Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Stu wrote:Alleged “Consensus on Climate

Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

Or that dirty rat Michael Behe , how dare he show the improbability of chloroquine
By Darwinian evolution and how dare he show that the dogmatic unwavering religion of evolution high priest pz Myers and every evolutionist wrong

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so ... 87901.html

Pz Myers before :And then of course there's PZ Myers. He made much the same criticisms, and also wrote:
Behe isn't just a crackpot who thinks he has a novel explanation for an evolutionary mechanism -- he's a radical anti-evolutionist extremist who rejects the entire notion of the transformation of species by natural processes. ... Most of the arguments are gussied up versions of the kind of handwaving, ignorant rationalizations you'd get from some pomaded fundagelical Baptist minister who got all his biology from the Bible, not at all what you'd expect from a tenured professor of biochemistry at a good university -- throwing in an occasional technical gloss or mangled anecdote from the literature is only a gloss to fool the rubes."""


And high priest pz Myers after
Looks like his magic wand isn't working too well these days
Kenneth Miller: "It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics. Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result." (Nature, 2007)
Paul Gross: "Behe assumes simultaneous mutations at two sites in the relevant gene, but there is no such necessity and plenty of evidence that cumulativeness, rather than simultaneity, is the rule. As Nature's reviewer (Kenneth R. Miller) notes, 'It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.'" (The New Criterion, 2007)
Jerry Coyne: "What has Behe now found to resurrect his campaign for ID? It's rather pathetic, really. ... Behe requires all of the three or four mutations needed to create such an interaction to arise simultaneously. ... If it looks impossible, this is only because of Behe's bizarre and unrealistic assumption that for a protein-protein interaction to evolve, all mutations must occur simultaneously, because the step-by-step path is not adaptive." (The New Republic, 2007)
Nick Matzke: "Here is the flabbergasting line of argument. First, Behe admits that CQR evolves naturally, but contends that it requires a highly improbable simultaneous double mutation, occurring in only 1 in 1020 parasites. ... The argument collapses at every step." (Trends In Ecology and Evolution, 2007)
Sean Carroll: "Behe makes a new set of explicit claims about the limits of Darwinian evolution, claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them. ... Behe's main argument rests on the assertion that two or more simultaneous mutations are required for increases in biochemical complexity and that such changes are, except in rare circumstances, beyond the limit of evolution. .. Examples of cumulative selection changing multiple sites in evolving proteins include ... pyrimethamine resistance in malarial parasites -- a notable omission given Behe's extensive discussion of malarial drug resistance. ... [T]he argument for design has no scientific leg to stand on." (Science, 2007)
Richard Dawkins: "Trapped along a false path of his own rather unintelligent design, Behe has left himself no escape. Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science. ... If correct, Behe's calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation." (New York Times, 2007)
And then of course there's PZ Myers. He made much the same criticisms, and also wrote:
Behe isn't just a crackpot who thinks he has a novel explanation for an evolutionary mechanism -- he's a radical anti-evolutionist extremist who rejects the entire notion of the transformation of species by natural processes. ... Most of the arguments are gussied up versions of the kind of handwaving, ignorant rationalizations you'd get from some pomaded fundagelical Baptist minister who got all his biology from the Bible, not at all what you'd expect from a tenured professor of biochemistry at a good university -- throwing in an occasional technical gloss or mangled anecdote from the literature is only a gloss to fool the rubes.
While these comments were made a few years ago, many ENV readers who follow this debate might remember just how gleefully harsh the critics were towards Behe after his book The Edge of Evolution came out. Even if Behe had been wrong, the critics' extreme incivility would have been unscholarly and inappropriate. But now it turns out all these critics were wrong. You get no resistance to chloroquine whatsoever unless at least two mutations are present to begin with. You might be able to get some cumulative selection after that, where successive mutations improve resistance up to a certain point. It is, however, by definition a multimutation feature.
Behe reasonably inferred that chloroquine resistance requires multiple mutations. He was right. His critics misunderstood his argument and thought this inference was a crucial plank in his reasoning. It wasn't. But it now turns out that the position Behe's critics attributed to him, and then railed against, was itself correct. Even a single CCC apparently requires multiple mutations before conferring any advantage. In fact, it's probably very close to the "edge" of evolution that Behe identified in his book.

And high priest pz Meyers after

Is an apology from Behe's critics then forthcoming? In a world where debates were conducted with the goal of discovering truth rather than scoring points, it sure ought to be. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we live in that world.

What we'll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers's concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above:

Fair enough; if you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.
Well, that's more or less what's required to generate chloroquine resistance. We'll gladly take this -- i.e., simply being proven right -- in lieu of an apology.


Wow those unscientific crackpot creationists are at it again . WHATS NEXT Audie ?
I tell you the creationists are coming to declare martial lawwweee!!!

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

I wonder what prrcent of deniers are fundamentalists / creationists. They are very practiced at
intellectual dishonedty.

How so?

As opposed to the intellectual honesty of evolutionists / atheists. Please tell me another joke

Audie wrote:

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

I wonder what prrcent of deniers are fundamentalists / creationists. They are very practiced at
intellectual dishonedty.

How so?

As opposed to the intellectual honesty of evolutionists / atheists. Please tell me another joke

Good to see you've learned snarkasm and deflection. Perhaps you wont need to demonstrate it again, now that it's been acknowledged.

Unpacking your comment a bit, do you disagree that the deniers are especially apt to be fundies?

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

I wonder what prrcent of deniers are fundamentalists / creationists. They are very practiced at
intellectual dishonedty.

How so?

As opposed to the intellectual honesty of evolutionists / atheists. Please tell me another joke

Good to see you've learned snarkasm and deflection. Perhaps you wont need to demonstrate it again, now that it's been acknowledged.

Unpacking your comment a bit, do you disagree that the deniers are especially apt to be fundies?

No not really, there is a wide arrange of people that don't subscribe to man-made climate change.

ACB: I don't deny climate change but it is the blaming it on man that is bunk science.

Philip wrote:What the hell does it matter what WHICH people with which spiritual beliefs think about climate change, it's causes, etc? It is, of right now, an uncertain thing, as to the causes. Audie just appears to be beefing up her narrative that "people of faith are more typically ignorant, dishonest morons, as opposed to unbelieving scientific types who are known to be much more honest." Please spare us such tripe! There are people from all kinds of backgrounds in the array of camps that assert various things about this issue. It is not a spiritual issue! And people from all kinds of backgrounds can be dead wrong about many things - doesn't make them dishonest or stupid. Audie's bias drives her narrative - else, why bring up what people believe spiritually, in relation to a non-creationist issue? She herself hasn't a clue as to the cause of the referenced climate changes, so why the superior attitude, the desire to smear people of faith as dishonest.

Audie, what do you define as a "fundie?"

Audie just appears to be beefing up her narrative that "people of faith are more typically ignorant, dishonest morons, as opposed to unbelieving scientific types who are known to be much more honest.

What the hell does it matter what WHICH people with which spiritual beliefs think about climate change, it's causes, etc?

Philip wrote:

ACB: I don't deny climate change but it is the blaming it on man that is bunk science.

It's THEORY. Uncertain. Maybe man has no impact. Perhaps at an insignificant level. But perhaps significantly. I tend to think not, given the planet's history, periods of great warmth and extreme cold. Whatever the actuality, it is by no means a certainty. If every time you open your front door, you hear your neighbor's dog bark - did opening the door cause the barking? Or do dogs just bark off and on, and so often seem to do it just when you open the door? Point is, man-made pollutants, in significant levels, have just started since the industrial revolution. It is well possible that a natural cycle of the planet has shown periods of obvious warming that JUST HAPPEN to have occurred during man's industrial endeavors - but that doesn't mean we've caused it. It doesn't even mean it is still warming. NO one really truly knows. It's possible, or not. To an insignificant degree or a dangerous one. But it DOES make sense to clean up our processes, our air, water.

Another issue is the data. GOOD weather data is sporadic past 100 years ago. Much of the temperature data is from cities - yes, where there is the most paving, pollutants and trapped particles that would contribute to warmth around cities. And that's just from the PARTIAL data. As for ice core samples - again, are those showing mere cycles of the planet? And IF the warming is attributable to man, well, the industrial revolution only dates to the late 18th century - so what is a few centuries of data on a billions of years old planet that has had many periods of climate change? Fact is, we just don't know with any degree of certainty. And deciding that truth based upon politics is absurd. And that is certain driving a significant amount of the alarm. But the concern, monitoring, research - all sensible.

OK, let's say that the warming is significant, man-made, and extremely dangerous for our future. With many poorer countries building coal-fired plants as fast as they can build them, that aren't terribly concerned about pollution compared to year-to-year survival and economic concerns - how are we to stop THAT? Our tools to significantly change our pollution outputs - at least drastically - simply wouldn't be enough. And all nations would have to cooperate in this - like that's gonna happen - at least in time and on the level that would be needed if GW is a dangerous, ongoing, man-made reality.

ACB: Manmade global warming is being driven by the left,it is driven by environmental wacko's who actually believe man is destroying the planet because of the progress we've made.

Philip wrote:

ACB: Manmade global warming is being driven by the left,it is driven by environmental wacko's who actually believe man is destroying the planet because of the progress we've made.

That is true - many with an agenda ARE hyping GW/climate change and tying it to man without proof. And while that is one thing, and I tend to doubt it, it doesn't mean we haven't had ANY effect. We just can't know for certain, one way or another. SOMETIMES, a thing is true, even though those saying it are clueless - but, more often, not. So, I don't care if those who are believers in this are right, or if they are wrong and the naysayers are correct. My entire point is do the research, monitor, assess, meanwhile develop cleaner industry, etc., but let FACTS drive the response, not political rhetoric and agendas - from EITHER side.

Let's say GW was really occurring, it is very dangerous, but that the naysaying right insists it is not. Well, we better at least be open to making good decisions based upon the best, comprehensive data available. If we are taking political and not factual, big-pictures views of this question, WHATEVER side of the fence we are on, that's moronic! Politics, agendas and science - whichever side is spewing it - we best ignore it. Right now, we just can't know the difference between happenstance correlations over long-time natural cycles, and in links to man-made causes. That is a FACT!