luna_the_cat ([info]luna_the_cat) wrote in [info]id_theory,
@ 2005-10-06 16:55:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Just curious - Questions I would like to see ID address
The proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is actually a science. In order to be a science, a model must enable researchers to make substantive and testable hypotheses – and then, of course, those hypotheses must be tested. To this end, I have compiled a list of questions, some from traditional biology and some involving specific aspects of molecular biology, which I for one would particularly like to see ID tackle. I do not expect anyone to come up with definitive answers, but I would like to see, as I said, substantive and testable hypotheses. (By substantive and testable, I mean that "the mind of the Designer is unknowable"-type answers do not qualify.)

Given the basis of design by an intelligence, please explain:

1 Why, out of 61 available amino acids, does life use only 20 of them? Some are obviously disqualified from biological functions by being too reactive or not reactive enough, however there are many which fall well within a range of usability which are nevertheless not used.

2 What are probable reasons for the peculiar and utterly puzzling presence of ribonucleotide fragments in biochemical cofactors?

3 Why is the ribosome a ribozyme? These vital protein synthesis machineries involve only 3 RNA molecules and more than 50 proteins; but it is the RNA molecules which play the most fundamental roles despite the fact that those roles could well have been fulfilled by proteins.

4 With the premise that they have been designed, what are probable reasons for the forms of the Wnt proteins and the subsequent signalling pathways vital for embryogenesis? Bear in mind that “elegance” and “efficiency” are not descriptors which could possibly be applied to the Wnt signalling pathways by anyone sane. (See for a wildly oversimplified diagram of a human Wnt signalling pathway.)

5 Why is the human genome >=96% entirely nonfunctional? (This is a generous estimate of functionality; currently only 1.5-2.0% of the genome is thought to have any function at all. On the basis that there are likely to still be unidentified control elements, even though structural elements have all been mapped, for the purpose of this question I propose to double the estimate of functional region. Despite the fact that control elements are often several factors of ten smaller than protein-coding genes, there are likely to be more of them.)

6 During the embryogenesis of birds the protein BMP4 is produced at a certain stage, which specifically induces apoptosis in the tissues between the toes of the hind limb, leading to separated toes. Ducks, however, retain the webbing between their toes rather than have it die away. Given the premise of deliberate design, what are probable reasons is this webbing retained, not through a lack of BMP4, but through the production of both normal amounts of BMP4 and the additional production of the protein Gremlin, which simply blocks the action of BMP4?

7 Why are cactus spines built out of the same elements as “normal” leaves, despite their very different form and function?

8 Why are reptilian scales and bird feathers built from very nearly the same proteins?

9 What are probable reasons for the similar morphology but very dissimilar use of bones in pterosaur, bird, and bat wings, given that all these have the ultimate function of flight? (For a visual comparison, see .)

10 Why aren’t there any flying marsupials?

11 What are probable reasons that approximately 1 in every 100,000 whales are born with apparently vestigial and functionless leg buds at the position that hind limbs would likely be?

12 Why do baleen whales develop and calcify teeth in utero, which are then resorbed just before birth?

13 Why do so many creatures of phylum Mollusca have better eyes than we do? (I.E. the molluscan eye has a far more efficient optical design and has no “blind spot” such as the mammalian eye has, due to the fact that light does not have to pass through several layers of tissue before striking the light-sensitive surface, and the optic nerve fibres do not have to pass through the retina in order to enter the visual cortex of the brain. Also, molluscan eyes have a spherical lens which can be moved back or forth to focus, rather than a fixed lens which must be forced to change shape, which means that molluscan eyes are far more unlikely to develop hyperopia, myopia, or indeed any form of astigmatism.)

14 With the principle of design in mind, why do box jellyfish, creatures which lack even a central nervous system, have three different types of eyes ranging from a simple pigmented pit with a central photoreceptor, to a complex camera eye with a retina, a lens superior to ours, and an adapting iris? Why, despite the optical properties of the perfectly-corrected lens, is the lensal image focussed well behind the retina, leading to the conclusion that all they would be able to see are large, extremely blurry and diffuse images?

15 What are the probable reasons that despite their skeletal adaptations to a bamboo diet (i.e. dentition and the famous “thumb” used for stripping bamboo leaves), pandas have a carnivore’s lower digestive system, which unfortunately leaves most pandas in the wild in a perpetual state of near-starvation?



(Post a new comment)

Corrections
[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-06 04:02 pm UTC (link)
Corrections, as some formatting appeared to be lost.

In 4.: ...(See http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/wnt.swf for a wildly oversimplified diagram of a human Wnt signalling pathway.)

In 9.: ...(For a visual comparison, see http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/wings.htm .)

(Reply to this)


[info]essentialsaltes
2005-10-06 04:11 pm UTC (link)
10 Why aren’t there any flying marsupials?

The babies kept falling out.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-06 04:23 pm UTC (link)
{snort} Ok, it is a testable hypothesis. One would next go about charting ways in which flying is any different from hopping or hanging upside down off branches in terms of mechanistic risk of babies falling out, I suppose.

What makes it somewhat unlikely is that most marsupials are able to use muscle to hold their pouches closed. So, where would one take that hypothesis next?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]essentialsaltes
2005-10-06 04:42 pm UTC (link)
Well, obviously I agree with your main point. ID has no predictive power and it's not even very good at postdiction. If biological thingy A is complicated and not currently understood, ID supporters nod their heads sagely and say, "See? See? It must have been designed!"
If biological thingy B is well-understood and 'poorly designed' (like the mammalian eye) ID supporters shrug their shoulders and change the subject to something more like thingy A again. All they've got is an argument from ignorance. The root explanation for everything is "That's how the designer designed it," which adds zero knowledge to our understanding.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]carl_sagan
2005-10-06 04:40 pm UTC (link)
see, here's the problem:
The ID crowd has no fucking clue as to what you are talking about. The ID crowd has little to no actual understanding of science therefore these questions are just part of the scientific obscurantism that hopes to oppress ID.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]theamaranth
2005-10-06 05:04 pm UTC (link)
you're everywhere. lol

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]carl_sagan
2005-10-06 06:29 pm UTC (link)
I am the alpha and the omega.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

ID put-down
(Anonymous)
2006-03-21 05:46 pm UTC (link)
My friend, you're a boofhead. You've obviously never read the literature put out by ID. Have the honesty to admit it you silly little boy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: ID put-down
[info]carl_sagan
2006-03-21 08:34 pm UTC (link)
au contraire
I read Behe's Darwin's Black box. It is utter crap and you are but an anonymous fuckhead.
Behe himself has admited that ID is just as scientific as astrology.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]saint_gasoline
2005-10-07 02:12 am UTC (link)
1-15: Because God wanted to do it that way.

This is the point where the theist mistakenly uses Ockham's razor, saying, "Isn't that simpler than evolution's answers? Therefore it's true!"

Please try to ignore the fact that because this explanation could account for anything, it doesn't allow for any predictions and isn't testable.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-07 07:52 am UTC (link)
Ah, that is why I specifically stipulated that I wanted substantive and testable hypotheses, and that "by substantive and testable, I mean that 'the mind of the Designer is unknowable'-type answers do not qualify." "God wanted to do it that way" obviously doesn't qualify.

And that, really, is the point. "Creation science" or "Intelligent Design" is trying to dress itself as science; but the point of science is what you can discover with it, and what you can do with it, and the field relies on investigations being able to provide answers both testable and detailed. I want to use specific questions, with the demand for specific and detailed answers, to highlight this.

If people want to believe "God did it", I'm not going to argue that; what I (as so many others) want to point out is that this is simply in a different arena than science.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]saint_gasoline
2005-10-07 08:45 am UTC (link)
Yes. What I love is when Creationists argue that "evolution" doesn't really answer practical questions in the sciences. This causes me to spit milk, even if I don't even have milk handy. That's just how ridiculous it is.

I always ask them...do you really think Intelligent Design would answer these practical questions? Given the theory of Intelligent Design, please explain how one would deal with the bacteria and viruses that God is "creating" with resistances to normal treatment? Are we to, ur, pray? Ask God nicely to stop designing them? Yeah, okay.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wyrd_sane
2005-11-09 03:09 am UTC (link)
An argument that puports to explain everything (e.g. goddidit) typically explains nothing.

But not all theists do this. But I am not a theist. It's too restrictive being forced to believe a god exists all the time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-07 08:52 am UTC (link)
Perspective-wise. You're looking at the present in terms of the 60's. Attempting to evaluate facts in terms of unrealistic pre-conceptions.

1. You're operating under the misguided expectation that intelligent design attempts to disprove evolution. And, that therefore the evolutionary model, which may explain things such as why there are no flying marsupials, should be discarded. When, in reality intelligent design doesn't discard any facts in terms of evolution. It simply interprets some of those facts differently.

2. You're operating under the unrealistic expectation that ID is disguised Creationism. Perhaps without even realizing it, attempting to rationalize facts to fit with your own views of how a creationist god would operate. If ID happened to not be disguised creationism, you would ineffably be in error.

3. You mistakenly attempt to project your own views of how-a-creationist-god would operate. Onto your scientific definition of a designer. I'm sorry to say that your personal views of how a designer would do things are not necessarily the agreed upon norm here. There is no reason to expect that items such as 12 or 14 are necessarily mutually exclusive with a designer. Because your entire perspective is based upon the unrealistic expectation, that a designer would banish such things as redundancy and imperfection in all systems.

Thus, as long as you cling to those unrealistic, subjective pre-conceptions... You have no chance of being objective regarding things like intelligent design. :P

Next...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-07 10:42 am UTC (link)
Neither a true nor a useful response.

The central tenet of ID is that some supernatural and metaphysical intelligence designed basic biological functions and mechanisms, and the evidence presented is supposed "irreducible complexity". Please explain to me, clearly and in plain words, exactly how that does NOT boil down to "God did it".

"You are attempting to rationalise [x] to fit with your conceptions of how a god would operate, and you can't do that" from your arguments 2+3 boils down to the argument I disqualified above, i.e. that "the mind of the Designer is unknowable" -- and I disqualified this type of answer as any form of science, nor could it have any place in science or even connected to science, because while the mind of any supernatural/metaphysical intelligence may indeed be unknowable to us -- the statement offers nothing useful. It offers nothing testable. It does not function as part of a field which specifically addresses how the physical universe operates via naturalistic laws, and which relies on propositions being testable for whether or not they fit our observations of said universe. It does not lend itself to increasing the sum of our understanding and knowledge in any way.

The problem with ID is that it basically says "you can't know", and pinches off all subsequent lines of inquiry. Useless. Not science.

I strongly recommend to you a book called What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan Chalmers. It's about the history and philosophy on science; and it isn't a big book, although it does take some thinking. If you are going to make statements about what qualifies as science, then really you should have at least a basic background.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-07 03:15 pm UTC (link)
The central tenet of ID is that some supernatural and metaphysical intelligence designed basic biological functions and mechanisms, and the evidence presented is supposed "irreducible complexity". Please explain to me, clearly and in plain words, exactly how that does NOT boil down to "God did it".

You may hate me for this... But, if you want an honest answer *shrug*. What you said falls under:

2. You're operating under the unrealistic expectation that ID is disguised Creationism. Perhaps without even realizing it, attempting to rationalize facts to fit with your own views of how a creationist god would operate. If ID happened to not be disguised creationism, you would ineffably be in error

"God did it," is not scientific. To remain science, ID must not, must never address the supernatural, nor the religious. Therefore in being science its impossible for ID to support a religion like you & others suggest it might. It could never happen. The moment ID recognized religion, deities, etc. It would cease to be science.

In essence, all you have to fear, is that ID proponents may find scientifically acceptable facts to support the design theorem. Therefore, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you're talking about the impossible when you claim ID is all about the supernatural, yadda, yadda.

"the mind of the Designer is unknowable" -- and I disqualified this type of answer as any form of science, nor could it have any place in science or even connected to science, because while the mind of any supernatural/metaphysical intelligence may indeed be unknowable to us -- the statement offers nothing useful. It offers nothing testable. It does not function as part of a field which specifically addresses how the physical universe operates via naturalistic laws, and which relies on propositions being testable for whether or not they fit our observations of said universe. It does not lend itself to increasing the sum of our understanding and knowledge in any way.

It makes for good science. It attempts to exhaust all possibilities. It opens up new perspectives and offers competiting theories. And no, you cannot shoot down the metaphysical then hoist up the naturalistic, they're one and the same.

Investigating down different avenues of thought always increases the sum of our knowledge and understanding.

The problem with ID is that it basically says "you can't know", and pinches off all subsequent lines of inquiry. Useless. Not science

I'll point out one instance of ID making a prediction that you yourself posted:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings,"...

Doesn't look like a "you cant know" then pinching off all lines of inquiry to me. :P

I strongly recommend to you a book called What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan Chalmers. It's about the history and philosophy on science; and it isn't a big book, although it does take some thinking. If you are going to make statements about what qualifies as science, then really you should have at least a basic background.

Thank you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-07 03:50 pm UTC (link)
I just want to focus on two chunks of this, for now.

First, you say "To remain science, ID must not, must never address the supernatural, nor the religious. Therefore in being science its impossible for ID to support a religion like you & others suggest it might. It could never happen. The moment ID recognized religion, deities, etc. It would cease to be science.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying "ID is a science. Therefore, because it is science, it does not address God or the supernatural." Is that right?

My point is that the flip side of this is what is true: ID presupposes intervention by a supernatural power. (That is not an invention of mine, they say so.) And for that reason, they are not science. Precisely as you said in the last sentence of yours that I quoted, there.

In essence, you did not answer my question, you merely pretended that it didn't apply by assuming that ID is a science rather than addressing the question of how it could be.

ID says that biological systems and machineries were designed. Designed by whom, or what, then? They say only something outside the system of nature, an intelligence with the power to manipulate physical matter at the most widespread and subtlest levels, could have done so, and more to the point, must have done so. If they are not talking about God...then what? Super-powerful space aliens? So where did they come from, then? No, they mean God. That is obvious to anyone looking at the ID movement's own literature.

----

The second thing I wanted to point out -- you say: "And no, you cannot shoot down the metaphysical then hoist up the naturalistic, they're one and the same."

What????

Sorry, that's a tea-snort moment. Would you explain, since I am interested as to how you reached this conclusion, that "metaphysical" and "naturalistic" are one and the same?

And just incidentally, how you can say this without seeing how it contradicts what you said about "To remain science, ID must not, must never address the supernatural, nor the religious", above?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-07 06:09 pm UTC (link)
Yes. I ass-umed ID is science. Neither, Irreducibly Complex, nor any of the other theories nor predictions ID makes state: "God did it." Like you and many others seem to ass-ume. If you claim otherwise, let's see a reference. :P

It doesn't matter if the motivation for ID is "God inspired." If the people can work their theory within the bounds of science, its all good.

Why should it matter, who the 'designer' is? Will the research or the facts change because of it? Noope. Not one bit.

Naturalistic describes the metaphysical belief that science can perceive & explain all phenomena.

I'll take your notions about ID being supernatural, seriously, when I see some facts to back it up. : T

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-08 03:05 pm UTC (link)
...Wow.

The mental gymnastics you just went through there in order to avoid admitting the painfully-bleeding-obvious baffle, boggle, and amaze me.

I wonder why you have such a deep investment in defending ID?

Well, it is obvious that you do, and that logic is going to bounce off it as off an impenetrable wall. Nevertheless, why don't we play this out for the amusement of the onlookers.

Painfully-obvious-statement #1: The proponents of ID want it to be accepted as "legitimate science."

Painfully-obvious-statement #2: The moment any philosophy openly says "God did it", our definition of science is such that the philosophy is automatically disqualified. Science only deals with the physical, not the metaphysical.

Painfully-obvious-conclusion: drawing from #1 and #2 above, and combining with the fact that although ID proponents may occasionally be idiots, they are not morons -- they are not going to say "We think God did it" in so many words.

Because that would automatically keep what they are pushing from being accepted as part of normal science. Period.

So...they come up with the idea that, not only might some parts of biology be designed, some parts of biology (how much is unspecified) must be designed. The arguments being that "Complex specified information" is always a result of intelligence (a philosophical position, unsupported by the laws of physics), and that some biological structures are simply "irreducably complex". These ideas are explicit in all their literature. By their criteria, this designer pre-dated the appearance of life, and has control over the physical universe.

So tell me, how is the idea that "there must be a designer outside thge limits of nature" not metaphysical and supernatural? Explain.

And how does a claim unsupported by any physical evidence become a "legitimate" part of science, which deals with the physical?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-20 12:33 pm UTC (link)
First of all... Who said "there must be a designer outside the limits of nature"? Why is that the only possibility? What you're talking about here has nothing to do with scientific method, unless you want to claim that science proves a "designer outside the limits of nature" is the only possibility. What you're saying is all opinion. Your own personal conjecture. You cant use your own personal beliefs to prove a point. I'm sorry. :P

And how does a claim unsupported by any physical evidence become a "legitimate" part of science, which deals with the physical?

Please tell me how the scientific method / logic proofs this beyond all doubt. It sounds suspiciously like you trying to pass off your opinions as *fact* again.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-08 03:52 pm UTC (link)
Naturalistic describes the metaphysical belief that science can perceive & explain all phenomena.

Incidentally, and parenthetical to the rest of this conversation -- no. "Naturalism" is the position that science takes, that it can (and more to the point must attempt to) explain all phenomena in nature without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations; in other words, only in terms of the laws and materials of the natural universe itself.

This, in itself, is not so much a metaphysical statement as it is part of the definition of science. Which is why deliberately setting up a situation where it is said that physical phenomena cannot possibly be explained without recourse to a supernatural power falls outside science.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-20 12:41 pm UTC (link)
I hate to say this. But, pick up a dictionary & look up naturalism, sometime. What you don't seem to understand is assuming the stance that there is no supernatural whether by willful action or omission... is a metaphysical status. Not unlike how not being married is a marital status.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-08 03:13 pm UTC (link)
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings,"...

Doesn't look like a "you cant know" then pinching off all lines of inquiry to me. :P


Since you are evidently quite keen on speaking in defense of ID, please do so -- let's get back to my original questions.

Using "it was designed that way (and possibly came into being all at once)" as the basic position, please pick even a few of the questions I originally posted, and demonstrate how your basic position contributes to a testable hypothesis and some workable research which might be done on the question.

All those questions are legitimate biological questions, and some are of a great deal of interest. If ID is to be an "alternative" to evolution, then it needs to be able to function as part of science to address physical questions.

Again, please, demonstrate how ID can drive the advancement of knowledge by proposing and testing possible answers -- real and detailed answers -- to biological problems.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-20 12:46 pm UTC (link)
I'll make you a deal. Look over your list. Tell me what testable hypothesis science has which prove no "designer" was involved. Assume the burden of proof, like I know you scientists like to do.

If you're willing to do that. I'll give you your list of testable hypothesis for a "designer". :]

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]wave_cannon
2005-12-20 08:50 pm UTC (link)
I don't know: legitimate scientists have been unable to devise a method of detecting the presence or trace of supernatural forces, let alone the presence or trace of an intelligent designer manipulating the known universe.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-20 01:01 pm UTC (link)
You're right though. ID proponents should be hard at work figuring ways to demonstrate how ID is science. People say I'm low on the intellectual totem pole, but if I can--I'll start making more of an effort.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]luna_the_cat
2005-10-07 10:55 am UTC (link)
Incidentally, one of the phrases from the supposed ID text "Of Pandas and Peoples" p.22, which has been quoted in the trial in Pennsylvania:

“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”


Was in the first printing of that book. In the second version, it had been changed to:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings,"...


I suggest, too, that you look at the summary background presented at the York Daily Record: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/88606/

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]root_fu
2005-10-07 02:55 pm UTC (link)
Nice link. :] Very nice.

One interesting thing:

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”

I know when some people see "Creation." They'll immediately assume "Creationism."

I'm not certain if the above ^ quotation necessarily fits into the creationist ethos. If you happen to be a Creationist, and believe in Genesis you may likely not refer to your belief as a "theory".

Despite whether these peoples' actions may seem less by their motivations. I still think the possibility of whether design was involved should be investigated.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]valmorian
2005-10-12 08:55 pm UTC (link)
If Intelligent Design is not at all associated with Creationism, where are the scientists NOT associated with the Discovery Institute that are involved with ID?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]evil_genius
2005-10-20 08:11 pm UTC (link)
oh wait there aren't any.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wave_cannon
2005-12-20 08:37 pm UTC (link)
With #13, the only flaw I can see (pardon the pun) with Molluscan eyes is that they dry out more easily than vertebrate eyes.

(Reply to this)

A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-03-21 05:42 pm UTC (link)
You said “The proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is actually a science. In order to be a science, a model must enable researchers to make substantive and testable hypotheses – and then, of course, those hypotheses must be tested.”
I am a scientifically uneducated person, but I believe that for some hypothesis to be proven and taken to the next step of becoming a proven thesis there must be testing such that the original conditions must be created for the tests to be conclusive. Of course it is not therefore possible for evolution to be substantiated, yet many evolutionists claim that the theory is proven. First, apply your argument to the theory of evolution before applying it to the intelligent design argument. The facts of cellular biology call for far too much information to have been injected for it to have happened by so-called evolution. I would suggest that you investigate the writings of authors such as Michael Denton and Michael Behe who call attention to these things. Too many people, while happy to demand proof from the I D movement, (even though not able to produce proof of their own claims), are ignoring the facts that these men are bringing to light. I would suggest that this is a little hypocritical.

As to the next few questions, I would remind you that vestigial organs were once used as proof of evolution. Now we are finding out that these have a purpose. Your presumption is that you are better able to understand how things should be made than the Creator. Could you have done a better job... really? How much knowledge do you have? You know very little relative to the sum of all knowledge, and it would be much more honest of you to acknowledge this.

Who are you to post a 'Please Explain'? Rather arrogant of you to try to put these men down who at least have the honesty to look at things with an open mind and come up with questions that people like you still haven't been able to, nor are willing to tackle. Could it be that you are simply posing?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-03-21 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Who am I to post a "please explain"?

I'm a molecular biology student, that's who.

I'm someone who actually has a clue as to why science claims to know what it claims to know. I know the experiments which were performed to gain that knowledge. I know the algorithms which explain the outcome. And I know something that apparently you don't:

Every scientist in the world -- every real scientist, that is -- knows that the data do not give a rat's arse about what you want them to be.

And, the universe is under absolutely no obligation to be easy for us to understand, either.

We know that. Believe me, we know, because we get kicked in the teeth with it every single day. The amount of work that goes into making a single poster presentation, to try to get funding to do the real research, with the constant knowledge in the back of our head that even if we get past the first few steps there is a good chance that we will spend 5 years or 10 years and find out at the end of it that we have been tracking up a blind alley...believe me, believe me, believe me, we know.

Scientists get accused of having big egos a lot. To a certain degree it is true. We have to. It's the only way to survive just how indifferent the universe is to our desires.

And then to have schmucks who have not spent the time or the work, who have not ever sat down and tried to understand what it is that science actually does, what it actually says, and more to the point why...to have such people come in and say "you are blind and ignorant and blinkered, and here, WE have the real questions and the answers you are ignoring!"...that's just crazy-making.

You say "The facts of cellular biology call for far too much information to have been injected for it to have happened by so-called evolution." What I want to know is, what exactly do you know about "the facts of cellular biology"? You have signed yourself "an amateur" -- is your familiarity with the subject what you've read from Behe?

I can tell you you've found out an awful lot of junk and not much about the real stuff out there, if that's the case.

And if you think that science "ignores stuff that it isn't willing to tackle" all you do is convince me that you have absolutely no familiarity with how science works, and the kind of people who make it work. One other thing that is universally true of scientists -- we're not in it for money or fame. Dear god, this is the last field for THAT. We are in it for love, ultimately. For curiosity. For some kind of itch to go play with things. And for all of us, we are far more in love with the unknown than with the known. Big egos may help us survive the daily kicking the universe administers to our understanding, but it is this love which keeps us coming back.

Hack me no hackneyed claims about vestigial organs. Go crack a biology book -- I recommend "Life: The Science of Biology" by Purves, Sadava, Heller and Orians, it is just about the best introductory text out there -- and then come back and I would be delighted to talk.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-03-31 05:20 pm UTC (link)
What a swollen head you have. So you're an expert because you know all there is to know about biology? This is your real problem. You're threatened by the possibility that much of the "knowledge" you have may be untrue, or even perish the thought very limited, so you react with arrogance, and beat down any opposition. Why don't you answer the questions posed by the ID people instead of just putting them down and posing as such wonderfully intelligent experts? The fact is, you can't answer their questions, so you throw up a smoke-screen of abuse to cover up your lack.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-03-31 06:02 pm UTC (link)
Hon, I'm a student. I'm trying to point out that I know at least the basics of the field -- which is useful to do, before you decide that "all we know is wrong". Anyone who argues that "it's all wrong" without knowing things like, oh, what a mutation is and how it happens and what it can do, or what what science genuinely thinks evolution actually does and does not do -- is like someone who has never in their life cracked the hood of a car deciding that internal combustion engines do not in fact need carbeurators, and that it is all just a conspiracy to claim that they do.

I'm not threatened. I'm disgusted, which is rather different. I'm perfectly happy to have a conversation about the life science position on evolution, and the evidence for it; but I've already wasted too much of my life trying to explain the basic terms needed for communication about it to people who don't even know what an allele is. I only have so many hours in my life before I die, and there are a lot of things I need to do in those limited hours.

When people have made absolutely no effort to look up for themselves the kind of experiments which have been performed to test whether our concepts of evolution work or not -- when those experiments are freely available in the public domain, for people to read about -- when people trot out patently absurd and wholly false arguments about vestigial organs, demonstrating ignorance of the basic arguments of biology -- then why precisely is it down to me, to correct people's own bloody laziness?

What's arrogant, now, is making a pronouncement on whether information is or is not correct when you don't know anything about a field. And it's funny how many creationists/IDers preface their arguments with "I've never studied biology, but...".

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-04-04 09:19 am UTC (link)
Incidentally, I note with irony the following:

The fact is, you can't answer their questions... -- They haven't answered mine, or for that matter anyone else's. My questions were explicit and detailed and require detailed, real answers, and stand as examples of the kind of thing that biological science genuinely investigates. Still waiting for any actual ID research or answers, though.... If you know of any published, peer-reviewed, investigative science by the ID crowd, do by all means point it out to me. On the other hand, the things you claim that the ID proponents such as Behe are "uncovering" have been addressed, in detail, multiple times, over a period of decades. Which you would know, if you knew anything about the field.

...so you throw up a smoke-screen of abuse to cover up your lack. -- You're the one who marched in here billing yourself as an "amateur", but demanding "Who are you to post a 'Please Explain'?", calling me a poser, and making some remarkable claims about my mental state. Hmmm...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-04-08 11:42 am UTC (link)
In the first letter I said, in essence, “I'm not a scientist”. Your reply to that was, in essence, “I am. So therefore I know all there is to know. So don't challenge the expert”. That is purely and simply arrogance; especially as you refuse to answer the questions that the I D people are putting.

As far as data not giving a rat's arse about what you want them to be, you have proclaimed that because creation is untestable, therefore it couldn't have happened. In spite of being unable to explain the data, you persist in making the data what you want them to be. The real truth is that evolution is untestable. You and I both know that it is impossible to know what the conditions may have when the supposed first piece of life stirred in the chemical soup, if it was a soup. You and I both know that no-one knows what the environment was like if and when it happened. We both know that there is no way that the conditions can be re-created, nor can the correct (if any) minerals and chemicals can be gotten together,etc... All you have is a theory that is untestable. Yet your kind claim that evolution is proven. The facts show that there is intelligence in the design of all forms of life. Only people with big heads would suggest that the designer (if He exists), has made mistakes as you people do claim.

You quite rightly say that the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to understand. Yet you persist in claiming that all will be able to be explained somehow through science. This is quite a feat of faith. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary has as a definition of religion: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. Welcome to the world of reality, you who pretend you are non-religious, yet cling to your beliefs in evolution etc. with ardor and faith and pay out anyone that opposes or disagrees with you.

You poor bugger: you get kicked in the teeth every day with the need to work to prove your assertions. Perhaps a little work will take a little of the arrogance out of you? I think not. The sad thing about all of you people that are expending effort to prove the unprovable; (Blind alleys), is that you are wasting good time and money. Do something worthwhile with your life. (Believe me, believe me, I know). It is truly sad the universe is indifferent to your desires. Excuse me while I have a little weep.

Of course anyone that disagrees with you is obviously a schmuck. I don't remember saying that I have the real questions and answers that you are ignoring. I simply pointed out to you that while you are not attempting to come up with answers to the questions of qualified scientists who happen to espouse the facts of I D that need to be honestly investigated, or at least acknowledged, but instead you and your ilk love to belittle those scientists who are at least willing to face truth, you are being arrogant. You conveniently and I believe willingly ignore the fact that that many of the men who propose I D are not creationists, nor are they God-followers. They are simply people who have more courage than you do. They know what the scientific world is like and knew that they would be attacked by small minds.

Yes, what I know is read from books. You of course have come by all of your knowledge by first-hand experiment and experience? You're a fraud if you are pretending that you know more than these I D proponents. I at least am willing to admit that I know little about the subject. I challenge you again to go through these men's work and show that they are talking through their hats. You're quite willing to make the assumption that God or special creation cannot be considered, yet I'm sure you don't have a degree in theology. If I can't ask questions about I D without a scientific degree, why then can you make such assertions without a degree in theology? The truth is that having a degree doesn't prevent a person from believing what he wants to believe, and nor does it protect him from false beliefs or assertions..

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-04-09 02:54 pm UTC (link)
Wow, you have really demonstrated your ability to see what you want to see, rather than what is there. Or maybe you know perfectly well what was actually written, but would rather interpret it to suit yourself, thinking yourself "clever". Either way, it isn't going to contribute to a discussion. You want to somehow "prove a point", I suppose, but this won't do that either. Only a good-faith effort to deal with the arguments actually put forward will do that.

Let's have a quick look at this.

Nowhere do I claim to know everything, or do I claim that because I'm a scientist I know everything, or even that science knows everything. On the contrary, I have taken great pains to point out that I am a student, and I know the basics. Which makes a difference.

The point is that you evidently don't know even the basics, the starting point for having a discussion. You display that in things you have written. You may know what an allele is (I've had a similar conversation to this with someone who didn't, that is where the comment came from), but you obviously don't know details either about mutation or about explanations proffered by biology. You are arguing from a position of ignorance, and it shows.

There are real questions in biology which we don't have answers to, yet. But it seems like you don't know what those questions are; on the contrary, you are claiming we don't have answers to the questions we HAVE answered, and moved on from.

I have no difficulty saying "we don't know this yet", if it's something we genuinely don't know. I do, however, have a real problem with having to fight over whether we know what we DO know, with people who have never studied the subject and don't care to. It's a waste of time. It's like going back and arguing over whether Newton's inverse-square law is actually a good description of the behavior of gravity. It is mostly so, there are a couple of problems which Einstein addressed, great, now let's move on and look at the real issues which remain. There are so many fruitful and interesting questions out there to look at, plowing the same ground year after year after year after year, when we know what is to be found there, is a crying shame and a waste of time and brainpower. Nothing advances.

Ignorance in action: you claim that evolution is "untested and untestable", and you mix up evolution with abiogenesis, no less. This is one of those things that tells people who are familiar with the field that you have gotten all your "information" from creationists and IDers, and none from the field itself.

cont. below

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-04-09 02:56 pm UTC (link)
1. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. Two closely related things, yes, but different things.
2. Why do you think there is so much uncertainty about the early environment of earth, or early conditions for life? There is minor uncertainty over the exact gaseous mix of the atmosphere, but we know what it was within broad limits because there are early rocks surviving -- early rocks which can only exist in a reducing, not an oxidising atmosphere. In fact, there is a large experimental program going on testing different routes for the emergence of life out of abiotic chemicals -- and whereas ten years ago the people involved thought it would be 20 years before the development of life in experimentally recreated conditions in a lab, now most of them are saying three more years. We have already seen the spontaneous self-assembly of complex cell membranes in an abiotic mixture, we know that RNA can spontaneously self-assemble and act as its own splicing enzymes, and the big question that currently remains is, what specific environment on earth (i.e. clay, black smoker, warm shallows, etc.) provided the template environment for this initial self-assembly. This is an experimental question which is being addressed; and while it is true that we may never know what DID happen, precisely, we are capable of knowing what COULD happen, and how. Watch this space.
3. Evolution has been and is being extensively tested via experiment. Recent experiments include one fantastic one regarding selection for color in caterpillars, discussed here: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/01/suzukinijhoutscience.html
This is only one example, out of thousands. Which you would know, if you genuinely knew anything about the field!! I am frustrated at you, because you declare with certainty things which are utterly false, and declare uncertain the things which we genuinely know. Out of ignorance. You are unaware of, or deliberately ignoring, the vast wealth of experiment which exists. There is no excuse for that, none.


The only way that you can legitimise ID/creationism as being equal to evolution in terms of scientific credibility, is to drag out the old canard about evolution being "untestable" and a matter of faith; you cannot make ID into something testable, so you must declare that evolution isn't testable either. Alas for you, that's not actually the case, and saying that it is changes the reality not at all. You can also declare that pi=4, and pi will still never equal 4. Same situation; you can say anything at all that you like about the science around evolution, but it won't change the field any. You can kick and scream and deny, or you could learn about what is really out there. Your choice.

And evolution would NOT be considered a legitimate part of science if we couldn't test it, make predictions by it, and make it be useful. It is a trememdously useful part of science, however. That really ought to tell you something, although given your track record so far, I won't be surprised if it passes you by entirely.



It is up to you to deal with that ignorance by paying attention to the resources and getting an education -- or you should just get used to not being taken seriously.

I'm going to point you toward that analogy I made before, someone who has never seen under the hood of a car and who patently has no idea how an internal combustion engine works, getting all pissed off with a mechanic because the mechanic won't "admit" that a carbeurator is completely unnecessary.....

You're not a schmuck because you disagree with me. Many people I respect disagree with me on a variety of subjects. You're a schmuck because you don't know what you're talking about, but are perfectly willing to argue that you do, or else that no-one else does either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-04-09 02:57 pm UTC (link)
cont.

Further, you obviously missed the point about following where the data lead; whether you missed the point deliberately or not, I'm not sure. Perhaps you missed the point deliberately so that you could indulge yourself mocking the "futility" of science and the effort of scientists. Either way, I'm hardly likely to respect you, have any sympathy for you, or listen to you for doing so.

Science consists of creating a theory as carefully as possible, then running it into a wall repeatedly until something breaks, then looking at the pieces. If you have understood things sufficiently well to construct a good theory, then the pieces you find will be pieces of wall.

The theory of evolution has been rammed against the wall repeatedly and hard over the last 150 years, and so far all we have found is pieces of wall.

I suggest you go visit http://www.talkreason.org/. Read. Possibly learn. All those questions which you cliam ID has raised which have not been answered, and their purported "evidence" for an intelligence, is dealt with.

You say: quite willing to make the assumption that God or special creation cannot be considered... Correct, except that I do not make any statement about whether or not there is a God, nor does science. As it happens, I actually believe in God. However, the physical evidence is that life exists in the form that it does entirely through natural processes, without requiring special interference from God to make it be this way. In fact, I am neither willing to tie my belief in God to an insistence that the universe MUST be one way or another, or MUST show one thing or another, since it is not my place to dictate this, only to discover, and besides, I think tying your faith to conditions like that doesn't do your faith any favors; nor am I willing to buck the basic philosophy of science in order to assert that we "can't know", given that the position of science has been arrived at over centuries, for very good reasons, and it works remarkably well.

Methodological naturalism does not dictate that there IS no such thing as the supernatural or spiritual; it merely declares that science can only address what is natural, what follows consistent patterns of behavior and is testable. "Special creation" cannot be considered as science because no fruitful understanding can come out of it, as well as the fact that it can't be tested. If you want to believe it, fine -- but don't call it science, or expect science to bow in deference to it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-04-08 11:43 am UTC (link)
I don't remember saying that All you know is wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not make any assertions as to specific scientific principles. I did mention vestigial organs as an example of unreliability of some scientists opinions, and from this I implied that this could still be happening in as much as many of your assertions re molecular biology are concerned.
Yes you are threatened. You are willing only to discuss on the grounds you decide. Any subject that your arrogance has excluded is a no-go zone. I actually do know what an allele is. You have no idea about who I am or what I do know. The fact that I challenged you was all you needed to condemn, and self-importantly put me down. Your statement that many creationists/IDers have never studied biology, is false, thus you show your dishonesty, and you are again deliberately equating Iders with creationists. This is the way people like you work.. You disparage and belittle anyone that disagrees with the likes of you. I am a creationist, but I appreciate the attempts of I D non-creationists to face truths that most of you don't have the guts to face. That's why I have had my say here.
They don't have to answer any of your questions. They have published quite worthwhile works that ask specific questions that your kind refuse to consider because of your fear of truth, so you throw mud knowing that some of it will stick; especially in the scientific community in which any deviation from the party-line is frowned upon. Again I ask you who are you to demand answers from men who are your betters?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-04-09 03:10 pm UTC (link)
No, you didn't say that all I know is wrong. You're just insistent that much of it is, although you are unable to explain to me why in any way that makes sense. Pardon me while I fail to take you seriously.

I'm going to say this one more time, in the vain hope that it will get through -- I'm not threatened, I'm disgusted at someone who is ignorant of the field making assertions about it. Do you tell concert pianists how they should play, too?

You say, You have no idea about who I am or what I do know. It's true, I don't know who you are, but by what you write and what you claim, I certainly know something about what you know. See the extensive posts above.

I don't condemn you because you challenge me. I condemn you because you are ignorant, and take no steps to address that problem.

And ID requires as an explanation a "designer" who exists before life existed, who works outside the rules of nature; if that isn't creationism, then explain, please, precisely what it is.

They don't have to answer any of your questions. Why not? Why should we have to address their questions, but they not have to address ours? They want the title of "science" without any of the work or the responsibilities...sorry, doesn't work like that.

This is ultimately the problem. ID tries to assert that it is "science" via a PR and legal campaign. If it were science, then it wouldn't do that, or have to do that; it would prove its position the way everything else in science does, via the data.

There is currently a controversy raging in American archaeology and paleontology over when the first humans reached N. America, and by what route. Some extremely controversial claims have been made. None of the principles involved have suggested that the campaign should be taken to public opinion, however; on the contrary, when one of the people making a controversial claim was asked how she saw it being resolved, her answer was straightforward: "Talk less, dig more." THAT is the way science works.

Show me the data. That shouldn't be too much to ask.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
[info]luna_the_cat
2006-04-09 08:21 pm UTC (link)
See also, for amusement, http://immunoblogging.blogspot.com/2006/02/professor-behe-responds-to-dover.html .

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-10-20 01:57 pm UTC (link)
Will you two stop bitching?!!! I don't know what you're talking about as I couldn't be bummed to read it all but I've read a few snippets. Sorry, student, but you are coming across as arrogant. Just because someone doesn't study biology doesn't mean they know nothing about it and they are ignorant. Stop being so elitist!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-10-20 05:52 pm UTC (link)
...As opposed to the arrogance of people who HAVEN'T studied it, and don't know anything about the subject according to those who have, and who nevertheless proclaim those who have spent a lifetime studying the subject to be wrong?

Um, yeah.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: A Reply From an Amateur
(Anonymous)
2006-11-01 02:28 pm UTC (link)
The amateur wasn't being arrogant for goodness sake, whoever it was was just pointing out what, in his opinion, was flawed! And you've just said it again; that those who don't study it know nothing about it. Thats NOT true. You may know more than them but they do know some things. Its like saying that because their are people out there intelligent enough to study at degree level that everyone else is thick!! He wasn't proclaiming anyone to be wrong, he was just challenging others' ideas. Am I right amateur?
If you scientists are so wonderfully clever then why get so panicky everytime someone apparently less intelligent than you speaks out? Surely you should be able to rest assured that you alone can be right because you are the all-powerful beings, the superior ones. You surely don't need to worry yoursef with the petty "other people" out there, do you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID