What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Please give the link to the so called "rebuttal". I guarantee it's not a science site and can pretty much guess which anti evolution site it's from. You do realize that the paper was peer reviewed, right?

Here: bio-complexity.org...

The journal in question is a creationist (sorry, "intelligent design") ahem "journal". Oh, it's been peer-reviewed alright... by creationists

Cargo cult science at its best.

Ahh so peer reviews can only be done by sources that support evolution

Now I can see why we dont deny ignorance.

I get it all evolutionist anti evolution papers must be peer reviewed by evolutionists.
I thought the idea was to challenge peoples opinions of science to find the truth
You just want people to agree with what you think the truth is or argue what you think the truth isnt, and
get your side to review everything.
Science needs to be tested and questioned.
Its a terrible state of affairs when it isnt and turns in to a faith, its supposed to be science, not religion.

But science IS tested and questioned - by science! And we see the standard creationist strawman argument come out, that science is a 'faith'. No, it's not. You obviously have no idea what the peer-reviewed process of publishing is. If a paper on evolution is reviewed by a scientist then the science itself is the focus. If it's reviewed by a creationist then there's 2 problems. 1) how qualified is that creationist and 2) is he or she able to put their own prejudices aside and look at the science?

This thread was frustrating to read and I didn't even read all of it.

It reminded me of one of Old Thinkers threads.

Luckily, I see he hasn't logged in since 2012, but this OP is proof there's more than one Old Thinker about

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Please give the link to the so called "rebuttal". I guarantee it's not a science site and can pretty much guess which anti evolution site it's from. You do realize that the paper was peer reviewed, right?

Here: bio-complexity.org...

The journal in question is a creationist (sorry, "intelligent design") ahem "journal". Oh, it's been peer-reviewed alright... by creationists

Cargo cult science at its best.

Ahh so peer reviews can only be done by sources that support evolution

Now I can see why we dont deny ignorance.

I get it all evolutionist anti evolution papers must be peer reviewed by evolutionists.
I thought the idea was to challenge peoples opinions of science to find the truth
You just want people to agree with what you think the truth is or argue what you think the truth isnt, and
get your side to review everything.
Science needs to be tested and questioned.
Its a terrible state of affairs when it isnt and turns in to a faith, its supposed to be science, not religion.

But science IS tested and questioned - by science! And we see the standard creationist strawman argument come out, that science is a 'faith'. No, it's not. You obviously have no idea what the peer-reviewed process of publishing is. If a paper on evolution is reviewed by a scientist then the science itself is the focus. If it's reviewed by a creationist then there's 2 problems. 1) how qualified is that creationist and 2) is he or she able to put their own prejudices aside and look at the science?

In the case of the paper in question, "Time and Information in Evolution", I have researched the credentials of the authors. They are:

Winston Ewert, PhD in Computer Science from Baylor University.

William A. Dembski, B.A. M.S. PhD. in Computer Science, University of Illinois. M.S. PhD. in Physics, University of Chicago. M.Div at Princeton Theological College Seminary with four peer reviewed published articles. (At the ime of writing of the article in question, he had not published any peer reviewed papers).

Anne K Gauger Postdoc in BioChemistry at Harvard University with 6 peer reviewed papers published.

Robert J. Marks II, PhD of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University with over 300 peer reviewed technical publications.

The credentials, for a Bioinformatics paper, are of a high standard and the authors fields of expertise, applicable to the subject matter.

The paper itself was peer reviewed according to almost every reference to it, that I could find.

I have found several internet opinion pieces that have made derogatory reference to the authors support of Intelligent Design. These have not been made by similarly credentialed authors.

So far, I have been unable to find a rebuttal of the actual content of the paper but my technical resources are limited to publicly available internet media at present. If anyone could cite a further rebuttal, I would appreciate it.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If a paper on evolution is reviewed by a scientist then, Christian or secularist, the science itself is the focus. If it's reviewed by an evolutionist then there's 2 problems. 1) how qualified is that evolutionist and 2) is he or she able to put their own prejudices aside and look at the science?

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If a paper on evolution is reviewed by a scientist then, Christian or secularist, the science itself is the focus. If it's reviewed by an evolutionist then there's 2 problems. 1) how qualified is that evolutionist and 2) is he or she able to put their own prejudices aside and look at the science?

I don't think that any scientist would ever call themselves an 'evolutionist'. A supporter of evolution perhaps, but not an 'evolutionist' - as there's no such word.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you talking about plagiarist Winston Ewert?

All his misleading research ends right here: boundedtheoretics.blogspot.com...

IMHO he can't be serious scientist and as Dr. Tyson said - people like him who are unable to lock their belief before science lab should not be allowed into lab.

Here is interesting video from Dr. Tyson regarding religion in USA

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If a paper on evolution is reviewed by a scientist then, Christian or secularist, the science itself is the focus. If it's reviewed by an evolutionist then there's 2 problems. 1) how qualified is that evolutionist and 2) is he or she able to put their own prejudices aside and look at the science?

I don't think that any scientist would ever call themselves an 'evolutionist'. A supporter of evolution perhaps, but not an 'evolutionist' - as there's no such word.

Well I have been humbled on the internet
Excuse me for my poor word skills

Though I think my point was fairly clear

a reply to: borntowatch

You had a point? Sorry I have missed that.

Can you please point me to where and what?




a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I think that BBS still can be used as learning tool, even you right, we might not change someone's mind, but there are many things I have learned, from people to books, all thanks to exchange of ideas through internet...

Sometimes I am with late Hitchens at how to discuss this kind of topic with religious people...

a reply to: chr0naut
If William Dembski is associated with any paper on "Intelligent Design" . . . it's nothing but assertion and misinformation. I don't even have to read one of his papers (or rather article or books) to know this. He has continually run away from backing up his claims with any evidence. He was asked to appear to defend his work and back his claims in the Kitzmiller V. Dover trial (where you have to tell the truth under penalty of perjury), about "teaching the controversy"; however, he refused to appear. As did every other ID proponent or Discovery Institute charlatan. The only "scientist" that backs I.D. that showed up was Michael Behe. Not only did he "break" under cross and claim he (or any other I.D. proponent) did not have actual evidence to back any of I.D.'s claims or criticisms, but also that I.D. was simply based on religious beliefs.

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[26] In response to a question about astrology he explained: "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well".[27]

His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design",[28] but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[29][30]

Kitzmiller v. Dover - I.D. on trial

Outside of those the four mentioned previously (Dembski, Ewert, Behe, Snoke) . . . you can also disregard any work by these creation "scientists" or proponents:
Anything associated with Disc. Inst.
Anything associated with Thomas More Law Center
Anything associated with Focus on the Family
Anything coming from Santorum, Grassley, Bachman, Huckabee, Frist, Simpson (for the brits), Buchanan
Anything articles or t.v. claims made by Lee Strobel, Marcus Stroud, Ben Stein, Chuck Norris (yes, that one), Kirk Cameron, Michael Medved, Ann Coulter
Stephen Meyer
Stephen Fuller
Phillip Johnson
John G. West
And of course the Hagee, LaHeye, Graham, Osteen empires or universities.

Some of you creationists would serve yourself well to read up on the history of this movement and how many times they have been public rebuked to the point they admit that they have no real evidence and their position is based on their religious ideology.

Instead, you just keep the same tired claims and outright lies circulating around the echo chamber. Moreover, these charlatans don't "go away" because there are plenty of ill-informed and scientifically illiterate "believers" to eat up their bile.

Start with your very own "Creation.com " and STOP using these arguments:
Which arguments should creationists NOT use?

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

Then . . . read up on the formation and history of the Discovery Institute, specifically the Wedge Document, political and media subterfuge, misleading the nation's "believers" through generous donations to congregations where the church passes out information claiming to be science, but is instead lies about science and the proponents of I.D. (think Expelled by Ben Stein), paying talking heads to promote some sort of "controversy" in the media.

Why would legitimate science need to use subterfuge to "spread their word"? Why do these legitimate "scientists" run from supporting their claims in court or to other scientists and only work in the realm of the internet, t.v., politics, and the pulpit?

The answer is because they are frauds, charlatans, snake oil salesman . . . relying on the "faithful" to not critically examine their claims because it falls in line with religious ideology . . . relying on the "faithful" to not be able to discern pseudo-science from actual science.

Some people's kids need to learn how to seek the truth . . . some people's kids are extremely gullible when it comes to fanciful ideas that sound cool.

Don't be those people's kids . . .

a reply to: solomons path

I want to emphasize something that most might miss in the quote above . . .

From Michael Behe (inventor or the "irreducible complexity" argument) and poster child for the Creationist movement (read: an actual scientist promoting I.D.)

Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".

but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If a paper on evolution is reviewed by a scientist then, Christian or secularist, the science itself is the focus. If it's reviewed by an evolutionist then there's 2 problems. 1) how qualified is that evolutionist and 2) is he or she able to put their own prejudices aside and look at the science?

I feel those problems are a substantial concern regarding yourself as well.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you talking about plagiarist Winston Ewert?

All his misleading research ends right here: boundedtheoretics.blogspot.com...

IMHO he can't be serious scientist and as Dr. Tyson said - people like him who are unable to lock their belief before science lab should not be allowed into lab.

Here is interesting video from Dr. Tyson regarding religion in USA

... and how does this in any way rebut the paper that Ewert co-authored?

It doesn't, it's purely character assassination on a minor academic point of 'correct attribution' of content.

Yes, it happened, but after some years, and suggestions on ways that may be applicable in rebutting the paper, the best Tom English has to offer is that the Ewert paper should possibly have included a Markov Chain analysis (which would be redundant as the paper that Ewert was rebutting was a Markov chain and Ewerts' rebuttal adds complexity to that).

Tom then concludes "it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps". From this, I would take it that Tom was unable to actually rebut the paper's content in the 3+ years available to him.

As to Dr Tyson's beliefs, just because he is in the majority in his 'little' sub group, does not make him right. He is far outnumbered by general humanity and even his vanishingly small subgroup has a percentage that do not believe as he does. According to Tyson's numbers, there are still 7% in his 'little' sub group that he cannot account for or adequately understand.

It would appear that if Mr Tyson reduced the definition of his sub group to contain only himself, then he could obtain his hallowed 0% believers. Of course, that would be absurd.

Perhaps he should limit himself to where he is best skilled, rather than strike out into areas of ethics, philosophy, statistical mathematics and such.

a reply to: solomons path

There was no reference made to Behe or most of the names you brought up in your post.

Many of those names have nothing to do with science at all. From that, I assume that this is in fact a list of outspoken people with whom you disagree.

I know of many requests for public debates on evolution which were given to Richard Dawkins and to which he refused to attend. Does that in any way have any bearing on the case for Evolutionary theory?

No, it is character assassination by implication that the reason he chose not to attend was purely from fear of being exposed (and probably not the case).

I have now observed many posters in this topic thread with a stated favor for Evolutionary theory, who, having exhausted their ability to debate in scientific terms, have resorted to personal attacks (this is a tactic that they also accuse others of doing).

It speaks volumes.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: solomons path

I want to emphasize something that most might miss in the quote above . . .

From Michael Behe (inventor or the "irreducible complexity" argument) and poster child for the Creationist movement (read: an actual scientist promoting I.D.)

Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".

but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible

Have you heard of a leading question? My wife has asked me, "does this make me look fat"? I can assure you, there is no good answer to this question. Perhaps Behe's responses were due to leading questions which left room for reinterpretation of his answers?

Perhaps you could assure me that the particular interpretation of Behe's response you have presented, is as you have portrayed, by providing the text of the actual word-for-word question's posed and his actual word-for-word response.

To me, it would be unlikely that Behe would state that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", when there are (the paper "Time and Information in Evolution" being one of them).

Secondly, it makes no sense that he would say that these non existent articles "showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible". If these papers were nonexistent, how could they suggest something?

From this inconsistency, I could assume that what you are representing in your post is not the full picture.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: solomons path

There was no reference made to Dembski, Behe or most of the names you brought up in your post.

Many of those names have nothing to do with science at all. From that, I assume that this is in fact a list of outspoken people with whom you disagree.

I know of many requests for public debates on evolution which were given to Richard Dawkins and to which he refused to attend. Does that in any way have any bearing on the case for Evolutionary theory?

No, it is character assassination by implication that the reason he chose not to attend was purely from fear of being exposed (and probably not the case).

I have now observed many posters in this topic thread with a stated favor for Evolutionary theory, who, having exhausted their ability to debate in scientific terms, have resorted to personal attacks (this is a tactic that they also accuse others of doing).

It speaks volumes.

From your previous post . . .

In the case of the paper in question, "Time and Information in Evolution", I have researched the credentials of the authors. They are:

Winston Ewert, PhD in Computer Science from Baylor University.

William A. Dembski, B.A. M.S. PhD. in Computer Science, University of Illinois. M.S. PhD. in Physics, University of Chicago. M.Div at Princeton Theological College Seminary with four peer reviewed published articles. (At the ime of writing of the article in question, he had not published any peer reviewed papers).

Like to revise your statement . . . or was that a "leading question"? And you are clearly not aware that all of these "scientists" are paid by the Discovery Institute to promote these ideas. Please Google "The Wedge Document" and read that . . . they clearly outline their agenda and how they plan to go about it.

And drop the persecution complex . . . character assassination? They have been outed as frauds before . . . that's why they don't submit to actual reputable biology journals . . . that's why they don't promote their ideas to actual scientists . . . Because other biologists, etc. know they are full of dung. The only people who buy their snake oil are those that want to feel good thinking superstition has a scientific basis.

Before you even try to criticize or, better yet, rationalize why Behe's response "doesn't say what is says", please familiarize yourself with the court case (linked previously, above) in question.

Not only did Behe admit that there are NO peer reviewed articles that are supported by pertinent calculations, but he was cited by the judge after the case for intentionally trying to mislead the court with his assertions that there was a scientific basis for Intelligent Design. Feel free to watch the NOVA special on this court case "Intelligent Design on Trial" . . . it's easily found on the internet (YouTube or PBS site).

He admitted such because the judge was tired of him waffling around questions on cross and warned him of the perjury charges he could face. The judge had to stop the questioning to chide him to answer the prosecutions questions, which he was trying to dance around. Behe, again the only I.D. scientist stupid enough to actually show for the defense, couldn't answer the challenges (which were based on the testimony of real scientists like Kenneth Miller) to his claims. So, he finally broke down and admitted that not only did he have no real evidence, but the movement has no real evidence either. He also admitted that the claims he makes against biological evolution are not valid and based on all of the evidence he has seen (he is a biochemist) there is no "controversy" with the current models and all evidence points to "NON-intelligence" (or nature) guiding the process. Timelines are correct, but he "chooses" to promote the idea of I.D. based on his "philosophical" (read: Catholic) beliefs in a creator (or "designer").

Heck . . . if you don't think you'll get the truth from any of the documentaries on the subject, feel free to Google for a .pdf of the court transcripts . . . they are online.

As far as you "leading question" b...s... You don't get it do you? Behe is saying that there are no articles with experiment or calculation that support the claims made by I.D. proponents. Not that no articles exist.

Let me BOLD what is the important takeaway that you are doing a dance around and trying to twist through semantics:
Behe is saying that there are NO articles with EXPERIMENT or CALCULATION that SUPPORT the claims made by I.D. proponents. NOT that no articles exist.

Read up . . . then we can talk more, unless your responses were the typical obtuse song-n-dance creationists generally throw out when their claims are shown to be a bunch of bunk.

originally posted by: solomons path

Sorry, my mistake, I somehow scanned over Dembski's name. I have edited my previous post to correct it.

It doesn't change the fact that several of the names you brought up have nothing to do with science anyway.

Again, you have called me a Creationist.

Let me clarify: I believe that God may have created everything. I also believe that the current theory of Biological Evolution should still be considered valid as a theory. I also consider alternates to those two theories as just as valid as theories. I have not limited my thinking enough to discard any theory and to declare any particular one as "right/true' and all others 'wrong/false'.

Perhaps you could call me a "Biological Origins Agnostic". At least, then, you'd be accurate.

You also defamed many people in your posts. Many of those you spoke against are academics whose income is related to their reputation, as are most other public figures. This is a public forum.

Let's please return to the topic.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: solomons path

Sorry, my mistake, I somehow scanned over Dembski's name. I have edited my previous post to correct it.

It doesn't change the fact that most of the names you brought up have nothing to do with science anyway.

Again, you have called me a Creationist.

Let me clarify: I believe that God may have created everything. I also believe that the current theory of Biological Evolution should still be considered valid as a theory. I also consider alternates to those two theories as just as valid as theories. I have not limited my thinking enough to discard any theory and to declare any particular one as "right/true' and all others 'wrong/false'.

You also defamed many people in your posts. Many of those you spoke against are academics whose income is related to their reputation, as are most other public figures. This is a public forum.

Let's please return to the topic.

When I'm saying "creationist" it's in reference to the papers you are touting as "peer reviewed" or "creationists" for the claims. If I called you a creationist directly, I apologize if you are not, but you are using their arguments, papers, and journals.

The "scientists" you are referring to are creationists . . . who happen to be scientists. They are pushing an agenda, in spite of having no evidence to back their claims. That's why the run from challenges by scientists requiring evidence and wouldn't show up when it came to putting up their claims against a perjury charge. Their papers are all assertion . . . no evidence.

I realize you are not from the U.S., so you may be unfamiliar with the group of "scientists" that provide the papers you have promoted. However, don't let the "scientist" part fool you with this group. They are (and have admitted) that their promotion of I.D. is based on religious ideology . . . not evidence. Which, is not very "scientific" for "scientists" to say.

As far as the other's not being "scientists" . . . that's exactly the point. I was simply throwing out the wide range of groups and people associated with the I.D. movement who "play ball" with the Discovery Institute. However, there are many degree-level scientists that fall into this category that I didn't list.

There are other documentaries out there where when confronted by actual biologists, they back track on their claims. "Flock of Dodos" is a good documentary that Behe and others back off their claims when on camera with actual biologists. Watch the NOVA doc on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and "The Revisionists" for good background on the creation and tactics of this movement.

a reply to: chr0naut

You also defamed many people in your posts. Many of those you spoke against are academics whose income is related to their reputation, as are most other public figures. This is a public forum.

Maybe you are not familiar with defamation. It is only defamation if the statements are untrue. True statements are statements of fact.

If you would like to contact any of the people that I listed . . . I'd be happy if they tried to sue for defamation. That's just one more court case that they will run from or lose.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[

So, save your admonitions for someone that hasn't followed this issue since the early 90's, when they put out "The Wedge".

a reply to: chr0naut

You can't be serious... in the same post where you trying to prove that scientist are using ad hominem against Ewert, witch is not true, it is just case that he wrote paper that is not really scientific, and I will come later at why no one is even caring about rebutting his claims, but in the same post then you did all possible attacks on one of most accepted scientist?! Is that how your idea of science works?!

Instead of giving good reason why only 7% of top scientist believe in 'little man in sky' while all work they do suggest there is no such a fatherly figure, never has been and most likely never will be (there is no single shred of evidence) you are focusing solely on Dr. Tyson?!

And tell you the truth - reason why normal scientist don't care about scientist who believe in 6 k old earth, while we even have trees that are older then that - it is just not worth time. Everyone who know anything about science, knows that we have traces of humans that are much older then supposed bible events...

Please tell me one thing for end - do you believe claims by Dr. Deepak Chopra as well?!

a reply to: SuperFrog

I was not trying anything of the sort.

I was asking what the hell your post had to do with what Ewert (& co) were proposing in their paper.

If it is so easy to do, just rebut it.