Behe's (malevolent) intelligent designer is still at work

What I don't get (and I don't get a lot of willful ignorance) is that the things he claims are impossible have already been shown time and again. This is the 3rd example, that I know of right off the top of my head (and with some effort we could probably come up with many examples).

Does he think that because he's a molecular biologist, that people will just take him at his word? I mean, getting away with lying in a court of law is a pretty big deal, but everyone knows he did it.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that evolution cannot do whatever Behe claims it can't do. He STILL needs to provide evidence that a designer has done it. Look at the lab experiments... where EXACTLY does the designer do his thing? When EXACTLY does the designer do his thing? How EXACTLY does the designer do his thing?

The Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows very clearly, exactly what mutations happened when to result in a series of mutations that are way over Behe's limit and yet we (almost literally) see them occur.

ogremk5 said: Does he think that because he's a molecular biologist, that people will just take him at his word? I mean, getting away with lying in a court of law is a pretty big deal, but everyone knows he did it.

No, no! The alien or time traveling biologists are acting this way because of The Fall! All very scientific you see!

ogremk5 said: ... where EXACTLY does the designer do his thing? When EXACTLY does the designer do his thing? How EXACTLY does the designer do his thing?

ogremk5 said: What I don't get (and I don't get a lot of willful ignorance) is that the things he claims are impossible have already been shown time and again. This is the 3rd example, that I know of right off the top of my head (and with some effort we could probably come up with many examples).

Does he think that because he's a molecular biologist, that people will just take him at his word?

I mean, getting away with lying in a court of law is a pretty big deal, but everyone knows he did it.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that evolution cannot do whatever Behe claims it can't do. He STILL needs to provide evidence that a designer has done it. Look at the lab experiments...

where EXACTLY does the designer do his thing? When EXACTLY does the designer do his thing? How EXACTLY does the designer do his thing?

The Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows very clearly, exactly what mutations happened when to result in a series of mutations that are way over Behe's limit and yet we (almost literally) see them occur.

ogremk5 said:The Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows very clearly, exactly what mutations happened when to result in a series of mutations that are way over Behe's limit and yet we (almost literally) see them occur.

Of course chloroquine resistance itself seems not to depend upon only two mutations. Only two seemed to exist in all chloroquine resistance, while none of the latter involved only two--an inconvenient fact that he just ignored, apparently because he decided that two mutations were the "edge of evolution" thus the facts had to be fitted to his pre-determination.

More crucially, clearly he could draw the line anywhere or nowhere, since he has absolutely no independent method of "detecting design." They wouldn't dare use actual design criteria, of course, since wild-type life exhibits is devoid of the real hallmarks of design, so Behe had no choice but to make up an "edge of evolution" and then manipulate the facts to fit his fiction.

They'll just continue to make it up as they go along, either coming up with excuses for why carbapenem resistance agrees with Behe's arbitrary limit, or arbitrarily redrawing their arbitrary limit. The point is to deny meaningful evolution, not to explain anything, after all.

Evolution explains the apparently meaningless existence of P. falciparum, along with all of the other meaningless adaptations of life, while Behe has to claim that everything is meaningfully designed. Therefore, he claims that it had to be designed based on his own arbitrary assumptions, and thus purposeful, while utterly ignoring the fact that no wild-type life forms demonstrate existence for any purpose whatsoever.

Glen Davidson

The really stupid part is that he thinks that god isn't smart enough to design systems that could evolve by themselves. He seems to think that god has nothing better to do then to meddle in every genome every minute of every day, just to get a result she could have gotten naturally with a little forethought and planning. Behe worships a very small, very unimaginative and very vindictive and deceitful god. How sad.

And of course it is even sadder that he will never be able to do anything to help any of those people who are suffering from malaria. He will never do any real calculations, never predict any future mutations, never design any drug strategies, never help to advise health programs. All he can do is throw his hands up, admit that god will eventually have her way and condemn many people to death. He can't even try to help them, because after all, it must be gods will that they are going to die. It's a wonder he believes in any type of medical intervention, if he in fact does.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ogremk5 said:The Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows very clearly, exactly what mutations happened when to result in a series of mutations that are way over Behe's limit and yet we (almost literally) see them occur.

Is this the paper you mean?

Well the guy must be doing some lab work, in fact he must be doing more lab work than anyone in the history of science. After all, in order to performa any meaningful probability calculations, he must first discover the effect of every possible mutation and every possible combination of mutations. He must determine the probability that each of them occurs empirically, not just theoretically. He must also determine the effect that each one would have in every environment and even in fluctuating environments both individually and in every combination. That would require a tremendous amount of site directed mutagenesis and measurements of fitness.

Now, once he had done all of that , he might be able to make some meaningful calculations. If he didn't do that, he would just be fooling himself. You know, kind of like the guy who concluded that bumble bees could not possibly fly. DO you suppose that's the real reason he published this rubbish in books rather than real journals?

Immortality can be rather dreary if it does not allow for the possibility of variation.

Yes, yes he does. But the joke is that he doesn’t realize that no one but other science-deniers take him at his word.

— apokryltaros

OK, Behe has convinced me.....that SATAN is the true creator of the life forms on Earth!

Hail Satan! May the Church of Satan become the dominant religion of the world!

No, it's not a malevolent designer Behe speaks of, but a benevolent designer who would bestow this boon upon the human population. Furthermore, out of its omnipotent kindness towards humankind, per Behe, malaria is also drug resistant. Take that you sinners!

Bloody hell. To assert that God himself is tinkering about, making diseases resistant to the drugs we develop to keep ourselves and our children alive - that's so far down the rabbit hole I'm not sure if he can ever come back. That Behe'd worship such a malevolent creature says a lot about him.

Of course, Behe could just be keeping up a charade so he can keep selling books and being invited to Creation - sorry, Design - conferences for the easy cash (easy compared to doing actual science and writing books based on reality). Without a serious mouthful of pride and a retraction of all his foolishness he couldn't possibly regain any credibility (a la Wakefield and his continuing support of the anti-vaccine lobby). Then again, he could actually believe in his own "genius". Which means we're probably just fine in dismissing him as yet another crank.

So is God doing some "Red Queen" thing - killing us with diseases, then when we thwart His will by developing a cure, changing the pathogen so it can kill us again? And how come He did this with malaria and not with lightning? And how come the cures often involve natural substances like fungi and artemisinin that He supposedly created in the first place? Behe must have some very strange theology.

Once again. Behe doing crappy biology and crappy theology both.

Bloody hell. To assert that God himself is tinkering about, making diseases resistant to the drugs we develop to keep ourselves and our children alive - that’s so far down the rabbit hole I’m not sure if he can ever come back. That Behe’d worship such a malevolent creature says a lot about him.

— mandrellian

Behe was washed up in Kitzmiller (after which he said famously, "I think that went quite well.") and he lay low for a couple of years before coming out with, guess what, the Mousetrap at Rushmore!

Behe was taken to pieces by graduate student Abby Smith in Edge and never recovered.

Total. Dolt.

Behe is like a creationist zombie, keeps coming back looking for brains because he doesn't have any of his own.

Behe was taken to pieces by graduate student Abby Smith in Edge and never recovered.

— Doc Boll

Now how could the designer be dead if she continues to design? Guess that was just another thing Behe was wrong about.

And of course the designer is stupid and has no foresight whatsoever. If she did, why not make toe parasites resistant BEFORE they were exposed to the chemicals? Why wait until after humans had developed them? Didn't god know what was going to happen? Couldn't she have done things more efficiently?

Seriously, the designer hypothesis seems to suggest that the parasites would be able to develop resistance to agents they have never encountered, while evolution predicts that resistance will only be selected on and spread AFTER the selective agent is encountered. So there you have it, a ready made research program. If Behe is a real scientist he would be doing this test right now.

DS said: Seriously, the designer hypothesis seems to suggest that the parasites would be able to develop resistance to agents they have never encountered, while evolution predicts that resistance will only be selected on and spread AFTER the selective agent is encountered. So there you have it, a ready made research program. If Behe is a real scientist he would be doing this test right now.

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said: Seriously, the designer hypothesis seems to suggest that the parasites would be able to develop resistance to agents they have never encountered, while evolution predicts that resistance will only be selected on and spread AFTER the selective agent is encountered. So there you have it, a ready made research program. If Behe is a real scientist he would be doing this test right now.

Ah, but maybe parasites pray for resistance in their own way and God answers the prayers of parasites. And how would we know?

Frank J said:

Bloody hell. To assert that God himself is tinkering about, making diseases resistant to the drugs we develop to keep ourselves and our children alive - that’s so far down the rabbit hole I’m not sure if he can ever come back. That Behe’d worship such a malevolent creature says a lot about him.

— mandrellian

I know I'm not the only critic who has "Behe's number," but sometimes I sure feel like it. Behe worships the same God that his chief critic, Kenneth Miller, does. Behe insists, even under oath (Dover) that the unknown designer he claims to have caught red-handed is not necessarily God, and could be even deceased. Frankly, Behe has "figured out" his target audience better than we critics have. That audience is the great majority of nonscientists that has some denial and suspicion of science and scientists, and uncritically accepts some pseudoscience. They are mostly not hopeless biblical literalists, though the latter subset probably produces many of his most vocal cheerleaders - and spreader of his memes. For whatever reason, his cheerleaders are very good at tuning out, or pretending to tune out, whatever they find inconvenient, as long as it comes from someone who feeds their intense need to hear that "Darwinism" is dead, dying, falsified or unfalsifiable. More than any anti-evolution activist, he has tried to go as far as he can without alienating or offending his target audience. Remember that he even admitted that the malaria parasite (and all other life) share common ancestors with H. sapiens. ~99.9% of those who rave about him, and clalim to have read the books where he makes those "shocking" concessions, conveniently omit it.

Behe's baleful blunders include his failure to appreciate the relevance of an arms race between predators and their prey (Or parasites, as in the case of Plasmodium versus humanity) in which he concludes in Chapter Two, that:

"The arms race metaphor itself is misconceived. The relationship between malaria and humans is nature red in tooth and claw. Real arms race are run by highly intelligent, bespectacled engineers in glass offices thoughtfully designing shiny weapons on modern computers. But there's no thinking in the mud and cold of nature's trenches. At best, weapons thrown together amidst the explosions and confusion of smoky battlefields are tiny variations on old ones, held together by chewing gum. If they don't work, then something else is thrown at the enemy, icnluding the kitchen sink - there's nothing 'progressive' about that. At its usual worst, trench warfare is fought by attrition. If the enemy can be stopped or slowe by burning your own bridges and bombing your own radio towers and oil refineries, then away they go. Darwinian trench warfare does not lead to progress - it leads back to the Stone Age."

"In a real war, everything relentlessly gets worse. In its real war with malaria, the human genome has only diminished." (From "The Edge of Evolution", pgs. 42 - 42)

In response to such inane, utterly simplistic thinking that is prevalent throughout Behe's screed against "Darwinism", Dave Wisker and I recognized independently back in 2007 that Behe is absolutely clueless with regards to evolutionary ecology and especially the Red Queen, which was derived independently by Leigh Van Valen (who dubbed it the "Red Queen") and Michael L. Rosenzweig (who dubbed it the "Rat Race").

In my Amazon review of this absurd piece of rubbish which earned deservedly one star, I responded to Behe's ignorance as follows:

"In the opening chapter 'The Elements of Darwinism', Behe presents a stereotypical portrait of 'Darwinism', or rather, the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, hinting that he's found excellent examples that refute it in his cursory examinations of the origins and transmittal of the diseases Malaria and HIV/AIDS. He also briefly alludes to the notion of an adaptive landscape that's played such a crucial role in our understanding of population genetics and speciation, presented all too simplistically as if his intended audience was teenagers with limited attention spans, not presumably well-read, highly educated, adults. In the second chapter, 'Arms Race or Trench Warfare?', Behe ridicules the very notion of a co-evolutionary arms race between predators and prey, quickly dismissing the Red Queen hypothesis as a 'silly statement' from Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland', ignoring the existence of a substantial body of supporting scientific literature (Like so many great ideas in science, it was proposed independently, almost simultaneously, by two scientists; evolutionary biologist and paleobiologist Leigh Van Valen - who coined the term 'Red Queen' - and evolutionary ecologist Michael Rosenzweig in the early 1970s. I should also note too that this was demonstrated clearly in the PBS 'Evolution' television miniseries episode which illustrated the Red Queen through an intricate biochemical 'arms race' between garter snakes and their highly toxic salamander prey.)."

As an aside, I have been accused of not reviewing books I have not read - which is untrue and especially so here - since I got a review copy from Simon and Schuster. Speaking of which, I wasn't kind to Simon and Schuster either (I plead the Fifth as to how I got this review copy which I still own, though I do offer a hint.):

"Simon and Schuster truly has had a glorious history of introducing many distinguished writers of fiction and non-fiction to the world, ranging from the likes of Ernest Hemingway to Frank McCourt. It published distinguished evolutionary biologist and paleobiologist Niles Eldrdege's first book for the general public, 'Time Frames', an engrossing memoir on the origins of the evolutionary theory known as 'Punctuated Equilibrium' (which Eldredge proposed with his friend Stephen Jay Gould back in 1972). Regrettably, its excellent publishing history was tarnished with the original publication of 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'; now it is tarnished again with 'The Edge of Evolution'. Clearly Michael Behe doesn't deserve favorable recognition of the kind bestowed upon both Hemingway and McCourt, but rather, more intense scrutiny, and indeed, more condemnation, in the future, from his scientific peers and an interested public who recognizes that Intelligent Design is not just bad science, but a bad religious idea pretending to be science (The verdict which was issued by Republican Federal Judge John Jones at the conclusion of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in which Michael Behe appeared as a key witness for the defense; oddly enough he doesn't mention the trial nor its verdict in his book.). Those who believe he is due favorable recognition are condoning the ample lies, omissions, and distortions present in his latest book, and are all too willing to join him in his self-created abyss of reason."

Excellent John - though I think you might've been too kind to Behe and his publishers :)

I guess this is my own argument from incredulity, but: I simply can't understand how a biochemist could literally see evolution occur in front of their faces at an atomic level and deny that it was happening, instead invoking an unseen, unproven and unnecessary mystical force. A grand testament to religious indoctrination, I suppose.

mandrellian said: Excellent John - though I think you might've been too kind to Behe and his publishers :) I guess this is my own argument from incredulity, but: I simply can't understand how a biochemist could literally see evolution occur in front of their faces at an atomic level and deny that it was happening, instead invoking an unseen, unproven and unnecessary mystical force. A grand testament to religious indoctrination, I suppose.

Mike Elzinga said: Ah, but maybe parasites pray for resistance in their own way and God answers the prayers of parasites. And how would we know?

Man obviusly is not the crown of creation, man is an aberration; an example of evolution gone wild. Bacteria are the crown of creation. They rule the world of biology, much of life actually depends on bacteria for its extistence! They were here for a really long time before us, and I'd be surprised if they would not still be in business long after we are gone.

Species come and go; bacteria are here to stay.

Multicellularity may have been a good idea in the struggle for survival but bacteria seems to have found it wise in the long run to stay single. That's been good for us too!

The world seems to be stranger than we think...

What struck me about the malaria examples from "The Edge of Evolution" was that Behe was giving examples of how acknowledged intelligent design (by humans) was not able to keep up with acknowledged naturalistic evolution of the malaria parasite; and how acknowledged evolution in humans (such as sickle-cell) was able to do a better job of it. The designed drugs were always turning ineffective against the evolving parasite. To me, it looked like Behe was giving examples of how evolution was more productive than design.

Behe is good news for science supporters.

Back circa 2004, when ID was actually being touted in the media, I ran into reasonable people who wondered if there was something to it. When I explained, I never got past "for example, according to ID, the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved and has to have been supernaturally designed". That turned reasonable people off fast.

This new one - "drug resistance in malaria parasites could not be the result of natural selection and has to have been supernaturally designed" - is way crazier.

For all I know, some of the oldsters I grew up around may actually have believed that God literally sent plagues on the Egyptians, but if you told them that right now, God is deliberately making malaria parasites resistant to drugs to make like difficult for individual children in poor countries, they'd think you were insane.

Behe actually does come across as some kind of Gnostic or Satanist, obsessed with a designer who seems to focus on microbes and infectious disease.

TomS said: What struck me about the malaria examples from "The Edge of Evolution" was that Behe was giving examples of how acknowledged intelligent design (by humans) was not able to keep up with acknowledged naturalistic evolution of the malaria parasite; and how acknowledged evolution in humans (such as sickle-cell) was able to do a better job of it. The designed drugs were always turning ineffective against the evolving parasite. To me, it looked like Behe was giving examples of how evolution was more productive than design.

It’s hardly surprising that they’d cherry-pick their hero Behe the same way the cherry-pick the Bible, the scientific literature and literally everything else regarding their pet topic. I don’t think it’d matter to Behe’s target audience one jot if he flat-out said Darwinian evolution was correct, disavowed ID, recanted everything and went on an evolution/anti-creationism speaking tour with Myers and Dawkins; they’d just keep quoting his old stuff as gospel - as “proof” that there’s dissent among scientists.

— mandrellan

(cont'd)

Actually there's a classic example of someone abandoning the ID party line and still being touted as accepting it. Michael Denton was a former DI fellow (the parting was mutual AIUI). Yet to this day anti-evolution activists always(*) cite his 1985 book "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", but always(*) conveniently "forget" his 1998 book "Nature's Destiny." The latter still rejects Darwinian evoluton but concedes common descent, apparently even less politically correctly a Behe's books do. The irony is that Denton's earlier book was Behe's admitted inspiration for "Darwin's Black Box," but the latter must have played a role in Denton's correcting of his misconceptions.

(*) There may be rare exceptions, but not one in the dozens of examples I have read over the years.

Rolf said: Man obviusly is not the crown of creation, man is an aberration; an example of evolution gone wild. Bacteria are the crown of creation. They rule the world of biology, much of life actually depends on bacteria for its extistence! They were here for a really long time before us, and I'd be surprised if they would not still be in business long after we are gone. Species come and go; bacteria are here to stay. Multicellularity may have been a good idea in the struggle for survival but bacteria seems to have found it wise in the long run to stay single. That's been good for us too! The world seems to be stranger than we think...

So maybe we should all pray to the god of the parasites. She seems to be more powerful than the god of the bible. Behe might live to regret the fact that he was so desperate to deny evolution that he castrated he is own god to do it.

Frank J said: (cont'd) Actually there's a classic example of someone abandoning the ID party line and still being touted as accepting it. Michael Denton was a former DI fellow (the parting was mutual AIUI). Yet to this day anti-evolution activists always(*) cite his 1985 book "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", but always(*) conveniently "forget" his 1998 book "Nature's Destiny." The latter still rejects Darwinian evoluton but concedes common descent, apparently even less politically correctly a Behe's books do. The irony is that Denton's earlier book was Behe's admitted inspiration for "Darwin's Black Box," but the latter must have played a role in Denton's correcting of his misconceptions. (*) There may be rare exceptions, but not one in the dozens of examples I have read over the years.

harold said:

TomS said: What struck me about the malaria examples from "The Edge of Evolution" was that Behe was giving examples of how acknowledged intelligent design (by humans) was not able to keep up with acknowledged naturalistic evolution of the malaria parasite; and how acknowledged evolution in humans (such as sickle-cell) was able to do a better job of it. The designed drugs were always turning ineffective against the evolving parasite. To me, it looked like Behe was giving examples of how evolution was more productive than design.

That's probably because you are some combination of more honest, more mentally balanced, less biased, or possibly even smarter than Behe.

harold said:

TomS said: What struck me about the malaria examples from "The Edge of Evolution" was that Behe was giving examples of how acknowledged intelligent design (by humans) was not able to keep up with acknowledged naturalistic evolution of the malaria parasite; and how acknowledged evolution in humans (such as sickle-cell) was able to do a better job of it. The designed drugs were always turning ineffective against the evolving parasite. To me, it looked like Behe was giving examples of how evolution was more productive than design.

That's probably because you are some combination of more honest, more mentally balanced, less biased, or possibly even smarter than Behe.

@John:

IIRC Behe's one son went all the way to atheism, and had little interest either way in evolution or ID/creationism. Which means that in dad's view he's not nearly as "evil" as had he remained a devout Catholic and become a critic of dad's pseudoscience, like Ken Miller. That would have really been sweet.

Acta Trop. 2003 Mar;85(3):363-73. High prevalence of quintuple mutant dhps/dhfr genes in Plasmodium falciparum infections seven years after introduction of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine as first line treatment in Malawi. Bwijo B, Kaneko A, Takechi M, Zungu IL, Moriyama Y, Lum JK, Tsukahara T, Mita T, Takahashi N, Bergqvist Y, Björkman A, Kobayakawa T. SourceDepartment of International Affairs and Tropical Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-Cho, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 162 8666, Japan. Abstract Malawi changed its national policy for malaria treatment in 1993, becoming the first country in Africa to replace chloroquine by sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine combination (SP) as the first-line drug for uncomplicated malaria. Seven years after this change, we investigated the prevalence of dihydropteroate synthase (dhps) and dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr) mutations, known to be associated with decreased sensitivity to SP, in 173 asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum infections from Salima, Malawi. A high prevalence rate (78%) of parasites with triple Asn-108/Ile-51/Arg-59 dhfr and double Gly-437/Glu-540 dhps mutations was found. This 'quintuple mutant' is considered as a molecular marker for clinical failure of SP treatment of P. falciparum malaria. continues.

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Sep;12(9):826-36. Carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii: mechanisms and epidemiology. Poirel L, Nordmann P. SourceService de Bactériologie-Virologie, Hôpital de Bicêtre, South-Paris Medical School, University Paris XI, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. laurent.poirel@bct.ap-hop-paris.fr Abstract The increasing trend of carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii worldwide is a concern since it limits drastically the range of therapeutic alternatives. Metallo-beta-lactamases (VIM, IMP, SIM) have been reported worldwide, especially in Asia and western Europe, and confer resistance to all beta-lactams except aztreonam. The most widespread beta-lactamases with carbapenemase activity in A. baumannii are carbapenem-hydrolysing class D beta-lactamases (CHDLs) that are mostly specific for this species. These enzymes belong to three unrelated groups of clavulanic acid-resistant beta-lactamases, represented by OXA-23, OXA-24 and OXA-58, that can be either plasmid- or chromosomally-encoded. A. baumannii also possesses an intrinsic carbapenem-hydrolysing oxacillinase, the expression of which may vary, that may play a role in carbapenem resistance. In addition to beta-lactamases, carbapenem resistance in A. baumannii may also result from porin or penicillin-binding protein modifications. Several porins, including the 33-kDa CarO protein, that constitute a pore channel for influx of carbapenems, might be involved in carbapenem resistance.

Frank J said: @John: IIRC Behe's one son went all the way to atheism, and had little interest either way in evolution or ID/creationism. Which means that in dad's view he's not nearly as "evil" as had he remained a devout Catholic and become a critic of dad's pseudoscience, like Ken Miller. That would have really been sweet.

raven said: Behe is just wrong on the facts. His claim was that anything that required more than two mutations to yield a phenotype was impossible and he used resistance to malaria as an example. A common mutational mechanism to a common anti-malaria drug combination requires 5 mutations. It is seen often. Needless to say, five is greater than two.

Acta Trop. 2003 Mar;85(3):363-73. High prevalence of quintuple mutant dhps/dhfr genes in Plasmodium falciparum infections seven years after introduction of sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine as first line treatment in Malawi. Bwijo B, Kaneko A, Takechi M, Zungu IL, Moriyama Y, Lum JK, Tsukahara T, Mita T, Takahashi N, Bergqvist Y, Björkman A, Kobayakawa T. SourceDepartment of International Affairs and Tropical Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-Cho, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 162 8666, Japan. Abstract Malawi changed its national policy for malaria treatment in 1993, becoming the first country in Africa to replace chloroquine by sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine combination (SP) as the first-line drug for uncomplicated malaria. Seven years after this change, we investigated the prevalence of dihydropteroate synthase (dhps) and dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr) mutations, known to be associated with decreased sensitivity to SP, in 173 asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum infections from Salima, Malawi. A high prevalence rate (78%) of parasites with triple Asn-108/Ile-51/Arg-59 dhfr and double Gly-437/Glu-540 dhps mutations was found. This 'quintuple mutant' is considered as a molecular marker for clinical failure of SP treatment of P. falciparum malaria. continues.

Behe's error was simple minded. He assumed that individual mutations have no effect on their own. This is wrong.

It is really hard to know what to say about all this except WOW. He actually *says* this stuff? He actually claims to *believe* this stuff? Other people actually *listen* to what he says?

Wow. Just Wow.

John said:

Frank J said: (cont'd) Actually there's a classic example of someone abandoning the ID party line and still being touted as accepting it. Michael Denton was a former DI fellow (the parting was mutual AIUI). Yet to this day anti-evolution activists always(*) cite his 1985 book "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", but always(*) conveniently "forget" his 1998 book "Nature's Destiny." The latter still rejects Darwinian evoluton but concedes common descent, apparently even less politically correctly a Behe's books do. The irony is that Denton's earlier book was Behe's admitted inspiration for "Darwin's Black Box," but the latter must have played a role in Denton's correcting of his misconceptions. (*) There may be rare exceptions, but not one in the dozens of examples I have read over the years.

Michael Denton is still listed as a Senior Fellow of the Dishonesty Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture: http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php I wonder why they've kept him while allowing Francis Beckwith to leave.

So I guess beneficial mutations do happen. Apparently they just require a designer to cause them. After all, they could never happen by themselves. And many neutral mutations could never occur and become beneficial in another environment or when another mutation conferred a selective advantage. NO that would require some planning and foresight. Well, if you were so insightful, why couldn't you just give the parasites all of the mutations they needed before they needed them? You know, so you could tell that they were designed and rule out random mutations.

Look, anything an intelligent designer could do random mutations could do. Bogus probability calculations can do nothing to prevent it.

harold said: Behe is good news for science supporters. Back circa 2004, when ID was actually being touted in the media, I ran into reasonable people who wondered if there was something to it. When I explained, I never got past "for example, according to ID, the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved and has to have been supernaturally designed". That turned reasonable people off fast.

Renee Marie Jones said: It is really hard to know what to say about all this except WOW. He actually *says* this stuff? He actually claims to *believe* this stuff? Other people actually *listen* to what he says? Wow. Just Wow.

dalehusband said:

Renee Marie Jones said: It is really hard to know what to say about all this except WOW. He actually *says* this stuff? He actually claims to *believe* this stuff? Other people actually *listen* to what he says? Wow. Just Wow.

When you have dogma, with no tests in reality, that is the result. Why would you be surprized?

Prof Nosten says the current spread of resistance could be similar to what happened in the 1970s with chloroquine, a drug that was once a front-line treatment against the disease. "When chloroquine resistance reached Africa in the middle of the 1970s it translated into a large increase in the number of cases and the number of children who died increased dramatically."

DS said: The really stupid part is that he thinks that god isn't smart enough to design systems that could evolve by themselves. He seems to think that god has nothing better to do then to meddle in every genome every minute of every day, just to get a result she could have gotten naturally with a little forethought and planning. Behe worships a very small, very unimaginative and very vindictive and deceitful god. How sad. And of course it is even sadder that he will never be able to do anything to help any of those people who are suffering from malaria. He will never do any real calculations, never predict any future mutations, never design any drug strategies, never help to advise health programs. All he can do is throw his hands up, admit that god will eventually have her way and condemn many people to death. He can't even try to help them, because after all, it must be gods will that they are going to die. It's a wonder he believes in any type of medical intervention, if he in fact does.

Richard B. Hoppe said: The BBC has a good writeup of the spread of artemisinin resistance, likening it to the spread of chloroquine resistance in the 1970s:

Prof Nosten says the current spread of resistance could be similar to what happened in the 1970s with chloroquine, a drug that was once a front-line treatment against the disease. "When chloroquine resistance reached Africa in the middle of the 1970s it translated into a large increase in the number of cases and the number of children who died increased dramatically."

As long-time readers will recall, one of the lines of evidence I identified as consistent with Multiple Designers Theory was the occurrence of arms races between the designer responsible for pathogens and human drug researchers. I noted then (in 2004) that the former appeared to be winning. I also noted that an implication of MDT for that arms races was for humans to co-opt the work of other designing agents, and the employment of artemisinin is an example of that (taxol is another). However, MDT also predicts that the pathogen designers will do their best to counter-act that tactic by designing and manufacturing modified pathogens immune to the "natural" anti-pathogens. So far the pathogen designers are winning the malaria war.

DS said: So I guess beneficial mutations do happen. Apparently they just require a designer to cause them. After all, they could never happen by themselves. And many neutral mutations could never occur and become beneficial in another environment or when another mutation conferred a selective advantage. NO that would require some planning and foresight. Well, if you were so insightful, why couldn't you just give the parasites all of the mutations they needed before they needed them? You know, so you could tell that they were designed and rule out random mutations. Look, anything an intelligent designer could do random mutations could do. Bogus probability calculations can do nothing to prevent it.

SteveP. said: See, this is the snarky strawmen that DS et al like to trot out. God is smart enough to design systems that work on their own. God doesn't tinker with each step of a process and no ID advocate has ever said so.

SteveP. said: Sure, the designer did cause it. But not in the way you think. He left the scene. Now nature tends to itself with what it has left. The kids don't want Dad to teach 'em a thing. They wanna do it all on their own. We dun need you anymore Dad, we're all growed up. OK, kids. Have it your way. But when you've had enough I'll be here. I'll be here.

DS said: So I guess beneficial mutations do happen. Apparently they just require a designer to cause them. After all, they could never happen by themselves. And many neutral mutations could never occur and become beneficial in another environment or when another mutation conferred a selective advantage. NO that would require some planning and foresight. Well, if you were so insightful, why couldn't you just give the parasites all of the mutations they needed before they needed them? You know, so you could tell that they were designed and rule out random mutations. Look, anything an intelligent designer could do random mutations could do. Bogus probability calculations can do nothing to prevent it.

John said:

Frank J said: (cont'd) Actually there's a classic example of someone abandoning the ID party line and still being touted as accepting it. Michael Denton was a former DI fellow (the parting was mutual AIUI). Yet to this day anti-evolution activists always(*) cite his 1985 book "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", but always(*) conveniently "forget" his 1998 book "Nature's Destiny." The latter still rejects Darwinian evoluton but concedes common descent, apparently even less politically correctly a Behe's books do. The irony is that Denton's earlier book was Behe's admitted inspiration for "Darwin's Black Box," but the latter must have played a role in Denton's correcting of his misconceptions. (*) There may be rare exceptions, but not one in the dozens of examples I have read over the years.

Michael Denton is still listed as a Senior Fellow of the Dishonesty Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture: http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php I wonder why they've kept him while allowing Francis Beckwith to leave.

ksplawn said:

harold said: Behe is good news for science supporters. Back circa 2004, when ID was actually being touted in the media, I ran into reasonable people who wondered if there was something to it. When I explained, I never got past "for example, according to ID, the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved and has to have been supernaturally designed". That turned reasonable people off fast.

It's interesting to think about that in the context of how eager most anti-evolutionists are to allow for drug resistance to come about by evolutionary means ("well sure, that's just microevolution!"). Just being superficial about it, I suppose the implication is that God wouldn't be intentionally orchestrating those diseases to infect more people and be harder to cure, it must be those "natural" processes doing such evil stuff. And this brings me back to something I wanted to say earlier; Behe is being fully consistent with traditional, intellectual (and not pop-level) Christian theology in accepting that God does things we'd normally find to be "bad" or "evil." God is the source of all good and evil, and since God is the Authority on this it's just not appropriate nor germane for salvation to question God's motives or try and take Him to task over it. Behe isn't a literalist and doesn't come from a literalist religious tradition so it's easy to see how he can accept God-directed disease resistance as an active part of the Plan, while his more populist, fundamentalist, charismatic Protestant anti-evolutionary colleagues are willing to let Nature take the blame; it means their understanding of God can be less nuanced, uncomfortable, complicated.

Scott F said:

SteveP. said: Sure, the designer did cause it. But not in the way you think. He left the scene. Now nature tends to itself with what it has left. The kids don't want Dad to teach 'em a thing. They wanna do it all on their own. We dun need you anymore Dad, we're all growed up. OK, kids. Have it your way. But when you've had enough I'll be here. I'll be here.

DS said: So I guess beneficial mutations do happen. Apparently they just require a designer to cause them. After all, they could never happen by themselves. And many neutral mutations could never occur and become beneficial in another environment or when another mutation conferred a selective advantage. NO that would require some planning and foresight. Well, if you were so insightful, why couldn't you just give the parasites all of the mutations they needed before they needed them? You know, so you could tell that they were designed and rule out random mutations. Look, anything an intelligent designer could do random mutations could do. Bogus probability calculations can do nothing to prevent it.

So, Steve. Does this mean that you believe that the malaria pathogen acquired 5 beneficial mutations on its own in order to become drug resistent? Remember, it's not Evolutionists who said this was impossible. It was Behe who said that this was impossible without the active intervention of an Intelligent Agent.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

SteveP. said: See, this is the snarky strawmen that DS et al like to trot out. God is smart enough to design systems that work on their own. God doesn't tinker with each step of a process and no ID advocate has ever said so.

In fact, that's exactly what Behe claimed in "The Edge of Evolution." Malarial resistance to chloroquine emerged in the mid-20th century, and Behe explicitly claimed that it could not have evolved naturally (his "CCC" criterion) and therefore was designed. Since it didn't appear until the 20th century, the designing agent was still screwing with it then. Get with the program, SteveP.

SteveP. said: Hoppe, you're missing it again. On purpose? I dun know. Designing does not mean, nursing your final product or tweakin' it. Evolution, ie NS acting on random mutations is nonsensical. It is just plausible deniability. Malaria is doing just what it looks like its doing. It is effecting mutations to try to beat the rap. Yes, it would be hard for someone of your background to wrap his head around such a concept. But hey, that's why you're here I guess.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

SteveP. said: Hoppe, you're missing it again. On purpose? I dun know. Designing does not mean, nursing your final product or tweakin' it. Evolution, ie NS acting on random mutations is nonsensical. It is just plausible deniability. Malaria is doing just what it looks like its doing. It is effecting mutations to try to beat the rap. Yes, it would be hard for someone of your background to wrap his head around such a concept. But hey, that's why you're here I guess.

Once again, it's not my claim, it's Behe's claim that malaria has been tweaked by an intelligent designer in the recent past. Read the damned book, and I'll even point you to the right pages: Pages 60-62. That's where Behe discusses the impossibility (in his fantasy world) of the natural evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria and introduces his "CCC" criterion. Behe claims, on the basis of his (invalid) probability calculations, that malarial resistance to chloroquine can't have evolved naturally--the combination of mutations is just too improbable. So the intelligent designer did it. In the 20th century. And Behe's intelligent designer is still at it, tweaking away in southeast Asia, increasing malarial resistance to artemisinin, and is still killing mostly pregnant women and children.

SteveP. said: I've already said that I believe life is embedded with intelligence. I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

SteveP. said: I've already said that I believe life is embedded with intelligence. I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees. Life is a pedagogical experience. Creation is His way of opening our eyes to the spiritual. Start off with the material, and work our way back to the immaterial. This is exactly what is happening in science today. We are at a crossroads. We have gone as far as we can materially. There is nothing left but beginning to understand life from an immaterial perspective. We are finally gonna get there. As they say, all roads lead to Rome, science included.

Helena Constantine said: You're missing his point. If I recall correctly, this particular troll thinks the malaria organisms are designing themselves; willing themselves to bring forth new point mutations that promote resistance. That also seems to be the upshot when he says, "It's effecting mutations." So he is in fundamental disagreement with Behe, advancing a hypothesis that is even more insane.

So all evolutionary biologists are wrong and Behe is wrong and malaria is the real intelligent one. Right Steve, got it.

Oh well, at least even Steve sees that Behe hasn't got a leg to stand on. Too bad he can't see that he has even fewer.

Has anybody actually shown any math that's purported to prevent 5 independent mutations from occurring separately and then later combining due to interbreeding of those five lineages?

It would depend on population size, generations per unit time, and average mutation rate for the species.

Helena Constantine said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

SteveP. said: Hoppe, you're missing it again. On purpose? I dun know. Designing does not mean, nursing your final product or tweakin' it. Evolution, ie NS acting on random mutations is nonsensical. It is just plausible deniability. Malaria is doing just what it looks like its doing. It is effecting mutations to try to beat the rap. Yes, it would be hard for someone of your background to wrap his head around such a concept. But hey, that's why you're here I guess.

Once again, it's not my claim, it's Behe's claim that malaria has been tweaked by an intelligent designer in the recent past. Read the damned book, and I'll even point you to the right pages: Pages 60-62. That's where Behe discusses the impossibility (in his fantasy world) of the natural evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria and introduces his "CCC" criterion. Behe claims, on the basis of his (invalid) probability calculations, that malarial resistance to chloroquine can't have evolved naturally--the combination of mutations is just too improbable. So the intelligent designer did it. In the 20th century. And Behe's intelligent designer is still at it, tweaking away in southeast Asia, increasing malarial resistance to artemisinin, and is still killing mostly pregnant women and children.

You're missing his point. If I recall correctly, this particular troll thinks the malaria organisms are designing themselves; willing themselves to bring forth new point mutations that promote resistance. That also seems to be the upshot when he says, "It's effecting mutations." So he is in fundamental disagreement with Behe, advancing a hypothesis that is even more insane.

Henry J said: Has anybody actually shown any math that's purported to prevent 5 independent mutations from occurring separately and then later combining due to interbreeding of those five lineages? It would depend on population size, generations per unit time, and average mutation rate for the species.

SteveP. said: I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

John said: I think its time to banish Stevie baby to the BW. I can't believe he's hijacking yet another thread.

Henry J said: Has anybody actually shown any math that's purported to prevent 5 independent mutations from occurring separately and then later combining due to interbreeding of those five lineages? It would depend on population size, generations per unit time, and average mutation rate for the species.

Just Bob said:

SteveP. said: I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

It was hard, but I finally got my mouth to close and my eyes to focus again after reading that. Stevie, umm, do you have a meter or something to measure how much uhh... godness is in different things. Realize first that if there is no way to measure or at least estimate that quantity, then it is an absolutely useless bit of noninformation. Perhaps you could demonstrate for us by evaluating the god-content of, say, a syphilis spirochete, a blue whale, Elvis's corpse, and a slice of pepperoni. You must use the same units of measure, and tell us how you made the measurement, or on what you based your estimation.

If you can't do that, then you have to admit that "He is in all things to different degrees" is an utterly useless bit of theological crap.

Oh, and are we supposed to treat something with more god in it differently from something with less?

It is strange that Intelligent Design should show the most dangerous pathogen on Earth as an example of the Designer's work. I thought it interesting that our defences against the pathogens have more in common with Darwin's theories that just 'let there be immunity, because God loves you.'

The prevailing theory about how antibodies are made in the body is all about variation and selection. Different B and T-cells get somatic mutations, and end up with different affinities to pathogens. The cells that bind to pathogens best, are selected to survive; the ones that bind less well die off - a process that gets called "darwinian" in the literature.

Dr.Behe's view is that the Designer was at work in the last 20 years, making a more perfect Plasmodium, for reasons we cannot comprehend.

So that's how it works, people. DARWIN is the one looking out for us. And if you are ever in Westminster Abbey, aim your prayers of thanksgiving a few degrees away from the altar. towards good old Charles' tomb.

In the early 90's, people were concerned about the role of the Rhroptry and the capacity of Plasmodium to generate vast numbers of hypervariable antigens from a small genome. Could the capacity to generate hypervariability be applied to other components of the genome, such as resistance genes? After all, the catalysts responsible would not be *completely* successfully compartmentalised, nor would their activity be *absolutely* zero on a non-target substrate sequence.

Any resultant recombinant would only have to be ever-so-slightly more resistant particularly in regions with weak or intermittent treatment, to be selected, as Darwin himself emphasised.

Rusty

Just Bob said:

SteveP. said: I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

It was hard, but I finally got my mouth to close and my eyes to focus again after reading that. Stevie, umm, do you have a meter or something to measure how much uhh... godness is in different things. Realize first that if there is no way to measure or at least estimate that quantity, then it is an absolutely useless bit of noninformation. Perhaps you could demonstrate for us by evaluating the god-content of, say, a syphilis spirochete, a blue whale, Elvis's corpse, and a slice of pepperoni. You must use the same units of measure, and tell us how you made the measurement, or on what you based your estimation. If you can't do that, then you have to admit that "He is in all things to different degrees" is an utterly useless bit of theological crap. Oh, and are we supposed to treat something with more god in it differently from something with less?

SteveP. said: I also admit that there are a ton of things that can't be measured, held, felt, kicked, squeezed but are real nonetheless.

Helena Constantine said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

SteveP. said: Hoppe, you're missing it again. On purpose? I dun know. Designing does not mean, nursing your final product or tweakin' it. Evolution, ie NS acting on random mutations is nonsensical. It is just plausible deniability. Malaria is doing just what it looks like its doing. It is effecting mutations to try to beat the rap. Yes, it would be hard for someone of your background to wrap his head around such a concept. But hey, that's why you're here I guess.

Once again, it's not my claim, it's Behe's claim that malaria has been tweaked by an intelligent designer in the recent past. Read the damned book, and I'll even point you to the right pages: Pages 60-62. That's where Behe discusses the impossibility (in his fantasy world) of the natural evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria and introduces his "CCC" criterion. Behe claims, on the basis of his (invalid) probability calculations, that malarial resistance to chloroquine can't have evolved naturally--the combination of mutations is just too improbable. So the intelligent designer did it. In the 20th century. And Behe's intelligent designer is still at it, tweaking away in southeast Asia, increasing malarial resistance to artemisinin, and is still killing mostly pregnant women and children.

You're missing his point. If I recall correctly, this particular troll thinks the malaria organisms are designing themselves; willing themselves to bring forth new point mutations that promote resistance. That also seems to be the upshot when he says, "It's effecting mutations." So he is in fundamental disagreement with Behe, advancing a hypothesis that is even more insane.

Paul Burnett said:

SteveP. said: I also admit that there are a ton of things that can't be measured, held, felt, kicked, squeezed but are real nonetheless.

Then how do you know they're real? And how many does it take to make a ton?

I love it when SteveP drunk-posts! Reminds me of the good old days with FL, JoeG, FtK and JAD. We should really honor these fine people in a Troll Hall of Flame.

How do you like them dingleberries, StevieBoy?

SteveP. said: Sure, the designer did cause it. But not in the way you think. He left the scene. Now nature tends to itself with what it has left. The kids don't want Dad to teach 'em a thing. They wanna do it all on their own. We dun need you anymore Dad, we're all growed up. OK, kids. Have it your way. But when you've had enough I'll be here. I'll be here.

apokryltaros said:

Henry J said: Has anybody actually shown any math that's purported to prevent 5 independent mutations from occurring separately and then later combining due to interbreeding of those five lineages? It would depend on population size, generations per unit time, and average mutation rate for the species.

If Almighty Dembski could not be bothered to show how his magic filter worked even if the world was falling down, donuts to dinars say that the Ineffable Behe did not bother to make any calculations to support his claim about cumulative mutations being totally impossible without divine intervention.

SteveP. said: That's the problem right there, Just Bob. You need to measure it, feel it, hold it, kick it, squeeze it, to know that its there. Life is scary, I admit it. I also admit that there are a ton of things that can't be measured, held, felt, kicked, squeezed but are real nonetheless. I guess that's the difference between us. You tiptoe into the water but only knee deep. Worry too much about the sharks, the barnacles, slimy kelp, rip tides, on and on and on. Might as well go back to the sand and the Budweiser. Its safer there.

Just Bob said:

SteveP. said: I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

It was hard, but I finally got my mouth to close and my eyes to focus again after reading that. Stevie, umm, do you have a meter or something to measure how much uhh... godness is in different things. Realize first that if there is no way to measure or at least estimate that quantity, then it is an absolutely useless bit of noninformation. Perhaps you could demonstrate for us by evaluating the god-content of, say, a syphilis spirochete, a blue whale, Elvis's corpse, and a slice of pepperoni. You must use the same units of measure, and tell us how you made the measurement, or on what you based your estimation. If you can't do that, then you have to admit that "He is in all things to different degrees" is an utterly useless bit of theological crap. Oh, and are we supposed to treat something with more god in it differently from something with less?

SteveP. said: That's the problem right there, Just Bob. You need to measure it, feel it, hold it, kick it, squeeze it, to know that its there. Life is scary, I admit it. I also admit that there are a ton of things that can't be measured, held, felt, kicked, squeezed but are real nonetheless. I guess that's the difference between us. You tiptoe into the water but only knee deep. Worry too much about the sharks, the barnacles, slimy kelp, rip tides, on and on and on. Might as well go back to the sand and the Budweiser. Its safer there.

Actually Stevie boy, intelligent malaria with more godiness is lots more scary than just plain old evolutionary theory. You do know that there is absolutely no evidence for your so called "hypothesis" don't you? You do know that there is a vast literature on random mutations don't you? You do know that people use evolutionary and population genetics models to design effective treatment strategies for infectious diseases don't you? Oh well. At least we seem to agree that Behe is full of crap. Now all you have to do is go one step further and admit to reality. Come on Stevie boy, you can do it. Just leave all your misconceptions behind and dive into the deep end with all the evidence. You ain't ascared of reality now is ya?

SteveP. the delusional American IDiot in Taiwan crowed: That's the problem right there, Just Bob. You need to measure it, feel it, hold it, kick it, squeeze it, to know that its there. Life is scary, I admit it. I also admit that there are a ton of things that can't be measured, held, felt, kicked, squeezed but are real nonetheless. I guess that's the difference between us. You tiptoe into the water but only knee deep. Worry too much about the sharks, the barnacles, slimy kelp, rip tides, on and on and on. Might as well go back to the sand and the Budweiser. Its safer there.

Wolfhound said:

SteveP. said: Sure, the designer did cause it. But not in the way you think. He left the scene. Now nature tends to itself with what it has left. The kids don't want Dad to teach 'em a thing. They wanna do it all on their own. We dun need you anymore Dad, we're all growed up. OK, kids. Have it your way. But when you've had enough I'll be here. I'll be here.

Steve, you do realize that affecting that Palin-esque "folksy" crap makes you look even more stupid than you likely are, if that's even possible.

Steve, you do realize that affecting that Palin-esque “folksy” crap makes you look even more stupid than you likely are, if that’s even possible.

Rolf said: Steve P. seems to have many things in common with Sarah P.

Just Bob said:

Rolf said: Steve P. seems to have many things in common with Sarah P.

Say, you don't suppose...

SteveP. said: I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

Just Bob said: Stevie, umm, do you have a meter or something to measure how much uhh... godness is in different things.

SteveP. said: That's the problem right there, Just Bob. You need to measure it, feel it, hold it, kick it, squeeze it, to know that its there.

So... you can't actually measure the godishness of anything, yet you're sure there is more dissolved deity in some things than in others. Can you name something that you're sure has a higher god-content than most other things (leave "humans with souls" out of it, please-- you said 'all things')? Would that be more god per unit of volume or unit of mass? Are there things in the same class, say all Ford Pintos, that have more god than other Ford Pintos? Are you SURE that there is nothing that has NO god? How do you know?

Oh, and Satan--how much god is in him? Must be a hell of a lot (sorry). But seriously, if god is in everything in varying degrees, then surely the greatest supernatural power besides god must have more god infusion than any other being or object.

I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things.

Just Bob said: So... you can't actually measure the godishness of anything, yet you're sure there is more dissolved deity in some things than in others.

Maybe if he just concentrated harder…

So god doesn't actually do anything, but she just made things intelligent to take care of themselves. Well, I guess Behe was wrong. Even Steve admits that god doesn't do anything whatsoever.

So here is the question - if you really believed this, then I guess you would have to conclude that malaria is outsmarting humans, right? Malaria has more godiness and therefore intelligence and is able to outwit even the smartest humans, right? Just like HIV, right? After all, we don't seem to be winning against that either. So we are being outsmarted by a virus as well?

Here is another question for you Steve, if you really believe this, and I see no evidence whatsoever that you actually do, why aren't you an infectious disease researcher? Why aren't you supporting infectious disease research? Why won't you learn any science of any kind whatsoever? Why must you continue to wallow in deliberate ignorance? If "intelligence" is the way to go, why don't you have any? Why don't you value science, research and learning? If you choose to remain ignorant of even the most basic biological concepts, won't it just make it that much easier for the pathogens to outsmart you?

In any event, the bathroom wall is the place to discuss your misguided "theories". You can find any further responses by me on that subject there, where you belong.

Karen S. said:

Maybe if he just concentrated harder…

Yes, by drinking orange juice...

It isn't that the bugs are smarter, it's that they have a much larger number of researchers than humans, with a large fraction of their researchers trying various experiments to see what works more better (for them, that is).

Henry J said: It isn't that the bugs are smarter, it's that they have a much larger number of researchers than humans, with a large fraction of their researchers trying various experiments to see what works more better (for them, that is).

Playing out the logic of fundamentalists leads to such wonderful conclusions!

Just Bob said: Playing out the logic of fundamentalists leads to such wonderful conclusions!

In “The Edge of Evolution”(reviewed here and here), Michael Behe argued explicitly that an intelligent agent is responsible for the evolution of chloroquine-resistant malaria, arguing that the necessary mutations are beyond the reach of chance and selection given the time and population sizes available.

In fact, that’s exactly what Behe claimed in “The Edge of Evolution.” Malarial resistance to chloroquine emerged in the mid-20th century, and Behe explicitly claimed that it could not have evolved naturally (his “CCC” criterion) and therefore was designed. Since it didn’t appear until the 20th century, the designing agent was still screwing with it then. Get with the program, SteveP.

Even though the odds are tremendously stacked against it, P. falciparum was able to develop chloroquine resistance because there are an enormous number of parasitic cells (about a trillion) in an infected patient's body, and about a billion infected people in the world in a year. So the parasite has the population numbers to get around the terrible odds.

Once again, it’s not my claim, it’s Behe’s claim that malaria has been tweaked by an intelligent designer in the recent past. Read the damned book, and I’ll even point you to the right pages: Pages 60-62. That’s where Behe discusses the impossibility (in his fantasy world) of the natural evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria and introduces his “CCC” criterion. Behe claims, on the basis of his (invalid) probability calculations, that malarial resistance to chloroquine can’t have evolved naturally–the combination of mutations is just too improbable. So the intelligent designer did it.

I don't know why I'm logged in as "A Masked Panda" (KAx4) in the comment above. That was not my choice.

For the record, I am Larry Moran.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: I don't know why I'm logged in as "A Masked Panda" (KAx4) in the comment above. That was not my choice. For the record, I am Larry Moran.

These statements are not correct. Behe is talking about the probability that two mutations will occur simultaneously to produce an allele with a selctive advantage. The mutations must occur sumultaneously, according to Behe, because either one by itself is deleterious. Behe says that the odds of this happening are about 10^-20 and he is correct.

John K: I hope you learned something here. Correcting Hoppe's misstatement of fact about what Behe wrote (which he acknowledges) doesn't constitute defending Behe. It isn't all about being on one side or the other, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about truth. Behe's ignorance on many subjects doesn't imply that he's wrong in some particular case or that his writing was correctly interpreted by all critics. Now I suppose you will interpret this post as a defense of Behe, but that isn't what it is.

It would be interesting to discover Behe's theological or, even better, scientific explanation for the purposeful design of malaria. It suggests to me that the designer is not a benevolent god but a powerful but malevolent entity. I wonder how he reconciles that with Catholicism.

The mutations must occur sumultaneously, according to Behe, because either one by itself is deleterious.

Is doesn't matter. Behe is still desperately trying to find a small gap to wedge his god into. His calculations are still total nonsense for several reasons.

First of all, he just assumes that the mutations are individually deleterious. This may not be the case. Each mutations may separately have no selective disadvantage or may in fact be beneficial in certain environments. Unless he has determine the selection coefficient for each mutation in every possible environment he is just making stuff up.

Second, he assumes that the mutations must occur simultaneously. This is just an unwarranted assumption. If each mutation individually is advantageous, there is no reason why they would have to occur simultaneously. If one mutation alone was neutral, it could persist for thousands of generations ore even increase in frequency. And even if each mutation alone were deleterious, it could still persist for hundreds or even thousand of generations before being entirely eliminated, especially if it were recessive relative to the wild type allele.

Third, he assumes that the two mutations would have to occur in the same individual. This is not the case either. They could occur in two different individuals and be combined by sexual reproduction, especially in the case of multiple infections.

Fourth, even if his assumptions about population size and mutation rate were realistic, which they probably are not, they would only apply to this one organism. They would not apply to any other organism.

Now if He ever submitted this stuff for actual peer review, he would find these things out pretty quickly. Perhaps that is the reason he refuses to do so. He knows he isn't fooling anyone, except those who want to be fooled.

BTW, here is more detail on the increase in artemisinin-resistant malaria.

Henry J said:

The mutations must occur sumultaneously, according to Behe, because either one by itself is deleterious.

Deleterious by what degree? And is this only when those two happen first, or is it affected if any of the other three are already there? Also are we sure that other mutations elsewhere aren't impacting the result?

Richard B. Hoppe said: Larry Moran wrote

These statements are not correct. Behe is talking about the probability that two mutations will occur simultaneously to produce an allele with a selctive advantage. The mutations must occur sumultaneously, according to Behe, because either one by itself is deleterious. Behe says that the odds of this happening are about 10^-20 and he is correct.

He's right. I mis-stated the "CCC" case. Behe goes on (on page 63) to define a "double CCC" and draws the 'edge of evolution' there. By that criterion, the evolution of chloroquine resistance is (barely) possible by natural means. The recent appearance of artemesinin resistance is less clear. The recent research shows that multiple sites on chromosome 13 are under selective pressure. It looks to me like that would be beyond even Behe's 'double CCC' criterion. And of course, it's still the case that Behe explicitly claims that malaria itself was intentionally designed.

I have also stated that I believe what God said, that He is in all things. The caveat is that He is in all things to different degrees.

DS said: First of all, he just assumes that the mutations are individually deleterious. This may not be the case. Each mutations may separately have no selective disadvantage or may in fact be beneficial in certain environments. Unless he has determine the selection coefficient for each mutation in every possible environment he is just making stuff up.

Just Bob said:

DS said: First of all, he just assumes that the mutations are individually deleterious. This may not be the case. Each mutations may separately have no selective disadvantage or may in fact be beneficial in certain environments. Unless he has determine the selection coefficient for each mutation in every possible environment he is just making stuff up.

IANAB, but might this be similar to the sickle-cell mutation? Is it "deleterious"? Well... depends on the environment. In Minneapolis it most certainly is. In equatorial Africa, not so much.

ooh, ooh they are on the attack. they smell blood. the dorsal fin is outta the water.

unfortunately for me, i gotta go plant some trees at a Lion's club community service program this morning.

but we'll get back to Harold and his 'analysis'.

harold said: I would like to point out that ... this belief is totally irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution.

btw, Larry Moran seems to have put paid to Mr. Hoppe's 'misrepresentations'.

I wonder if its Behe's unflappability that steers him to such low ground.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkqPIHF5zvWlUzSyYRWDkEN1Z0BiuSxKF0 said:

harold said: I would like to point out that ... this belief is totally irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution.

It is irrelevant to discussion of ANY practical matter, harold. Metaphysics only applies to the metaphysical. And as far as the metaphysical goes, we can take it or leave it. Being oblivious to the workings of the physical world, in contrast, means trouble, possibly severe, sooner or later. HIV denialists as a case in point.

Is doesn’t matter. Behe is still desperately trying to find a small gap to wedge his god into. His calculations are still total nonsense for several reasons.

Now if He ever submitted this stuff for actual peer review, he would find these things out pretty quickly. Perhaps that is the reason he refuses to do so. He knows he isn’t fooling anyone, except those who want to be fooled.

SteveP. said: God is smart enough to design systems that work on their own. God doesn't tinker with each step of a process and no ID advocate has ever said so.

apokryltaros said: And demanding that others share one's deliberate obliviousness to the workings of the physical world is a catastrophe in the making.

John_S said: And when does an accumulation of allowable free snacks stop being an impossible lunch?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkqPIHF5zvWlUzSyYRWDkEN1Z0BiuSxKF0 said:

apokryltaros said: And demanding that others share one's deliberate obliviousness to the workings of the physical world is a catastrophe in the making.

But Stanton, there's nothing unusual about such people. Necessity forces us to acquire BS filters -- to protect us from those with BS filters wired in backwards. My friends tell me I have a pretty good BS filter. I got it the hard way. MrG

https://me.yahoo.com/a/j5i6uksLusgEaijZZYDXbBvVNwGLR34JYQj_JIeOO3eKfg--#35e25 said: John K: I hope you learned something here. Correcting Hoppe's misstatement of fact about what Behe wrote (which he acknowledges) doesn't constitute defending Behe. It isn't all about being on one side or the other, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about truth. Behe's ignorance on many subjects doesn't imply that he's wrong in some particular case or that his writing was correctly interpreted by all critics. Now I suppose you will interpret this post as a defense of Behe, but that isn't what it is. It would be interesting to discover Behe's theological or, even better, scientific explanation for the purposeful design of malaria. It suggests to me that the designer is not a benevolent god but a powerful but malevolent entity. I wonder how he reconciles that with Catholicism.

apokryltaros said: I'm quite aware of your BS filter: Pacific Octopus tank grade.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here .... DS says,

Is doesn’t matter. Behe is still desperately trying to find a small gap to wedge his god into. His calculations are still total nonsense for several reasons.

Look, I'm not defending Behe but I do insist that if you are going to argue against his ideas you'd better get them right. Behe presents evidence that most drug resistant mutations are deleterious in the absence of drug and he's right. He also presents evidence that each of the chloroquine mutations are deleterious by themselves. He's wrong about that but that's something you have to research to discover. In fact, the main evidence is not something he could have known when he wrote his book. What Behe is saying is that IF you need two mutations (or more) in order to get a fitness advantage AND each mutation is deleterious by itself THEN they have to occur simultaneously in order for the new allele to have a fitness advantage. He is perfectly correct about that. There is a real edge of evolution that most species can never achieve given the premises. Behe addresses the possibility of neutral alleles contributing to the final outcome but he dismisses this idea and his arguments are not silly. I bet most of the readers of Panda's Thumb would have a hard time refuting his argument. DS says,

Now if He ever submitted this stuff for actual peer review, he would find these things out pretty quickly. Perhaps that is the reason he refuses to do so. He knows he isn’t fooling anyone, except those who want to be fooled.

There are plenty of peer reviewed papers published by evolution supporters that are worse than Behe's book. Try reading some papers by James Shapiro or John Mattick. Your confidence in peer review is misplaced.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Look, I'm not defending Behe but I do insist that if you are going to argue against his ideas you'd better get them right.

It is worth asking whether there is a coherent concept of “intelligent design”.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkqPIHF5zvWlUzSyYRWDkEN1Z0BiuSxKF0 said:

harold said: I would like to point out that ... this belief is totally irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution.

It is irrelevant to discussion of ANY practical matter, harold. Metaphysics only applies to the metaphysical. And as far as the metaphysical goes, we can take it or leave it. Being oblivious to the workings of the physical world, in contrast, means trouble, possibly severe, sooner or later. HIV denialists as a case in point.

Karen S. said:

It is worth asking whether there is a coherent concept of “intelligent design”.

There is no such thing, and that's the problem. Even Johnson admits tht there is no theory. All they have is the idea is that some designer did something. Don't you dare ask who, what, where, when, how or why. And you're supposed to read every trade book written by those guys. If you don't, you are misunderstanding ID. It's like nailing jell-o to the wall.

DS said:

Karen S. said:

It is worth asking whether there is a coherent concept of “intelligent design”.

There is no such thing, and that's the problem. Even Johnson admits tht there is no theory. All they have is the idea is that some designer did something. Don't you dare ask who, what, where, when, how or why. And you're supposed to read every trade book written by those guys. If you don't, you are misunderstanding ID. It's like nailing jell-o to the wall.

And that's exactly what Behe refuses to do. He won't say who is messing with the malaria parasite, how they are doing it or why they are doing it. That means his "hypothesis" has no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever. The mysterious designer could choose to give the parasites one hundred beneficial mutations overnight and spread them to every parasite overnight if it served her evil purposes, but for some reason apparently chooses to do only that which is indistinguishable from actual evolution. Go figure.

Behe presents evidence that most drug resistant mutations are deleterious in the absence of drug and he’s right. He also presents evidence that each of the chloroquine mutations are deleterious by themselves. He’s wrong about that but that’s something you have to research to discover. In fact, the main evidence is not something he could have known when he wrote his book. What Behe is saying is that IF you need two mutations (or more) in order to get a fitness advantage AND each mutation is deleterious by itself THEN they have to occur simultaneously in order for the new allele to have a fitness advantage. He is perfectly correct about that. There is a real edge of evolution that most species can never achieve given the premises.

Behe addresses the possibility of neutral alleles contributing to the final outcome but he dismisses this idea and his arguments are not silly.

I bet most of the readers of Panda’s Thumb would have a hard time refuting his argument.

There are plenty of peer reviewed papers published by evolution supporters that are worse than Behe’s book.

Try reading some papers by James Shapiro or John Mattick. Your confidence in peer review is misplaced.

harold said: 2) You're the academic biochemist, but I strongly dispute your claim that either James Shapiro or John Mattick can fairly be compared to Behe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro As for John Mattick, I'm not familiar with the details of his work, but a comparison with Behe appears to be unfair. Can you explain why you view his work as negatively as you view Behe's work? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=john%20mattick

A few years ago, I [Larry Arnhart] lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered.

DS said: And that's exactly what Behe refuses to do. He won't say who is messing with the malaria parasite, how they are doing it or why they are doing it. That means his "hypothesis" has no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever. The mysterious designer could choose to give the parasites one hundred beneficial mutations overnight and spread them to every parasite overnight if it served her evil purposes, but for some reason apparently chooses to do only that which is indistinguishable from actual evolution. Go figure.

TomS said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Look, I'm not defending Behe but I do insist that if you are going to argue against his ideas you'd better get them right.

It is worth asking whether there is a coherent concept of "intelligent design". Not having a coherent concept seems to be the major defense mechanism of ID. Any critique of ID can be met with the response that "that isn't ID".

apokryltaros said: Sure, it is technically true that you can not defeat an imaginary guardian, but, for the same reason, such a being can not defend its fortress, either.

However, he has identified the Intelligent Designer as Yahweh during speaking tours he’s given at Fundamentalist Protestant Christian churches in the USA and the United Kingdom over the last few years.

Karen S. said:

However, he has identified the Intelligent Designer as Yahweh during speaking tours he’s given at Fundamentalist Protestant Christian churches in the USA and the United Kingdom over the last few years.

Ah, yes. The identity of the designer is added post-production.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Well, Behe did say how at least once:

A few years ago, I [Larry Arnhart] lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered.

In other words, it's magic.

DS said: And that's exactly what Behe refuses to do. He won't say who is messing with the malaria parasite, how they are doing it or why they are doing it. That means his "hypothesis" has no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever. The mysterious designer could choose to give the parasites one hundred beneficial mutations overnight and spread them to every parasite overnight if it served her evil purposes, but for some reason apparently chooses to do only that which is indistinguishable from actual evolution. Go figure.

Richard B. Hoppe said: In other words, it's magic.

apokryltaros said:

Karen S. said:

However, he has identified the Intelligent Designer as Yahweh during speaking tours he’s given at Fundamentalist Protestant Christian churches in the USA and the United Kingdom over the last few years.

Ah, yes. The identity of the designer is added post-production.

No, the identity of the designer is added pre-production, and unmasked either after the successful conquest, or to reassure the Faithful.

SteveP. said: We are at a crossroads. We have gone as far as we can materially. There is nothing left but beginning to understand life from an immaterial perspective.

Gosh, I just realised that comment I quoted was on page 2. Mea culpa.

mandrellian said: Gosh, I just realised that comment I quoted was on page 2. Mea culpa.

Rolf said:

mandrellian said: Gosh, I just realised that comment I quoted was on page 2. Mea culpa.

Absolved. Gave me an excuse for replying. "Gone as far as we can materially' doesn't quite make sense with me. We are still the same old Homo Sapiens Sapiens, we just have too many diversions and gadgets to keep us occupied 24/7. Electric lighting is corrupting us; no peaceful evenings at the campfire listening to stories of gods, demons and monsters. Those were the days. "Understanding life from an immaterial perspective"? Makes no sense. All we can do is live our lives as true to our nature as we can. The problem is we can't, the myths and institutions created for teaching and to aid for that purpose have been corrupted. Speaking for the Christian version, the Church has the book but have lost the key.

mandrellian said: They're not even looking at the right door. They're standing at a wall and talking about its innate, ineffable, numinous doorness and how they're best buddies with the locksmith. Reckon we can expect a response from SP? I know it's five pages in and creationist trolls often don't have much of an attention span (especially when challenged), but by crikey I'm curious as to what exactly the hell he meant by "we have gone as far as we can materially". Considering we've barely even begun to explore outer space and uncover its mysteries, and considering we're in the infancy of matter manipulation at an atomic scale, and further considering that we're always discovering new things about "stuff" (including material beings and their components), such as how it behaves and how we can make it behave, I'd say our "material" approach still has a lot to offer. But maybe that isn't what Steve meant. It's hard to tell with trolls; their use of language is usually very limited and that makes it difficult to have coherent, adult conversations with them.

Mandrellian gets his obligatory shot in just before curtain call.

But really why is a translation necessary for "The kingdom of God is within you".

If you (pl) are as 'adult' as you claim to be, it oughta be a cinch.

But I suspect that is the problem. Christ also said "you must be like a child to enter the kingdom of God'.

SteveP. said: Christ also said "you must be like a child to enter the kingdom of God'.

W. H. Heydt said: If I were at all considering converting to some form of Christianity, the "Ueber Christian Creationists" that post on PT would put me off any such thoughts. They do more to push people away from their beliefs than any 10 atheists can.

SteveP. said: But really why is a translation necessary for "The kingdom of God is within you".

SteveP. said: Mandrellian gets his obligatory shot in just before curtain call. But really why is a translation necessary for "The kingdom of God is within you". If you (pl) are as 'adult' as you claim to be, it oughta be a cinch. But I suspect that is the problem. Christ also said "you must be like a child to enter the kingdom of God'.

It's always the same with these people. Make some vague-yet-grandiose statement and then, when challenged, retort with something along the lines of "Bah, you should know already!" or "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you!" or "Because I said so!"

That must be what "be like a child to get into Heaven" means. Just pretend it's the fourth grade, throw your weight around and, if called on your bullshit, act like you have a big brother that can kick anyone's arse.

SteveP. said: But really why is a translation necessary for "The kingdom of God is within you".

mandrellian said:

SteveP. said: We are at a crossroads. We have gone as far as we can materially. There is nothing left but beginning to understand life from an immaterial perspective.

Similar things have been said during almost every period of significant technological in human history - sometimes by scientists, sometimes by clerics, sometimes by philosophers, sometimes by laypeople - but in every single case those words were shown to be hastily chosen at best. What makes you so positive that no further "material" advances can be made? What precisely is an "immaterial perspective" and how can we, as material beings, perceive and investigate it?

Anyway, far and away from why I have a kingdom inside me that I've not noticed yet (there was a colony in there once, but Amoxycillin took care of it), let's return to the topic and my initial response to Steve:

-

What makes you so positive that no further “material” advances" can be made? And what do you actually mean by "material" advances?

What precisely is an “immaterial perspective” and how can we, as material beings, perceive and investigate it? Has it proved useful in the past? If so, how?

-

What (obviously) needs to be pointed out here is that you can't just assert or proclaim things and expect people to understand them, or to perceive them as obviously true as you. Without evidence or further explanation - and especially when presented with a tangent in place of an actual answer - such assertions or proclamations (or vague spitirual waffle) can and should be dismissed.

On a serious note… If I were at all considering converting to some form of Christianity, the “Ueber Christian Creationists” that post on PT would put me off any such thoughts. They do more to push people away from their beliefs than any 10 atheists can.

Henry J said:

On a serious note… If I were at all considering converting to some form of Christianity, the “Ueber Christian Creationists” that post on PT would put me off any such thoughts. They do more to push people away from their beliefs than any 10 atheists can.

And, they keep on doing it, no matter how many times, or by how many different people, this same point gets pointed out to them. Henry

apokryltaros said: And the creationist trolls here neither care that they're pushing people away from Christianity....

The trolls aren't here to evangelise - not properly, anyway. They aren't here to spread the Good News of the Gospels and bring people to Christ, they're here to score points against their "enemies".

Of course, the only reason we're their "enemy" in the first place is because they made it so by starting their ridiculous "Culture War", of which science is but one front (they also can't keep their sticky little beaks out of other peoples' grownup relationships and uteri - areas usually considered "nobody else's goddamn business" by reasonable adults).

mandrellian said: Anyway, far and away from why I have a kingdom inside me that I've not noticed yet (there was a colony in there once, but Amoxycillin took care of it), let's return to the topic and my initial response to Steve: - What makes you so positive that no further “material” advances" can be made? And what do you actually mean by "material" advances? What precisely is an “immaterial perspective” and how can we, as material beings, perceive and investigate it? Has it proved useful in the past? If so, how? - What (obviously) needs to be pointed out here is that you can't just assert or proclaim things and expect people to understand them, or to perceive them as obviously true as you. Without evidence or further explanation - and especially when presented with a tangent in place of an actual answer - such assertions or proclamations (or vague spitirual waffle) can and should be dismissed.

mandrellian said: Anyway, far and away from why I have a kingdom inside me that I've not noticed yet (there was a colony in there once, but Amoxycillin took care of it), let's return to the topic and my initial response to Steve: - What makes you so positive that no further “material” advances" can be made? And what do you actually mean by "material" advances? What precisely is an “immaterial perspective” and how can we, as material beings, perceive and investigate it? Has it proved useful in the past? If so, how? - What (obviously) needs to be pointed out here is that you can't just assert or proclaim things and expect people to understand them, or to perceive them as obviously true as you. Without evidence or further explanation - and especially when presented with a tangent in place of an actual answer - such assertions or proclamations (or vague spitirual waffle) can and should be dismissed.

SteveP. said: If you need billions to try and answer the question "Is there a Higg's boson?, then it should be clear we are at the edge of science as we know it. What are you(pl) gonna do when its not found? Probably spend a trillion on a modified LHC I'm sure. See where this is going? What you will eventually have to ponder is the seemingly impossible notion that it really is 'all in the mind'. This would then bring us full circle back to Christ's words.

Mandrellian,

Sorry, I just couldn't resist it. In a deep, booming and pompous voice - "you're not going to like it!" - the large hadron collider will be replaced by the deep hadron collider.

mandrellian said: The trolls aren't here to evangelise - not properly, anyway. They aren't here to spread the Good News of the Gospels and bring people to Christ, they're here to score points against their "enemies". Of course, the only reason we're their "enemy" in the first place is because they made it so by starting their ridiculous "Culture War", of which science is but one front (they also can't keep their sticky little beaks out of other peoples' grownup relationships and uteri - areas usually considered "nobody else's goddamn business" by reasonable adults).

harold said: I've asked Steve P. many times to give testable answers to these questions - "who is the designer, precisely what and mechanistically how did the designer design, when did the designer design, and is there an example of anything that is not designed?"

Yea Mendel, quit playing with your peas and just eat em already. Don't you know that there are starving children in Africa?

That's great Pavlov, now if you could just get that dog to lick stamps, maybe somebody would be interested.

Go back to the dark ages Stevie and reap the rewards you so richly deserve.

SWT said:

harold said: I've asked Steve P. many times to give testable answers to these questions - "who is the designer, precisely what and mechanistically how did the designer design, when did the designer design, and is there an example of anything that is not designed?"

... and I'd be interested in reading SteveP.'s answers to these questions. Or any design advovate's answers, for that matter.

... the suggestion in 1900 that the patent office should be abolished because everything had already been invented. Just look around you, I said. Even this room is teeming with things we do not understand. Only people whose common sense has been impaired by too much education cannot see it. The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicruously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them. ... In passing into the Age of Emergence we learn to accept common sense, leaving behind the practice of trivializing the organizational wonders of nature, and accept that organization is important in and of itself - in some cases even the most important thing.

Wikiquote entry for "Patent", heading "Spurious"

Rolf said: In response to Steve P.'s ignorance I offer a qoute from physics professor Robert B. Laughlin (A Different Universe, 2006):

... the suggestion in 1900 that the patent office should be abolished because everything had already been invented. Just look around you, I said. Even this room is teeming with things we do not understand. Only people whose common sense has been impaired by too much education cannot see it. The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicruously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them. ... In passing into the Age of Emergence we learn to accept common sense, leaving behind the practice of trivializing the organizational wonders of nature, and accept that organization is important in and of itself - in some cases even the most important thing.

What will be the role of ID in revealing the mysterious miracles and the organizational wonders of nature?

harold said:

mandrellian said: The trolls aren't here to evangelise - not properly, anyway. They aren't here to spread the Good News of the Gospels and bring people to Christ, they're here to score points against their "enemies". Of course, the only reason we're their "enemy" in the first place is because they made it so by starting their ridiculous "Culture War", of which science is but one front (they also can't keep their sticky little beaks out of other peoples' grownup relationships and uteri - areas usually considered "nobody else's goddamn business" by reasonable adults).

This is correct. They are not here to convince anyone but themselves. I have not seen any creationist here, or in any other forum, use traditional, effective techniques that try to convince. They came to this forum because the fact that somebody, somewhere, accepts biological evolution, makes them very uncomfortable. My personal strategy is to focus on the topic of this blog, which is biological evolution. They always try to shift the discussion to vague claims about god. Everyone has the right to respond as they please, but in my view, when you let them make that shift, you are doing them a favor. They were drawn here because the theory of biological evolution is somehow very upsetting to them. It has nothing to do with whether or not "the kingdom of God is within us", or what that means. Ken Miller and Francis Collins both think that "the kingdom of God is within us". Francis Collins thinks that the fact that he enjoyed looking at a waterfall is evidence for the existence of god. However, they don't deny biological evolution. The Pope and the Dalai Lama don't deny biological evolution. I've asked Steve P. many times to give testable answers to these questions - "who is the designer, precisely what and mechanistically how did the designer design, when did the designer design, and is there an example of anything that is not designed?"

bigdakine said: Yup. Three thousand years ago, nobody understood why the Sun rose and set, why the moon waxed and waned or why it rained, 120 years nobody knew why stars shined. In every century you had people claiming there were imponderables never to be understood by humanity. They have all been wrong. Steve P. is no different than them.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

bigdakine said: Yup. Three thousand years ago, nobody understood why the Sun rose and set, why the moon waxed and waned or why it rained, 120 years nobody knew why stars shined. In every century you had people claiming there were imponderables never to be understood by humanity. They have all been wrong. Steve P. is no different than them.

Bill O'Reilly is SteveP's hero. At 1:50 Bill O'Reilly says: "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a missed communication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in ...". But Neil deGrasse Tyson can.

Science writer Faye Flam has this terse account of Behe discussing how G-D is the Intelligent Designer at a post-screening discussion of Randy Olson's "A Flock of Dodos" that was held Thursday night at Villanova University:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/147353575.html

Can we please stop beating up on Behe's religious beliefs for a minute, and can someone please explain to me how it is that Behe and Barry Hall's prediction that it was impossible to evolve resistance to imipenem was so spectacularly wrong?

Barry Hall is a respected researcher, and he computed his probabilities without assuming Intelligent Design. Why were his probabilities so wrong?

He apparently constructed libraries of randomly mutated bacteria which contained (to a high degree of probability) all possible single and double mutants of a key enzyme that degrades penicillin like molecules--the enzyme metallo-beta-lactamase. But, none of the mutants could survive in imipenem, thus leading Hall to conclude that no single or double mutant of metallo-beta-lactamase could confer imipenem resistance. Well, that failed.

But why? Did triple mutants evolve? Did a different gene mutate? Did Hall make a very bad probability calculation?

Hall's an evolutionist. If the evolutionist and the ID proponent are both wrong, we have to ask: Why?

Lobert Wesson said, "large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. there is no good fossil record of any." The fossil record gives no good examples of macroevolution and the fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. Stephen Jay Gould found the theory of punctuated equilibrium which is the long periods of stasis are broken sporadically by sudden large macroevolutionary jump.

diogeneslamp0 said: Can we please stop beating up on Behe's religious beliefs for a minute, and can someone please explain to me how it is that Behe and Barry Hall's prediction that it was impossible to evolve resistance to imipenem was so spectacularly wrong? Barry Hall is a respected researcher, and he computed his probabilities without assuming Intelligent Design. Why were his probabilities so wrong? He apparently constructed libraries of randomly mutated bacteria which contained (to a high degree of probability) all possible single and double mutants of a key enzyme that degrades penicillin like molecules--the enzyme metallo-beta-lactamase. But, none of the mutants could survive in imipenem, thus leading Hall to conclude that no single or double mutant of metallo-beta-lactamase could confer imipenem resistance. Well, that failed. But why? Did triple mutants evolve? Did a different gene mutate? Did Hall make a very bad probability calculation? Hall's an evolutionist. If the evolutionist and the ID proponent are both wrong, we have to ask: Why?

Jay said: Lobert Wesson said, "large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. there is no good fossil record of any." The fossil record gives no good examples of macroevolution and the fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. Stephen Jay Gould found the theory of punctuated equilibrium which is the long periods of stasis are broken sporadically by sudden large macroevolutionary jump.

DS said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Can we please stop beating up on Behe's religious beliefs for a minute, and can someone please explain to me how it is that Behe and Barry Hall's prediction that it was impossible to evolve resistance to imipenem was so spectacularly wrong? Barry Hall is a respected researcher, and he computed his probabilities without assuming Intelligent Design. Why were his probabilities so wrong? He apparently constructed libraries of randomly mutated bacteria which contained (to a high degree of probability) all possible single and double mutants of a key enzyme that degrades penicillin like molecules--the enzyme metallo-beta-lactamase. But, none of the mutants could survive in imipenem, thus leading Hall to conclude that no single or double mutant of metallo-beta-lactamase could confer imipenem resistance. Well, that failed. But why? Did triple mutants evolve? Did a different gene mutate? Did Hall make a very bad probability calculation? Hall's an evolutionist. If the evolutionist and the ID proponent are both wrong, we have to ask: Why?

Reference please.

Confidence in that prediction is based on a simulation of the in vitro evolution process using the program In vitro Evolution Simulator (6, 11). The program simulates the random mutation of the input sequence and determines the fraction of possible single and double amino acid substitutions that are obtained in a library of a given size. It is important to consider the effects of only one or two independent amino acid substitution mutations, because in nature mutations almost always arise one at a time, and each mutation must be fixed into microbial populations by selection. The input sequence was the IMP-1 sequence, the mutation frequency was 1.2 mutations per molecule, and the fraction of possible single and double amino acid substitutions obtained was calculated separately for each library. The mean fractions per library were 0.897 ± 0.009 of the single amino acid substitutions and 0.670 ± 0.01 of the double amino acid substitutions [that is, prob = 0.103 and 0.33 mutation NOT present] (mean ± standard error). For the eight libraries taken together, the probability of having failed to screen any particular single amino acid substitution enzyme is 1.0 × 10−8 [0.103^8], and the probability of having failed to screen any particular double amino acid substitution enzyme is 1.3 × 10−4 [0.33^8]. These results predict, with >99.9% confidence, that blaIMP-1 will not evolve to confer increased resistance to imipenem. That prediction depends on the sensitivity with which we can detect increased resistance in the laboratory. I cannot eliminate the possibility that increased resistance, below the level of laboratory detection, could be selected in nature.

That quoted paragraph seems to be talking about the odds against getting a known method of resistance, for which the relevant mutations are already known. Doing that does not address the odds against gaining resistance; just that method of it.

Also, the first mutation wouldn't have to be fixed in the population before the second one occurs; the second would simply have to occur in a lineage that already had the first. (This is assuming absence of horizontal transfer; if such transfer occurs the second wouldn't even have to be in the same lineage. )

That's my two cents on that; if somebody who knows more about the subject disagrees, they should say something.

Henry