20+ Questions for Theists

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#291 Jul 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The short answer is "yes" our science can be rejected - and is, when we find evidence that contradicts our hypotheses. The longer answer is that each scientific discipline has what's called a "theoretical framework" - an explanatory model for the phenomena it studies. All hypotheses are drawn from this theoretical framework.
For example, the theoretical framework for all biological sciences is the theory of evolution. Biological hypotheses are drawn from this theory, but don't always test the main theory. For example, if you're testing a new drug, you don't have to appeal to the framework theory. However, if we want to interpret the drug's response, we do so vis a vis the framework theory.
If you draw up a hypothesis that tests the main theory - let's say we hypothesize that gene A could not have arisen by evolution, but could only have been created - and we found out that, yes, gene A must be a created thing - then we'd have to reject the framework theory (assuming that we didn't make any mistakes or that gene A isn't a special case - like, say, if humans had created it and released it into the wild or something).
That said, you're incorrect about the abiogenesis hypothesis. It has a lot of evidence supporting it - and no contradictory evidence thus far. However, the exact mechanisms aren't worked out yet. Each of those takes on its own hypothesis testing. They are subsequently rejected or accepted. So at this point, the hypothesis is largely supported with the exact mechanisms remaining unknown and not unknowable.
For example, let's say I was designing a hypothesis to test some specific amino acid. My hypothesis would be something like "
The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that? You can't. It's also indistinguishable from "The Old Man Created humans from mud" and "God Created the world in 6 days" and "My pencil Created the universe 5 minutes ago." All these statements above are not, and cannot be turned into, hypotheses b/c they are not testable, nor disprovable.
It's not a strength to be non-disprovable, it's a weakness. Such statements cannot produce new knowledge - only bizarre claims.
Now you're welcome to believe in whatever claim you want to. Let's see you turn that claim into something interesting - something efficacious, capable of producing new technology and new knowledge - or you have nothing.
There are so many errors in this post I cannot address them all. But a couple...

1.[STRAW MAN] "The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that?"

There is no design hypothesis proposing "Thor [or anything] created life". There is no design hypothesis that even proposes life is created. The design hypothesis proposes that biological structures exhibit exhibit complex informational structure that is irreducibly complex and indicates intelligence.

2.[FALSEHOOD] No, there is NO evidence for the theory of abiogenesis. None. All observed phenomena since the beginning of man show not one instance of its occurence. All test results conducted for the theory have been negative. All.
__________

Mainstream biological scientists sounding just like Michael Behe:

Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
December 2013, Volume 70, Issue 23, pp 4555-4567
Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information
Georgi Muskhelishvili, Andrew Travers

“thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell”.

Richardfs

Sydney, Australia

#292 Jul 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There are so many errors in this post I cannot address them all. But a couple...
1.[STRAW MAN] "The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that?"
There is no design hypothesis proposing "Thor [or anything] created life". There is no design hypothesis that even proposes life is created. The design hypothesis proposes that biological structures exhibit exhibit complex informational structure that is irreducibly complex and indicates intelligence.
2.[FALSEHOOD] No, there is NO evidence for the theory of abiogenesis. None. All observed phenomena since the beginning of man show not one instance of its occurence. All test results conducted for the theory have been negative. All.
__________
Mainstream biological scientists sounding just like Michael Behe:
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
December 2013, Volume 70, Issue 23, pp 4555-4567
Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information
Georgi Muskhelishvili, Andrew Travers
“thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell”.
Just because the science is beyond you does not make it wrong.

Perhaps instead of beating people up, you should have spent your time getting an education.

Let me start you off:-

"See Spot run. Run Spot run."

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#293 Jul 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He prefers to be called RaisinPenisFried.
Always, always, it is ever about what you think of as food.
Did you ever get that dream deep fryer?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#294 Jul 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There are so many errors in this post I cannot address them all. But a couple...
1.[STRAW MAN] "The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that?"
There is no design hypothesis proposing "Thor [or anything] created life". There is no design hypothesis that even proposes life is created. The design hypothesis proposes that biological structures exhibit exhibit complex informational structure that is irreducibly complex and indicates intelligence.
It's not a straw man. All design hypotheses are equally untestable.
2.[FALSEHOOD] No, there is NO evidence for the theory of abiogenesis. None. All observed phenomena since the beginning of man show not one instance of its occurence. All test results conducted for the theory have been negative. All.
This is where your incredible lack of understanding of science works against you. It's hard to know where to begin to educate you on this one, but so far, all evidence in chemistry, biochemistry and basically all our sciences suggests that abiogenesis occurred.

Not a single one of our scientific theories includes appeals to designers, divinity or magical creatures. That's your first clue that abiogenesis likewise doesn't require that ignorant appeal.
Mainstream biological scientists sounding just like Michael Behe:
hahaha! Behe is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mainstream scientist. He's an embarrassment to his department.

His own department forced him to add this to his web page:

"Official Disclaimer

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.ht...

Additionally, it's included in the university webpage:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution....

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#295 Jul 7, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because the science is beyond you does not make it wrong.
Perhaps instead of beating people up, you should have spent your time getting an education.
Let me start you off:-
"See Spot run. Run Spot run."
I referenced a recent refereed article in a mainstream science journal that supports my case.

And you charge I'm saying the science is wrong?

It's beyond you, not me.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#296 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a straw man. All design hypotheses are equally untestable.
<quoted text>
This is where your incredible lack of understanding of science works against you. It's hard to know where to begin to educate you on this one, but so far, all evidence in chemistry, biochemistry and basically all our sciences suggests that abiogenesis occurred.
Not a single one of our scientific theories includes appeals to designers, divinity or magical creatures. That's your first clue that abiogenesis likewise doesn't require that ignorant appeal.
<quoted text>
hahaha! Behe is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mainstream scientist. He's an embarrassment to his department.
His own department forced him to add this to his web page:
"Official Disclaimer
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.ht...
Additionally, it's included in the university webpage:
"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution....
Your depiction of the design hypothesis is a total straw man. There is no hypothesis saying Thor, or anyone else, created life.

There is no chemical or biochemical evidence for abiogenesis. None. Nada. And it has never been observed. Not once.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#297 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

It's not a straw man. All design hypotheses are equally untestable.
You claimed they have no hypothesis.

How could it then be untestable?

When you state what the hypothesis is not, then deem it untestable, you are resorting to a classic straw man argument.

Your debating tactics are at the level of a 6th grade science student.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#298 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a straw man. All design hypotheses are equally untestable.
<quoted text>
This is where your incredible lack of understanding of science works against you. It's hard to know where to begin to educate you on this one, but so far, all evidence in chemistry, biochemistry and basically all our sciences suggests that abiogenesis occurred.
Not a single one of our scientific theories includes appeals to designers, divinity or magical creatures. That's your first clue that abiogenesis likewise doesn't require that ignorant appeal.
<quoted text>
hahaha! Behe is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a mainstream scientist. He's an embarrassment to his department.
His own department forced him to add this to his web page:
"Official Disclaimer
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.ht...
Additionally, it's included in the university webpage:
"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution....
Hilarious.

You are faced with a mainstream refereed article which provides validity to Behe's view, and your response is an old disclaimer from his school administration.

Classic Red-Herring Fallacy.

You are starting to bore me. Raise the standard of your arguments, or I'm going to ignore you.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#299 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your depiction of the design hypothesis is a total straw man. There is no hypothesis saying Thor, or anyone else, created life.
There is no chemical or biochemical evidence for abiogenesis. None. Nada. And it has never been observed. Not once.
Wow, you are slow.

Again, any "intelligent design" idea is just as non-disprovable and non-testable as the Thor idea.

And, once again, for the stupid, not a single one of our scientific theories includes appeals to divine beings, magical creatures or sorcery. Abiogenesis is therefore the prediction of science. The details are being worked out and the science of abiogenesis has advanced considerably.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#300 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed they have no hypothesis.
How could it then be untestable?
When you state what the hypothesis is not, then deem it untestable, you are resorting to a classic straw man argument.
Your debating tactics are at the level of a 6th grade science student.
Good point, they're not actually hypotheses. All design ideas are untestable.
Andre

Welkom, South Africa

#301 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The short answer is "yes" our science can be rejected - and is, when we find evidence that contradicts our hypotheses. The longer answer is that each scientific discipline has what's called a "theoretical framework" - an explanatory model for the phenomena it studies. All hypotheses are drawn from this theoretical framework.
For example, the theoretical framework for all biological sciences is the theory of evolution. Biological hypotheses are drawn from this theory, but don't always test the main theory. For example, if you're testing a new drug, you don't have to appeal to the framework theory. However, if we want to interpret the drug's response, we do so vis a vis the framework theory.
If you draw up a hypothesis that tests the main theory - let's say we hypothesize that gene A could not have arisen by evolution, but could only have been created - and we found out that, yes, gene A must be a created thing - then we'd have to reject the framework theory (assuming that we didn't make any mistakes or that gene A isn't a special case - like, say, if humans had created it and released it into the wild or something).
That said, you're incorrect about the abiogenesis hypothesis. It has a lot of evidence supporting it - and no contradictory evidence thus far. However, the exact mechanisms aren't worked out yet. Each of those takes on its own hypothesis testing. They are subsequently rejected or accepted. So at this point, the hypothesis is largely supported with the exact mechanisms remaining unknown and not unknowable.
For example, let's say I was designing a hypothesis to test some specific amino acid. My hypothesis would be something like "lysine is produced under conditions X" and then I'd see if I can do that. If I can't, I reject that hypothesis.
Let's say that we exhaust every single hypothesis we can (no idea how many that would be - I don't work in this field of science) and then some super clever person comes along and figures out a "design" hypothesis that works - then we could toss out the abiogenesis hypothesis and start working under a design one.
The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that? You can't. It's also indistinguishable from "The Old Man Created humans from mud" and "God Created the world in 6 days" and "My pencil Created the universe 5 minutes ago." All these statements above are not, and cannot be turned into, hypotheses b/c they are not testable, nor disprovable.
It's not a strength to be non-disprovable, it's a weakness. Such statements cannot produce new knowledge - only bizarre claims.
Now you're welcome to believe in whatever claim you want to. Let's see you turn that claim into something interesting - something efficacious, capable of producing new technology and new knowledge - or you have nothing.
Now use this of hypothesis to test whether the exodus ever took place. Kindly explain the process, how you arrived at the conclusion and to what level of certainty you can claim this?
Andre

Welkom, South Africa

#302 Jul 7, 2014
Lets get real. There is some evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt. Thus to claim it is a myth is at the very basic level ignorant of facts or duishonest.
All the experiments thus far have never produced living matter from non-living matter. Use whatever scientific jargon you wish, it will not remove the hard facts. To contest that I must conclude again ignorance or some dishonesty (not something new in "science" it seems)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#303 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious.
You are faced with a mainstream refereed article which provides validity to Behe's view, and your response is an old disclaimer from his school administration.
Classic Red-Herring Fallacy.
You are starting to bore me. Raise the standard of your arguments, or I'm going to ignore you.
Oh! hahaha, I saw Behe and didn't notice you were talking about different scientists, not him. Sorry about that.

Ok, downloaded the article and am reading through it. They're not using the words like Behe does. They're using the words to mean "cannot get any smaller" or "must be made of these minimum parts to work" not as in "this could not have been produced by evolution."

For example, they talk about the interaction within cells from gene to protein via energy as "irreducible organizational complexity." They mean that the cell would cease to function if any of those systems weren't there, not that cells did not evolve.

Additionally, it's actually not a research paper, but a review paper. They're reviewing how DNA sends information both "digitally" and "analog" - very close to how I pictured it, actually.

Have you read the paper? Really amazing in how they discuss information transfer and what DNA is capable of - this makes epigenetics make more sense to me now. Thanks, Buck.

Btw, if you don't have the paper or can't get a hold of it, send me a pm with some email address. I'll send it to you.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#304 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you are slow.
Again, any "intelligent design" idea is just as non-disprovable and non-testable as the Thor idea.
And, once again, for the stupid, not a single one of our scientific theories includes appeals to divine beings, magical creatures or sorcery. Abiogenesis is therefore the prediction of science. The details are being worked out and the science of abiogenesis has advanced considerably.
I love your reasoning here.

Since we have life, and we can't resort to magic, abiogenesis has to be the conclusion.

Again, great scientific reasoning. Great evidence there.

But again you are wrong. The dilemna is not between abiogenesis and magic.

"Three popular variations of the panspermia hypothesis are:
Lithopanspermia (interstellar panspermia)- impact-expelled rocks from a planet's surface serve as transfer vehicles for spreading biological material from one solar system to another.
Ballistic panspermia (interplanetary panspermia)- impact-expelled rocks from a planet's surface serve as transfer vehicles for spreading biological material from one planet to another within the same solar system
Directed panspermia -the intentional spreading of the seeds of life to other planets by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization,..."

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#305 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point, they're not actually hypotheses. All design ideas are untestable.
Your argument is rolling over.

Is it a problem of an untestable hypothesis, or no hypothesis?

Your latest iteration calls it an untestable idea.

Will your next post say there is no idea?

Did you think about any of your responses you have now dismissed before you offered them?

Could you tag your responses you intend to immediately dismiss so we could know what to expect?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#306 Jul 7, 2014
Andre wrote:
Lets get real. There is some evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt. Thus to claim it is a myth is at the very basic level ignorant of facts or duishonest.
All the experiments thus far have never produced living matter from non-living matter. Use whatever scientific jargon you wish, it will not remove the hard facts. To contest that I must conclude again ignorance or some dishonesty (not something new in "science" it seems)
Is your position that the Exodus story must be true if it cannot be "proven" false or that if it cannot be supported by solid evidence that archeologists and other scientists would expect to find if it were true, that the story's accuracy remains highly unlikely? Which approach do you consider to be consistent with solid logic? What evidence can you present that Egypt held a sizable Hebrew population during the epoch in question, that they were', in fact' the ancestors of the world's Jewish population? To what "hard facts" do you refer?

Simply stating that evidence exists is not sufficient. You have to first present it and then validate it with documentation that holds up to skeptical review. In a community of skeptics, the answers to questions like this all rely on solid evidence, not speculation, and not assertions to be proven false or stand as true, which is the reverse of any logical process. If you are not willing to do this, don't expect to change even a single mind.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#307 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh! hahaha, I saw Behe and didn't notice you were talking about different scientists, not him. Sorry about that.
Ok, downloaded the article and am reading through it. They're not using the words like Behe does. They're using the words to mean "cannot get any smaller" or "must be made of these minimum parts to work" not as in "this could not have been produced by evolution."
For example, they talk about the interaction within cells from gene to protein via energy as "irreducible organizational complexity." They mean that the cell would cease to function if any of those systems weren't there, not that cells did not evolve.
Additionally, it's actually not a research paper, but a review paper. They're reviewing how DNA sends information both "digitally" and "analog" - very close to how I pictured it, actually.
Have you read the paper? Really amazing in how they discuss information transfer and what DNA is capable of - this makes epigenetics make more sense to me now. Thanks, Buck.
Btw, if you don't have the paper or can't get a hold of it, send me a pm with some email address. I'll send it to you.
I read the paper and you are wrong.

They use the term "irreducibly complex" EXACTLY AS BEHE USES IT.

Hiding: "They mean that the cell would cease to function if any of those systems weren't there, not that cells did not evolve."

Behe does not use the term to say the cells did not evolve. Behe says they DID EVOLVE.

You don't know what the hell ID is. That's the problem.

Here are two biological researchers who can straighten it out for you:

Dr. Scott Minnich: "In other words, DNA topology (due to supercoiling and histone-like protein binding), Transcription, and Metabolic energy (ATP levels influence DNA gyrase activity, which affects supercoiling, which affects transcription) are all keying off each other and thus there is an overall order to the positioning of anabolic and catabolic genes relative to the origin of replication. In short, I think this is a fascinating review looking at DNA organization and function which, in the authors words, are irreducibly complex."

Dr. David Snoke: "Three comments: 1) the authors are “serious” scientists, not fringe people. 2) They are using “irreducible complexity” in the same sense as Behe. This is not a case of accidental use of the same phrase to mean something different. Their term “holistic” is another way of saying the same thing, that the system requires all of its parts to work. 3) This “holistic” approach is one that is becoming common in systems biology. I have a paper coming out on that, in the works."

For emphasis:

Snoke:

"THEY ARE USING 'IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY' IN THE SAME SENSE AS BEHE".

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#308 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I love your reasoning here.
Since we have life, and we can't resort to magic, abiogenesis has to be the conclusion.
Again, great scientific reasoning. Great evidence there.
But again you are wrong. The dilemna is not between abiogenesis and magic.
"Three popular variations of the panspermia hypothesis are:
Lithopanspermia (interstellar panspermia)- impact-expelled rocks from a planet's surface serve as transfer vehicles for spreading biological material from one solar system to another.
Ballistic panspermia (interplanetary panspermia)- impact-expelled rocks from a planet's surface serve as transfer vehicles for spreading biological material from one planet to another within the same solar system
Directed panspermia -the intentional spreading of the seeds of life to other planets by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization,..."
Yeah. I don't read enough about abiogenesis to develop any kind of argument. When I do catch up on it, I'm pretty astonished at the various amino acids and organic molecules that are constantly produced from inorganic molecules.

The thing is, at the end of the day if one of those panspermia ideas are correct, you're just putting the beginning of life from non-life back further. So you're going to run into abiogenesis again.

You're totally welcome to infer design. It's simply not part of our science. You can make the argument that it's just not part of our science right now, b/c we don't know enough, but that ignores the historical fact that our science progressed by cutting out appeals to design.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#309 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the paper and you are wrong.
They use the term "irreducibly complex" EXACTLY AS BEHE USES IT.
Hiding: "They mean that the cell would cease to function if any of those systems weren't there, not that cells did not evolve."
Behe does not use the term to say the cells did not evolve. Behe says they DID EVOLVE.
You don't know what the hell ID is. That's the problem.
Here are two biological researchers who can straighten it out for you:
Dr. Scott Minnich: "In other words, DNA topology (due to supercoiling and histone-like protein binding), Transcription, and Metabolic energy (ATP levels influence DNA gyrase activity, which affects supercoiling, which affects transcription) are all keying off each other and thus there is an overall order to the positioning of anabolic and catabolic genes relative to the origin of replication. In short, I think this is a fascinating review looking at DNA organization and function which, in the authors words, are irreducibly complex."
Dr. David Snoke: "Three comments: 1) the authors are “serious” scientists, not fringe people. 2) They are using “irreducible complexity” in the same sense as Behe. This is not a case of accidental use of the same phrase to mean something different. Their term “holistic” is another way of saying the same thing, that the system requires all of its parts to work. 3) This “holistic” approach is one that is becoming common in systems biology. I have a paper coming out on that, in the works."
For emphasis:
Snoke:
"THEY ARE USING 'IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY' IN THE SAME SENSE AS BEHE".
You can shout that over and over again, but no, they are not. They used the words "irreducible organizational complexity" to mean minimal "self referential information system." They say this in the article repeatedly. They certainly aren't arguing that the DNA molecule is the product of some designer.

Your Dr. Snokes is a biased source, so I'll just ignore his comments until the authors concur with him. His work w/Behe has been widely criticized and isn't considered serious. He does good work in physics, though. No denying that.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#310 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is rolling over.
Is it a problem of an untestable hypothesis, or no hypothesis?
Your latest iteration calls it an untestable idea.
Will your next post say there is no idea?
Did you think about any of your responses you have now dismissed before you offered them?
Could you tag your responses you intend to immediately dismiss so we could know what to expect?
Nah. Design ideas are ideas. And inferences, sure.

No, usually I dismiss what you write pretty quickly. It's b/c of your overly simplistic explanations and bullying.

Anyways, demonstrate my argument wrong. Produce a design hypothesis for a biological system that is testable and disprovable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 48 min Baffled 1,176
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,416
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 5 hr Ben Avraham 100
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
More from around the web