
anyone in the ID camp. So far as we can tell, such constraints have remained the same since
the singularity.
What I do in my reasoning is I try and take a minimalist view on apparent intervention;
meaning that I start with the assumption that everything is front-loaded. From there I look for
examples that place a limitation on how far this can go (abiogenesis for instance).
For this reason I totally agree with that last paragraph of yours, life and physics (along with
chemistry) are in an entirely different class when it comes to the efficacy of front-loading
explanations. Unlike laws, the constituents of life depend on more than just pure existence
to achieve their purpose.
This reminds me of the “Humpty Dumpty” dilemma that Jonathan Wells has highlighted in
the past. Break a cell membrane so the contents leak, and you no longer have a living cell
despite the presence of organic materials.
I think this gives us a clue as to where we can draw the line on front-loading. Simply ask
yourself, “Does the presence of a given law, element, or some set of circumstances allow for
living systems to thrive or does there appear to be something else added to the picture for
this to happen?”
As an example, Meyer has repeated countless times the fact that DNA and it’s chemical
properties by itself cannot arrange into anything functional, hence front-loading loses it’s
potential in the origins of life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=kW8b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
First Comments on Homologous Legs
A few years ago I figured it would be a matter of time before this blog would end up on Scienceblogs. While that hasn't happened, it seems like the teen turned young undergrad has scored the next best thing.
MENTAL NOTE: Always take a moment to read the blog in question before giving it any kind of feedback...
Aside from the first two comments, this is the main one where I highlight my biggest criticism of the post in question, as well as Homologous Legs in general...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Charged rhetoric, bold sweeping conclusions and cursory analysis? Where have I heard those
things before? Surely not from Casey Luskin, the King of Bloated Rhetoric! My irony meter
melted."
Interesting...
"It’s not “outlandish rhetoric” if it’s true."
"Again, it’s not outlandish if it’s true."
"It’s descriptive and rather accurate, I think."
"I see no outlandish rhetoric here."
"...but, again, it’s hardly outlandish."
"Nothing bad here, just accurate and calm descriptors of Behe’s definitions. Note that the
authors do spend the majority of the paper backing up these specific claims, so they’re
hardly throwaway lines used for argumentative purposes only." (how?)
"It’s emotive and not all that defensible, but again, not outlandish by any stretch of the
imagination."
"Again, that’s rather light stuff. Nothing to get worked up over."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=yKz9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
MENTAL NOTE: Always take a moment to read the blog in question before giving it any kind of feedback...
Aside from the first two comments, this is the main one where I highlight my biggest criticism of the post in question, as well as Homologous Legs in general...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Charged rhetoric, bold sweeping conclusions and cursory analysis? Where have I heard those
things before? Surely not from Casey Luskin, the King of Bloated Rhetoric! My irony meter
melted."
Interesting...
"It’s not “outlandish rhetoric” if it’s true."
"Again, it’s not outlandish if it’s true."
"It’s descriptive and rather accurate, I think."
"I see no outlandish rhetoric here."
"...but, again, it’s hardly outlandish."
"Nothing bad here, just accurate and calm descriptors of Behe’s definitions. Note that the
authors do spend the majority of the paper backing up these specific claims, so they’re
hardly throwaway lines used for argumentative purposes only." (how?)
"It’s emotive and not all that defensible, but again, not outlandish by any stretch of the
imagination."
"Again, that’s rather light stuff. Nothing to get worked up over."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=yKz9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comments on "Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum"
Lately there seems to be a lot on ENV regarding Irreducibility and the Flagellum mainly because of a recent Quarterly Review of Biology Paper which Casey Luskin mentions here.
I've been waiting for posts like this for such a long time, particularly because I'm tired of hearing the same dead straw man over and over again which I will cover soon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm glad to see a post like this. Surprised at how the straw man Ken Miller first formulated is still
alive and well though.
If anything, the only criticism that doesn't receive enough attention from either side of the
debate is Matzke's Evolution in Brownian Space. I think me and Casey would agree on this,
namely that while Miller and many others tend to flatly misrepresent what Behe actually tries to
argue, Matzke at least tries to make responses that keep Behe in original context.
Bookmarking this as one of the better posts on Irreducibility. In a moment though, there's a few
things that need to be said about Miller's argument because it's so prevalent. I'll get to that in a
moment...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=7/if
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Here's my second comment replying to Nick Matzke:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There's a lot that needs to be asked and said in this area...
Nick Said: "And that most of the required proteins have known alternative functions in
nonflagellar systems. Oh well."
You mean this?
"Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology"
I would really like to know the rationale behind using Default BLAST search settings to come
to the conclusion that you did. Exactly how similar are these homologies you present and how
would we know each flagellar protein came about from the homologies and not vice-versa?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=secS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I've been waiting for posts like this for such a long time, particularly because I'm tired of hearing the same dead straw man over and over again which I will cover soon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm glad to see a post like this. Surprised at how the straw man Ken Miller first formulated is still
alive and well though.
If anything, the only criticism that doesn't receive enough attention from either side of the
debate is Matzke's Evolution in Brownian Space. I think me and Casey would agree on this,
namely that while Miller and many others tend to flatly misrepresent what Behe actually tries to
argue, Matzke at least tries to make responses that keep Behe in original context.
Bookmarking this as one of the better posts on Irreducibility. In a moment though, there's a few
things that need to be said about Miller's argument because it's so prevalent. I'll get to that in a
moment...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=7/if
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Here's my second comment replying to Nick Matzke:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There's a lot that needs to be asked and said in this area...
Nick Said: "And that most of the required proteins have known alternative functions in
nonflagellar systems. Oh well."
You mean this?
"Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology"
I would really like to know the rationale behind using Default BLAST search settings to come
to the conclusion that you did. Exactly how similar are these homologies you present and how
would we know each flagellar protein came about from the homologies and not vice-versa?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=secS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Fifth/Sixth Comment and more on ENV - Reply to CRW
ieshttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/lobbyists_resort_to_myth-infor044241.html
I will digitally sign the comments on this post once I turn on my VPN again and paste the signed copies.
Update: Okay, I have done what I have promised.
Here's this comment below, followed by this one thereafter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
While I wholeheartedly doubt the alleged efficacy of things such as horizontal gene transfer or
duplication (I think they both just shuffle information that's already there while not producing
anything new), I understand that time and space constraints make that a difficult topic to
address here, but nonetheless the following caught my attention:
"ID is religious but not of a particular religion."
So it's not of any particular religion but it's still religious? Could you elaborate on this?
"To assert "intelligence" logically implies a designer/creator. Call it god, Yahweh, Allah, whatever.
ID requires a designer, which means some supernatural force is required."
I am the intelligence behind this very comment, so by your logic I must be a supernatural entity
right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=cZE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Now the next one:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Now here I find some things worth disputing:
"Unfortunately, there has yet to be a biological trait or attribute that is irreducibly complex. All
of the core examples from ID can be shown to be sliding scales from more to less complex."
This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings of Behe's arguments - he was
not arguing that IC systems are impossible to evolve any more than it's "impossible" to win
the lottery. It might happen, but this is not something we should treat as a real likelihood.
Are you claiming that not a single cellular system is unable evolve piece-by-piece while
retaining the same basic function or are you rehashing Ken Miller's straw man?
I think a good start in clarifying this dispute can be found here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/3408
...the fact the positive mutation is shown regularly in at least microorganisms..."
Can you give me a few key examples? And how do you define "positive" mutation?
I think Ryan has tackled the rest of what I disagree with on your comment but in the
meantime I look forward to your response to what I had said/asked so far.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=WaOR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I will digitally sign the comments on this post once I turn on my VPN again and paste the signed copies.
Update: Okay, I have done what I have promised.
Here's this comment below, followed by this one thereafter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
While I wholeheartedly doubt the alleged efficacy of things such as horizontal gene transfer or
duplication (I think they both just shuffle information that's already there while not producing
anything new), I understand that time and space constraints make that a difficult topic to
address here, but nonetheless the following caught my attention:
"ID is religious but not of a particular religion."
So it's not of any particular religion but it's still religious? Could you elaborate on this?
"To assert "intelligence" logically implies a designer/creator. Call it god, Yahweh, Allah, whatever.
ID requires a designer, which means some supernatural force is required."
I am the intelligence behind this very comment, so by your logic I must be a supernatural entity
right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJNfVXcAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLh4AEMAIfoB6x8JbqnNUXB9cQZbFhu
3V8FnUhGlXUGecNTy0iW8myPoJbpzo+OGQ6Sk9al96Fr4KzhPkiPnW9vw2+83te3
GHv6ZWKRCd4SF5zbNUROMH16mFKskgQ6pCrKFY3rXu+FMkhCSTpGyJT6WdmZpwLu
HH/vJsxGx7nS3rCJ2O0mmsFL+rQrPOTnfOAyHH5eEL2PaatRjCSDuRuDbYGpLZ0e
M94xRPbpCeJ4atMXNY6D5C6FvIl4vQU8oq9taKBEfHEXb8xUaHHLcW9xi8xQpaWN
ODUbWLugAh1irsLxshbcFVLOdlk8uoLI8eYb1mZgTSPVDMaopdDRxAerWgCarv/Q
P82MyqJOqWHL4RfTSp4eWb4t7A4hoJEJbsM+w6RIuzoHrdAOHu679UljWhrLScDl
QAUxi38KrBUImyfFy4WgNCKHzBZvVUoPw6eHb6DvF7tEO5Jj5id/LYGxZ/T9ZKmz
OHksGH9abW/QM+0H6Gx6lnGRb0Iq8vRLm2OPKi8qPQ==
=cZE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Now the next one:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Now here I find some things worth disputing:
"Unfortunately, there has yet to be a biological trait or attribute that is irreducibly complex. All
of the core examples from ID can be shown to be sliding scales from more to less complex."
This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings of Behe's arguments - he was
not arguing that IC systems are impossible to evolve any more than it's "impossible" to win
the lottery. It might happen, but this is not something we should treat as a real likelihood.
Are you claiming that not a single cellular system is unable evolve piece-by-piece while
retaining the same basic function or are you rehashing Ken Miller's straw man?
I think a good start in clarifying this dispute can be found here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/3408
...the fact the positive mutation is shown regularly in at least microorganisms..."
Can you give me a few key examples? And how do you define "positive" mutation?
I think Ryan has tackled the rest of what I disagree with on your comment but in the
meantime I look forward to your response to what I had said/asked so far.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=WaOR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sunday, February 20, 2011
First Comment on Design Matrix Blog
A comment on the blog of Mike Gene, someone who sort of inspired me to use the pen name I already have.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There's definitely something compelling there, though I'm guessing the response by critics will be
along the lines of, "This must be proof evolutionary mechanisms work faster than we thought..."
Popper would be proud at such a defense don't you think?
Admire the fact that you almost single-handedly put front-loading on the discussion table. You're
bound to get your place in history for that alone. Glad to see a maverick voice in the debate over
origins is still active! You've given me hope that doing work under a pen name can wield just as
much influence as going public altogether; I suspect whatever role I might take will work out the
same way.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=gZVf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There's definitely something compelling there, though I'm guessing the response by critics will be
along the lines of, "This must be proof evolutionary mechanisms work faster than we thought..."
Popper would be proud at such a defense don't you think?
Admire the fact that you almost single-handedly put front-loading on the discussion table. You're
bound to get your place in history for that alone. Glad to see a maverick voice in the debate over
origins is still active! You've given me hope that doing work under a pen name can wield just as
much influence as going public altogether; I suspect whatever role I might take will work out the
same way.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)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=gZVf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)