It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
This means nothing.
Michael J. Behe*
The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology recently published several papers from a workshop sponsored by the International Society of Protistologists entitled “Horizontal Gene Transfer and Phylogenetic Evolution Debunk Intelligent Design.” So here we have a respected scientific society, presumably planning a workshop months in advance, and finally laying out their considered case for why intelligent design fails. As you might imagine, I was most anxious to read about it. Unfortunately, rather than scholarly papers, the manuscripts read like press releases from the National Center for (Darwinian) Science Education. So the introductory essay (1) by Avelina Espinosa tells us that ID has “creationist beginnings”, claims that I say “evolution” is “impossible”, and places in my mouth the phrase “design creationism” (I have never uttered that phrase except to disparage it). Blah, blah, blah. About as much scholarship as you’d get from a typical politician.
The first of the full articles (2) concerned itself mostly with common descent, which I have always said I think is correct, and which in any case is not an issue of intelligent design. Another article, however, briefly dealt with my case from The Edge of Evolution, that some adaptations are likely to require multiple mutations, and thus be very improbable.* In “Using Protistan Examples to Dispel the Myths of Intelligent Design” (3) University of Georgia Professor Mark Farmer and Wadsworth Center Dr. Andrea Habura start off sloppily: “According to Behe (2007), the odds that mutations required to impart chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium could arise naturally are so impossibly long that they lie beyond what he considers ”The Edge of Evolution.’” But the book clearly states that chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium did arise naturally, by Darwinian processes. I go on to argue it took very many malarial parasites to chance upon resistance, and that pointed to a limit for Darwinian evolution for more complex mutations, or for populations with smaller numbers than Plasmodium, but I clearly said the opposite of what Farmer and Habura (3) ascribe to me, that chloroquine resistance arose naturally. That doesn’t give a reader confidence that the authors concern themselves much with the details of an argument.
Farmer and Habura think I am wrong that multiple mutations were necessary in the protein PfCRT to confer chloroquine resistance on malaria. They think only one will suffice. What’s more, they claim there are experiments to show that. They cite two papers. (3,4) But neither paper even tries to test whether a single mutation in PfCRT confers chloroquine resistance. Lakshamana et al. (2005) show that if they remove one particular mutation (K76T) from a mutant protein that carried a half dozen or so other mutations (compared to the wild-type protein), the protein no longer confers chloroquine resistance. That experiment shows the K76T is necessary; however, it does not show it is sufficient by itself, as Farmer and Habura thought. The same goes for the second paper. In their methods section Jiang et al (2008) write that “Parasite 106/1K76 [a chloroquine-sensitive strain that does not have the K76T mutation] has six mutations found typically in Southeast Asian CQR parasite … except a key mutation at PfCRT 76 position.”) Thus both these papers show that K76T is necessary, but neither shows it to be sufficient. To do so one would have to test the K76T in the wild-type, unmutated background.
Anyone who has read Behe's book and understands his analysis would be alerted at this point to a wearying straw man argument. If you are going to critique someone, you ought to, at least, be able to paraphrase their arguments correctly. One wonders why the workshop participants did not put the authors right. In addition, one wonders why the referees did not point out the need for correction.[...]
Abstract
In recent years the teaching of the religiously based philosophy of intelligent design (ID) has been proposed as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. Advocates of ID are largely motivated by their opposition to naturalistic explanations of biological diversity, in accordance with their goal of challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism. Intelligent design has been embraced by a wide variety of creationists who promote highly questionable claims that purport to show the inadequacy of evolutionary theory, which they consider to be a threat to a theistic worldview. We find that examples from protistan biology are well suited for providing evidence of many key evolutionary concepts, and have often been misrepresented or roundly ignored by ID advocates. These include examples of adaptations and radiations that are said to be statistically impossible, as well as examples of speciation both in the laboratory and as documented in the fossil record. Because many biologists may not be familiar with the richness of the protist evolution dataset or with ID-based criticisms of evolution, we provide examples of current ID arguments and specific protistan counter-examples.
NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new SPECIES can come about by natural selection.
Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
Individual organisms do not evolve, populations evolve.
You will never convince Creationists that Evolution is real. They believe in their simplistic superstitions "because" they lack the intellectual capacity to understand something as big as Evolution.
It is like trying to explain physics to a 3 year old.
The fact is their lack of intellectual development is actual proof of evolution, and that not all men are created equal.
Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by novastrike81
Sorry but listing scientists that believe in God proves nothing.
And an Evolutionist will happily say we are still learning. A Creationist will say they already know everything they need to know.
Eg... Algebra is a special math's that not everyone can "get". ( I am one of them )
I think the same limitation in development that stops people understanding Evolution as a special idea also results in the myriad of inflexible belief systems we have around.
Note: You are the one "pretending" to fully understand the idea of Evolution but then discounting it because you are so intellectually superior. You then probably go on to "pretending " to understand God.
See a pattern ?
Also claiming that certain people ( who are usually dead ) were highly religious is beyond a desperate argument.
Oh yea, by the same small minded religious nutters that have held back science in the past.
Originally posted by thedeadtruth
You are joking right ? The start of science was when someone used the first tool.
According to the Bible this event never even happened. Everything just appeared like magic on some mystical date a few thousand years ago.
Yea real scientific
Originally posted by Rren
Huh? Got a citation?
Originally posted by PieKeeper
Originally posted by Rren
Huh? Got a citation?
Scientific thinking existed long before the Bible was created, and existed in absence of the bible for centuries after it was. The Mayan's had no knowledge of the bible, but were some of the most knowledgeable astronomers, comparable to our level of knowledge today.
The bible did not create science, scientific thinking is something humans do naturally.
Originally posted by thedeadtruth
"You can thank the Bible for the start of science."
You are joking right ? The start of science was when someone used the first tool. According to the Bible this event never even happened. Everything just appeared like magic on some mystical date a few thousand years ago.
Yea real scientific