The Limits of Evolution

[SpaceYeti]

You got me. 10,000 years ago, the "designer" created the universe astride a triceratops while eating a maple bacon donut.

Creationism does not necessitate that it's a literal, Biblical interpretation of a young earth. Back when I was on forums where I actually knew some Creationists, I had to distinguish the sort of creationism they were talking about before discussing it. Hell, your typical lukewarm religious guy who believes in evlution and that the universe came from the BB, yet believes God caused those things, is still technically a creationist.

The people who put up a big fuss (and thus being the people you encounter where the subject actually comes up), however, tended to be the jerks advocating a young Earth and how evolution is wrong. Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc.

 

[WookieeB]

my interpretation of the link you provided...

they asked for peer reviewed scientific journal materials in support of intelligent design right?

This means, that they can throw around the "peer reviewed" phrase as much as they like (which they do in the opening explanation) and only provide maybe 1 or 2 of the actual "peer reviewed scientific journals". It seems like a marketing gimmick/trap right off the bat.

I'm not sure what you mean by "throw around the "peer reviewed" phrase. The articles they cite are either in a peer-reviewed journal or not. It should be a simple matter of determining it is or isn't. I think you are equivocating on the term, but I'll ask you to explain.

And extending that, how can you say they are only providing "1 or 2 of the actual [journals]". The journal names are listed right there, at least 50 of them. Other than your unspecified "1 or 2", which do not qualify?

Instead of being academic and simply GIVING us the full articles, what is there instead?

Well I cannot say with any authority why the articles themselves are not provided, but if I had to guess it is because the journals and the articles in them are not DI's. It is somewhat unethical to be a recognized organization and on your own website to reproduce another recognized organizations content. I suppose they could have linked to the articles, but essentially they have provided enough of a reference in the heading for someone to find them on their own (assuming it is publicly available).

Lets just look at the first article mentioned (the theme is universal in all of the selected material)

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

PEER REVIEWED? YES. RELEVANT AS SUPPORT FOR ID? NO. They pick and choose, ignore most of the content, and then extrapolate how its 'scientific evidence' for ID. So what theyve cleverly done, is given us a peer reviewed article, that has nothing to do with what they claim. If you actually READ that article...

Sure, let's take a look at that article. But first, I want to just point out that we are not discussing whether this article is in a peer reviewed journal. It is in this case, as you concede. So we are only debating whether the content of the article is "relavant as support for ID".

Now I will agree that the words "design" or "intelligent design" do not appear in the article. But do those words explicitly need to be present in order for it to qualify as being supportive of ID? I would say "No. You may disagree, and that is fine with me. But let me explain why I think this article qualifies as "releavent as support for ID".

His introduction lays out that his discussion is to "review the arguments that have been leveled against the concept of evolution", which I would submit in recent times have primarily come from the ID camp. He also references the Kitzmiller v Dover case, and recent debates in the Texas State Board of education over textbooks, both of which have been clearly ID vs Evolution discussions. He establishes that his main areas to discuss are:

weaknesses were raised about three issues:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the
origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to
address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the
multitude of changes involved in the transition
In the sections below, I discuss these three weaknesses and
then provide some concluding thoughts on paradigm shift.

These are all core ID subjects that come up when speaking of Evolutionary processes.

In the body of his article, he talks of OOL theories. After mentioning and referencing modern popular theories like RNA world, thermogenesis, hypercycles, he says:

"those theories still require complex and specifed information contained in functioning proteins, which cannot be explained or self generated" [\quote]

..which is a core ID concept.

For DNA he says:

In addition to the lack of evidence for self-formation of proteins or nucleotides, the fundamental and insurmountable problem with Darwinian evolution lies in the remarkable com-plexity and inherent information contained within DNA (26)"

Again, a core ID concept. (and let me point for other commenters that this is an accurate description of ID in that it combines the factors of complexity and specificity)

He has similar ID-concept statements in regards to protein synthesis.

He has a whole section in discussing Irreducible Complexity (an ID related term), references Michael Behe (a recognized ID proponent scientist), mentions arguments against Nillson's simulation of eye evolution (arguments I have ONLY seen coming from ID related sources), and includes more ID concepts like "specified complexity", and makes a decidedly ID-like statement: " Since it is unreasonable to expect self-formation of the enzymes in perfect proportion simultaneously, eye function represents a system that could not have arisen by gradual mutations"


He has a section that discusses problems with human and ape common ancestry, and problems for evolution to explain the Cambrian explosion - both big ID talking points. His list of references pulls from a few other ID associated authors, like Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells. (Among other references are titles that do have the words "design" and "intelligent design" in them. I'm not pointing this out as being evidence for my contention, but just pointing out a search for the words in the article did produce something)

If that is not enough to convince you that this is an article "relavant as support for ID", then I would invite you to look at critical responses to his article from others that could be considered Kuhn's peers. (http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%202/25_2_Reader_comment.pdf) In there, he is accused of being a "religious creationist" (though there is no mention of God or religious ideas in his article) and of "reheating intelligent design talking points". And there are at least a dozen statements in these responses that are pretty much only seen in evolution vs id debates.

Now all of my references, in this case, are not to argue for or against the merits of Kuhn's arguments, but are just to point out that his paper is relevant to ID.

Bottomline to me: addressing the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory =/= evidence for intelligent design.

Not always, no. But in this specific case, definitely YES. And I would submit that in most cases in recent history any discussion "addressing the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory" = "evidence for intelligent design", within the context of the discussion. There may be exceptions (Thomas Nagels recent book, perhaps), but that is rare.

 

[SpaceYeti]

No. Even if you disproved the entire theory of evolution, every single aspect of it, tomorrow, that just means we lack an explanation, it doesn't lend credence to any alternate theory or hypothesis. It's kind of like winning a race by injuring the other racers instead of by actually being a good runner and passing them through your own physical prowess. A theory is a theory based on it's merits, not it's oppositions lack thereof.

 

[The Introvert]

No. Even if you disproved the entire theory of evolution, every single aspect of it, tomorrow, that just means we lack an explanation, it doesn't lend credence to any alternate theory or hypothesis. It's kind of like winning a race by injuring the other racers instead of by actually being a good runner and passing them through your own physical prowess. A theory is a theory based on it's merits, not it's oppositions lack thereof.

Seconded

 

[joal0503]

I'm not sure what you mean by "throw around the "peer reviewed" phrase. The articles they cite are either in a peer-reviewed journal or not. It should be a simple matter of determining it is or isn't. I think you are equivocating on the term, but I'll ask you to explain.

And extending that, how can you say they are only providing "1 or 2 of the actual [journals]". The journal names are listed right there, at least 50 of them. Other than your unspecified "1 or 2", which do not qualify?

its playing off of our recognition of KEYWORD phrasing...pretty obvious is it not?....we live in the day of technology where that is how they are going to manipulate YOUR thoughts...(not a conspiracy, just a clever ol trick) ... when a debate such as this arises...where do you think the FIRST site of material is going to pop up when one seeks for "peer reviewed" journals in support of ID?!?! The Discovery Institute...Because NO other legitimate site of information and actual published peer review journals have devoted sections for "Intelligent Design" ...

So when you factor that in, to their clever deception. It technically is a PEER REVIEWED source, absolutely NOT DENYING THAT. What I am denying is its relevence and interpretation claiming these articles to be "PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN" they are clearly NOT. A more accurate , less deceptive description would be "A collection of peer reviewed journals completely extrapolated and picked over by staff members of the Discovery Institute." (but you can see how this is FAR less effective in tricking the simple minded)....You see this ISNT THE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES...AT ALLL...Its interpretation from a secondary source ONLY listed as


By: Staff
Discovery Institute

Well I cannot say with any authority why the articles themselves are not provided, but if I had to guess it is because the journals and the articles in them are not DI's. It is somewhat unethical to be a recognized organization and on your own website to reproduce another recognized organizations content. I suppose they could have linked to the articles, but essentially they have provided enough of a reference in the heading for someone to find them on their own (assuming it is publicly available).

See, now I would stop right there...You are able to RECOGNIZE, that something is not quite right...the points you make here, are exactly what any person who THINKS, would be thinking...Why second guess your gut?! To me, its perfectly obvious WHY they dont link the material...because IF you do seek out these articles and actually READ THEM FOR YOURSELF...you see the clear case of bullshit.



Sure, let's take a look at that article. But first, I want to just point out that we are not discussing whether this article is in a peer reviewed journal. It is in this case, as you concede. So we are only debating whether the content of the article is "relavant as support for ID".

Now I will agree that the words "design" or "intelligent design" do not appear in the article. But do those words explicitly need to be present in order for it to qualify as being supportive of ID? I would say "No. You may disagree, and that is fine with me. But let me explain why I think this article qualifies as "releavent as support for ID".

His introduction lays out that his discussion is to "review the arguments that have been leveled against the concept of evolution", which I would submit in recent times have primarily come from the ID camp. He also references the Kitzmiller v Dover case, and recent debates in the Texas State Board of education over textbooks, both of which have been clearly ID vs Evolution discussions. He establishes that his main areas to discuss are:


These are all core ID subjects that come up when speaking of Evolutionary processes.

In the body of his article, he talks of OOL theories. After mentioning and referencing modern popular theories like RNA world, thermogenesis, hypercycles, he says:

"those theories still require complex and specifed information contained in functioning proteins, which cannot be explained or self generated" [\quote]

..which is a core ID concept.

For DNA he says:

Again, a core ID concept. (and let me point for other commenters that this is an accurate description of ID in that it combines the factors of complexity and specificity)

He has similar ID-concept statements in regards to protein synthesis.

He has a whole section in discussing Irreducible Complexity (an ID related term), references Michael Behe (a recognized ID proponent scientist), mentions arguments against Nillson's simulation of eye evolution (arguments I have ONLY seen coming from ID related sources), and includes more ID concepts like "specified complexity", and makes a decidedly ID-like statement: " Since it is unreasonable to expect self-formation of the enzymes in perfect proportion simultaneously, eye function represents a system that could not have arisen by gradual mutations"


He has a section that discusses problems with human and ape common ancestry, and problems for evolution to explain the Cambrian explosion - both big ID talking points. His list of references pulls from a few other ID associated authors, like Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells. (Among other references are titles that do have the words "design" and "intelligent design" in them. I'm not pointing this out as being evidence for my contention, but just pointing out a search for the words in the article did produce something)

If that is not enough to convince you that this is an article "relavant as support for ID", then I would invite you to look at critical responses to his article from others that could be considered Kuhn's peers. (http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%202/25_2_Reader_comment.pdf) In there, he is accused of being a "religious creationist" (though there is no mention of God or religious ideas in his article) and of "reheating intelligent design talking points". And there are at least a dozen statements in these responses that are pretty much only seen in evolution vs id debates.

Now all of my references, in this case, are not to argue for or against the merits of Kuhn's arguments, but are just to point out that his paper is relevant to ID.

Not always, no. But in this specific case, definitely YES. And I would submit that in most cases in recent history any discussion "addressing the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory" = "evidence for intelligent design", within the context of the discussion. There may be exceptions (Thomas Nagels recent book, perhaps), but that is rare.

Spaceyeti and the Introvert covered my response here. I still stand by what I said earlier...that Kuhn article DOES DO A GOOD JOB AT dissecting the holes in darwinism, but its clear that the intent of that article was not to support ID...it was merely addressing the holes, and then along came the Discovery Institute and said, "hey we can totally spin this in our favor, see! look hes rejecting darwinism!"

reeeeeed

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@thehabitatdoctor and @The Introvert
I don't know if I'll get to a proper response but thank you for posts #75 and #83. Agent Intellect's thread was helpful.

I've learned a bit more about evolution, though my specific confusion hasn't been resolved. After doing some reading I've found my questions concern evolutionary developmental biology, evolutionary physiology and ecophysiology. In other words, the "macro" side of speciation; the role of new and mutated genes in the gene pool in the process of long-term physiological development and permanent alteration of the body plan. I think I'll just continue searching information on the internet to avoid misunderstandings here.



Somewhat related, but I also wonder about the tendency of hindsight bias in regards to evolutionary speculation(probably more of an issue in the evo-psychology field).

 

[WookieeB]

its playing off of our recognition of KEYWORD phrasing...pretty obvious is it not?....we live in the day of technology where that is how they are going to manipulate YOUR thoughts...(not a conspiracy, just a clever ol trick) ... when a debate such as this arises...where do you think the FIRST site of material is going to pop up when one seeks for "peer reviewed" journals in support of ID?!?! The Discovery Institute...Because NO other legitimate site of information and actual published peer review journals have devoted sections for "Intelligent Design" ...

So when you factor that in, to their clever deception. It technically is a PEER REVIEWED source, absolutely NOT DENYING THAT. What I am denying is its relevence and interpretation claiming these articles to be "PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN" they are clearly NOT. A more accurate , less deceptive description would be "A collection of peer reviewed journals completely extrapolated and picked over by staff members of the Discovery Institute." (but you can see how this is FAR less effective in tricking the simple minded)....You see this ISNT THE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES...AT ALLL...Its interpretation from a secondary source ONLY listed as


By: Staff
Discovery Institute

Ok, I spent a few days looking and thinking about this post, but I have to honestly say I don't think I understand what you are saying here. You seem to be hinting that there is some sort of conspiracy, but you don't come out and say what it is.

My point regarding the "peer-review" portion was whether or not the cited articles are peer-reviewed or not. It doesn't matter who cites them (DI in this case), or in how it is cited (whether the DI site actually links or posts the content of the articles). It also doesnt matter what the intent or desire of the authors or DI is in regards to the actual journals. They are either peer reviewed or not. If you can point out one that isn't that they say is, then you have something on this side of the argument.

See, now I would stop right there...You are able to RECOGNIZE, that something is not quite right...the points you make here, are exactly what any person who THINKS, would be thinking...Why second guess your gut?! To me, its perfectly obvious WHY they dont link the material...because IF you do seek out these articles and actually READ THEM FOR YOURSELF...you see the clear case of bullshit.

There is no conspiracy here; there is nothing that "is not quite right". There is no explanation for why there are no links (or full post of the article) because it is not an issue. Nothing is being hidden, there is no evidence that they do not want people to read the articles. The articles are pretty much available on the internet. They are not hiding the who or where of the article.

I have read a number of the articles, though not all. I am not seeing the clear case of BS you envision.

Spaceyeti and the Introvert covered my response here. I still stand by what I said earlier...that Kuhn article DOES DO A GOOD JOB AT dissecting the holes in darwinism, but its clear that the intent of that article was not to support ID...it was merely addressing the holes, and then along came the Discovery Institute and said, "hey we can totally spin this in our favor, see! look hes rejecting darwinism!"

If disproving the darwinist theory of evolution was all that was going on, I would agree with you. But that is only half of the story.

Historical scientific inquiry often employs a method of reasoning known as the abductive method of inference to the best explanation from multiple competing hypotheses. This methodology asks, "Given what we know about the explanatory efficacy of the various competing hypotheses, which cause best explains the evidence we observe?" So in order to answer that question, you do have to examine the competing hypotheses, and in the case of ID that means examining the explanatory power of darwinian evolution. So any discussion "addressing the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory" could be considered as 'supportive of Intelligent Design', regardless of the main intent or the author or article.

The article, journal or author doesnt require some official DI stamp: "ID approved" to be "supportive" of an idea. It can do so on its merits alone, again irrespective of the author/journal's intent.

And when you have an article like Kuhn's that 1) addresses the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory, 2) uses 'icons' of ID theory like Irreducible Complexity, information in DNA, the complex eye, etc.., 3) quotes and references a number of known ID authors/books, and 4) references a "paradigm shift' in thought away from Darwinism though doesn't state where it is going to,....... I think you can infer that it is "supportive of ID", if even indirectly. Nobody is making a claim more than this.

 

[Duxwing]

Ok, I spent a few days looking and thinking about this post, but I have to honestly say I don't think I understand what you are saying here. You seem to be hinting that there is some sort of conspiracy, but you don't come out and say what it is.

My point regarding the "peer-review" portion was whether or not the cited articles are peer-reviewed or not. It doesn't matter who cites them (DI in this case), or in how it is cited (whether the DI site actually links or posts the content of the articles). It also doesnt matter what the intent or desire of the authors or DI is in regards to the actual journals. They are either peer reviewed or not. If you can point out one that isn't that they say is, then you have something on this side of the argument.


There is no conspiracy here; there is nothing that "is not quite right". There is no explanation for why there are no links (or full post of the article) because it is not an issue. Nothing is being hidden, there is no evidence that they do not want people to read the articles. The articles are pretty much available on the internet. They are not hiding the who or where of the article.

I have read a number of the articles, though not all. I am not seeing the clear case of BS you envision.

If disproving the darwinist theory of evolution was all that was going on, I would agree with you. But that is only half of the story.

Historical scientific inquiry often employs a method of reasoning known as the abductive method of inference to the best explanation from multiple competing hypotheses. This methodology asks, "Given what we know about the explanatory efficacy of the various competing hypotheses, which cause best explains the evidence we observe?" So in order to answer that question, you do have to examine the competing hypotheses, and in the case of ID that means examining the explanatory power of darwinian evolution. So any discussion "addressing the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory" could be considered as 'supportive of Intelligent Design', regardless of the main intent or the author or article.

The article, journal or author doesnt require some official DI stamp: "ID approved" to be "supportive" of an idea. It can do so on its merits alone, again irrespective of the author/journal's intent.

And when you have an article like Kuhn's that 1) addresses the fallacies and holes in Darwin's theory, 2) uses 'icons' of ID theory like Irreducible Complexity, information in DNA, the complex eye, etc.., 3) quotes and references a number of known ID authors/books, and 4) references a "paradigm shift' in thought away from Darwinism though doesn't state where it is going to,....... I think you can infer that it is "supportive of ID", if even indirectly. Nobody is making a claim more than this.

His point is that Discovery Institute research should not be categorized as "peer-reviewed" because the term "peer review" implies that the peers in question are impartial to the conclusion being drawn from the data and that the peers in the Discovery Institute, ostensibly, are not. Such a criticism is espeically apt if Kuhn is a Discovery Institute researcher: citing those authors who personally support a new hypothesis, as opposed to disinterested ones, introduces the potential for bias to flow from the data to the overall analysis.

Do correct me if the underlined assertion is incorrect, though; I was too lazy to do the research.

Also, as a matter of curiosity, do you assert that "fallacies and holes [exist] in Darwin's theory"?

-Duxwing

 

[WookieeB]

His point is that Discovery Institute research should not be categorized as "peer-reviewed" because the term "peer review" implies that the peers in question are impartial to the conclusion being drawn from the data and that the peers in the Discovery Institute, ostensibly, are not. Such a criticism is espeically apt if Kuhn is a Discovery Institute researcher:

Pardon, but what do you mean by "Discovery Institute research"? Most of the cited journals are not in any way connected to Discover Institute. And many of the authors also are not in any way connected to Discovery Institute. This article by Joseph Kuhn is an example of both - journal: Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, author - not a Discovery Institute researcher. So I'm not sure how you can claim again some conspiracy or bias in the peer review.

And what is your evidence of any peer review that "the peers in the Discovery Institute, ostensibly, are not," impartial in the same way that any other peer-review is.

And frankly, do you think that peer-review for pro-Darwinian ideas implies that the peers in question are impartial to the conclusion being drawn from the data all the time? Please! That is like saying MSNBC is impartial to a Republicans. Pot meet kettle. (I'm not saying that YOU are necessarily holding this position (wasnt implied in your comment), but some do)

My point is this area was to just determine Yes or No if it is peer reviewed. Coming back and saying that its not really peer review because you don't like the conclusion is just moving the goal posts.

citing those authors who personally support a new hypothesis, as opposed to disinterested ones, introduces the potential for bias to flow from the data to the overall analysis.

This statement cuts both ways just as easily. Whether or not an author or scientist supports whichever hypotheses is irrelevant. Avoiding the potential for bias and following the evidence wherever it leads is the responsibility of the scientist, regardless of their personally held beliefs.

Also, as a matter of curiosity, do you assert that "fallacies and holes [exist] in Darwin's theory"?

-Duxwing

Of course, yes.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Wookie, I don't know if you're being obtuse on accident or not. Several people have already pointed out the fact that the articles which actually are peer reviewed are not about ID, and that there are some articles which aren't even from peer journals. I, personally, didn't look at all of them, but I don't need to. The site claims those articles are peer-reviewed and support ID. I looked at about four myself, and none of them were peer-reviewed articles about ID. The site lied. Why would I trust them? If they have legitimate peer-reviewed articles about ID, find them for me, because I'm not wasting my time.

If the fact that your most reliable source of this information makes bald-faced lies doesn't motivate you to consider that they may not be the best source of information, then fine, but don't act like we, or the scientific community at large, are the closed-minded jerks.

 

[WookieeB]

there are some articles which aren't even from peer journals.

OK, which? Give me just one.

The site claims those articles are peer-reviewed and support ID. I looked at about four myself, and none of them were peer-reviewed articles about ID. The site lied.

Ok, which four, please.

Why would I trust them? If they have legitimate peer-reviewed articles about ID, find them for me, because I'm not wasting my time.

The list I gave is entitled: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Now perhaps you do not really understand what the theory of intelligent design really is, so you cannot recognize when something relates to it.

C'mon, there are a whole bunch listed there. Give me one that doesnt satisfy the requirement. I've already discussed the first one the list with Joal. If that one doesn't fit, then we'll just have to disagree and don't bother yourself.

If the fact that your most reliable source of this information makes bald-faced lies doesn't motivate you to consider that they may not be the best source of information, then fine, but don't act like we, or the scientific community at large, are the closed-minded jerks.

"Bald-faced lies" implies a certain amount of nefariousness to it, which I think in no way you or anyone else commenting here has established. At best all you have is a disagreement between us on what constitutes 'support' of an idea.

I never said the scientific community were closed-minded jerks. Nor have I labeled that specific charge at anyone on these forums to my knowledge. Though if the impression is that I have come off as saying you are a closed-minded jerk, I apologize. But I would also just say look in a mirror. You have accused me with at least, if not more, of the same intent.

 

[SpaceYeti]

OK, which? Give me just one.

Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).

Reason; BIO-Complexity is not a respected peer-review journal. Bio-Complexity is the Discovery Institute's own journal. They're basically citing themselves.

They cited their own journal seven times, btw.

Ok, which four, please.

The above listed article, as well as;

2) Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

This article is written by a medical surgeon, and peer reviewed by medical doctors. They're not biologists. Biology and medicine are related fields, but medical doctors aren't the peers of biologists. Further, on actually reading, you can see it's full of fairly typical ID arguments anyhow. Finally, it's a survey article, not a research article.

3) Øyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 28:1000–1004 (2006).

This article simply doesn't support ID. It kind of seems to, but it's really just a paper about how something unlikely is improbable... Duh.

4) Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

When I read through to find the fourth article I read, I skipped by this one a few times before recognizing it. Then I remembered I didn't actually read it because I saw it was another BIO-Complexity paper and I lacked the patience to try to find a different article to read. So touche, you got me. I only read three of them.

The list I gave is entitled: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

I could create a site titled "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the First Hand Claims of Alien Abduction". Calling my BS "Peer-reviewed" does not lend it credibility. I'm more concerned with something actually getting reviewed by experts in the relevant field than what it's labelled.

"Bald-faced lies" implies a certain amount of nefariousness to it, which I think in no way you or anyone else commenting here has established. At best all you have is a disagreement between us on what constitutes 'support' of an idea.

There is a certain amount of nefariousness to it. The ID movement is basically a lie. It's an attempt to get religious ideas taught in high school class rooms through posing as a secular, scientific discipline, just like the Creationism movement before it, and from which it spawned. It is, in fact, a further refinement of "Creation Science", better disguised.

I don't care about mundane "support", I care about "scientific merit", in this case. This is, as the proponents claim, scientific. So prove it.

I never said the scientific community were closed-minded jerks. Nor have I labeled that specific charge at anyone on these forums to my knowledge. Though if the impression is that I have come off as saying you are a closed-minded jerk, I apologize. But I would also just say look in a mirror. You have accused me with at least, if not more, of the same intent.

I sure have, because I believe it's true. You're using the Discovery Institute as your primary source for scientific information in this discussion, here. It's silly. The DI has an unabashed history of supporting creationism and then ID. Just read it's wiki article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#History, specifically; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Religious_agenda

Yes, the ID movement claims to be a purely secular, scientific movement, but it's simply not; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_intelligent_design

 

[Hadoblado]

Shitting Christ! YETI 4 PREZ

How the fuck do you have time for that sort of thorough investigation?

 

[SpaceYeti]

To be frank, I have better things to do. I'm actually not satisfied with my investigation. If I had the time, I'd look through every article on the DI site's page in question and read it, as well as read articles replying to or about them (since I'm not the peer of biologists and I can't claim to have the same knowledge they do), and do a thorough background check on the types of things the members of DI have been part of. I simply don't have the time to be that thorough. I doubt anyone here does.

However, my prior experience with ID and Creationism "Science" is that basically all relevant claims are, in some form, total BS. Pick any random, specific claim, research it, and you'll eventually discover it's BS. The real problem is that these people are getting really good at making their BS look like it's not. They've had decades of practice, after all, and dedicate a lot of time to it.

I'm just some curious dude on the internet. Don't take my word for any of this, look into it yourself. Listen to what actual biologists say about it. My only real advantage is how long I've been involved in this particular topic, I'm not any sort of official expert on any of this.

 

[Duxwing]

Pardon, but what do you mean by "Discovery Institute research"? Most of the cited journals are not in any way connected to Discover Institute. And many of the authors also are not in any way connected to Discovery Institute. This article by Joseph Kuhn is an example of both - journal: Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, author - not a Discovery Institute researcher. So I'm not sure how you can claim again some conspiracy or bias in the peer review.

Then I highly recommend that you read your own sources because as SpaceYeti has pointed out that several of them are from the Discovery Institute's own scientific journal.

And what is your evidence of any peer review that "the peers in the Discovery Institute, ostensibly, are not," impartial in the same way that any other peer-review is.

Those who work in an instituition devoted to proving intelligent design could very well face repercussions for not publishing results that support the aforementioned instituion's stated line.

And frankly, do you think that peer-review for pro-Darwinian ideas implies that the peers in question are impartial to the conclusion being drawn from the data all the time? Please! That is like saying MSNBC is impartial to a Republicans. Pot meet kettle. (I'm not saying that YOU are necessarily holding this position (wasnt implied in
your comment), but some do)

The battle that Charles Darwin faced to get his hypothesis accepted among scientists is legendary: he worked in a world utterly permeated by intelligent design advocates and had to fight tooth and nail-- oftentimes reworking the details of his hypothesis to better fit the data-- to convince his peers that the vast complexity of life arose from adaptation by natural selection.

My point is this area was to just determine Yes or No if it is peer reviewed. Coming back and saying that its not really peer review because you don't like the conclusion is just moving the goal posts.

We already have a definition of "peer-reviewed," so we haven't committed a No True Scotsman Fallacy, and your accusation of dishonesty is simply unnecessary: our arguments will either stand or fall.

This statement cuts both ways just as easily. Whether or not an author or scientist supports whichever hypotheses is irrelevant. Avoiding the potential for bias and following the evidence wherever it leads is the responsibility of the scientist, regardless of their personally held beliefs.

Ah, how idealistic of you: eliminating bias is the responsibility of those who perform the meta-analysis as well, so don't just trust that scientists won't lie to support their own
careers.

Of course, yes.

Thanks for clearing that up.

-Duxwing

 

[walfin]

Evolution seems to only cover retrograde movement(what was it previously?), it doesn't seem to be able to answer the question of forward development (how did it become this? ). What can?

Tl;dr but I don't think anyone has pointed this out in this thread.

http://www.terrierman.com/russianfoxfarmstudy.pdf

Selection of one trait can result in development of others. The reasons are not fully understood yet.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Tl;dr but I don't think anyone has pointed this out in this thread.

http://www.terrierman.com/russianfoxfarmstudy.pdf

Selection of one trait can result in development of others. The reasons are not fully understood yet.

Isn't it because the behavioral traits they were selecting for(obedience) were rooted in chemicals/genes? I understood they believed there was evidence suggesting certain traits were related to juvenile physiological chemicals/genes (floppy ears, shortened & curly tails, wavy hair, etc).

 

[The Introvert]

I like this thread.

Something I learned the other day is that prolonged exposure to drugs (such as nicotine and morphine) can actually change your genes. This is just another form of epigenetics - a twist in your typical Darwinistic hereditary/ mutation* driven evolution.

Of course, there are also viruses that incorporate their genes into ours (via reverse transcription and transposable elements) which is another alternative to novel and viable (in that it is heritable) appearances of genetic material.

*Darwin himself didn't actually suggest mutations (I don't think), but that's commonly the most accepted (and in my opinion wildly overused) explanation of 'new' genetic material.

 

[scenefinale]

I haven't read the thread yet, so apologies if it has been mentioned already, but I would urge you all to watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos: A Spacetime Odysess. He gives one of the best explanations I've ever heard with great animation too. He has visualizations of how the DNA is working at low level. It's superb.
The episode in particular to which I am referring is Episode 2: "Some of the Things That Molecules Do"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2987754/?ref_=ttep_ep2
It is a take on Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and Tyson even pays homage to Sagan's original animation too:
http://youtu.be/gZpsVSVRsZk?t=6m
"Those are some of the things that molecules do given four billion years of evolution." -- Carl Sagan


Dr. Tyson also gives an overview of the eye's evolution, which is ever so beautiful.

 

[scenefinale]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

 

[The Introvert]

another evolution advocate!

Are you obsessed, or do you just have a passing interest? ANSWER NAO

 

[SpaceYeti]

I like the term "evolution advocate".

I call them "guys who are sick of assholes trying to deny a scientific fact with misrepresentations of truth and outright lies".

And now there's this whole anti-vax movement, which is the direct result of people thinking it's okay to presume they know better than experts. What's with this shit?

 

[The Introvert]

Anti-vax: Anti-vaccination?

I don't know. I could rant for days. It's good to see you back though, yeti.

We could divert this thread into a bash against anti-evolutionists... I'd be down.

 

[Jennywocky]

Looks like CA just got hit with 50+ measles cases, from the anti-vaxxers. Fun.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Herd immunity is for chumps. My hometown is breaking out, too. Remember back when we were virtually rid of measles and whooping cough? Those were they days. But sure, it's the parents right to put people with immune-deficiency disorders at risk. Right?

RIGHT?!

Fuck anti-science fucks.

 

[The Introvert]

No, see, what you do is you push for herd immunity.

"If nobody gets vaccinated then our population dynamics will work like those of her immunity; if everyone does the same thing, we'll all be safer".

Then sit in your basement for the next several years while disease runs rampant above, decimating the human population. Break from your hibernation like Christ as a god or religious figure to the crumbled society and rule the earth.

Simple.

Just make sure you stock up enough food to outlast apocalypse.

 

[Grayman]

Herd immunity is for chumps. My hometown is breaking out, too. Remember back when we were virtually rid of measles and whooping cough? Those were they days. But sure, it's the parents right to put people with immune-deficiency disorders at risk. Right?

RIGHT?!

Fuck anti-science fucks.

Most drugs go through many years of testing but I have heard concerns that the flu shot go through considerably less testing than most drugs or vaccines. I have heard that this is an acceptable necessity due to the little foreknowledge of what flu will come our direction however there are strict and well tested procedures and processes that allow for confidence in the safety of these shots.

I have further concerns regarding this but don't want to pursue them if this information is entirely incorrect. I could find little information on the internet on this very specific topic.

I am advocating profusely for most any vaccine but the flu shot in particular is a concern for me.

 

[The Introvert]

So - what you've said intuitively makes sense. It would make sense that the yearly flu vaccinations may not necessarily be so helpful as other vaccinations, such as those for measles, because the flu mutates yearly.

My question is: what is the concern? Do you know how vaccinations work? (if so, I needn't explain the procedure - not trying to be rude). Are you afraid that some sort of damage will occur if you get your flu shot?

I'm no expert on flu shots (seeing as I have never gotten one myself, as I see it unnecessary due to my relatively young age and healthy immune system) but it would seem to me that at worst it's a waste of your time. At worst you're granting yourself immunity to something that will never be a threat to you - at best you're guarding yourself from a potentially nasty sickness that in certain cases could even be deadly (infants and elderly).

I understand the skepticism for getting a flu shot - sometimes it'd simply be a waste of time and money. But I don't understand concern for your health by getting one, unless you're exposed to some other kinds of sicknesses in the process that you wouldn't normally be exposed to (illnesses tend to congregate in hospitals, funny how that happens). I'm hoping all of us here aren't fooled by the "vaccines cause autism" baloney or any of the other garbage nonsense that somehow manages to trickle into mainstream media.

 

[Grayman]

So - what you've said intuitively makes sense. It would make sense that the yearly flu vaccinations may not necessarily be so helpful as other vaccinations, such as those for measles, because the flu mutates yearly.

My question is: what is the concern? Do you know how vaccinations work? (if so, I needn't explain the procedure - not trying to be rude). Are you afraid that some sort of damage will occur if you get your flu shot?

The first concern is that they believe the risk too high to not do long term testing with most drugs due to the fact that issues may not show up for years. Why is it okay with the flu shot? How can we be certain an issue won't eventually show?

The second is that just because a procedure exists does not mean that there cannot be a mistake.

The last is that a procedure no matter how complex cannot accommodate for every change in input. Eventually nature could create something outside of what we would expect and cause issues.

 

[SpaceYeti]

The first concern is that they believe the risk too high to not do long term testing with most drugs due to the fact that issues may not show up for years. Why is it okay with the flu shot? How can we be certain an issue won't eventually show?

The second is that just because a procedure exists does not mean that there cannot be a mistake.

The last is that a procedure no matter how complex cannot accommodate for every change in input. Eventually nature could create something outside of what we would expect and cause issues.

The flu is a very chaotic virus. It mutates fast, with several new strains dominating every single year. It's impossible to properly test a flu vaccine for more than one year because then, by the time the vaccine gets used, the strain it immunizes against has already mutated into a new one that requires a brand new vaccine. Also, each flu vaccine generally immunizes against three strains which are predicted to dominate each year, though if you spend a few more bucks you can toss a fourth one in there.

Basically, testing the flu vaccine as stringently as other vaccines are tested would be like buckling your seat-belt half an hour after you've already gotten out of your car at your destination.

 

[Grayman]

The flu is a very chaotic virus. It mutates fast, with several new strains dominating every single year. It's impossible to properly test a flu vaccine for more than one year because then, by the time the vaccine gets used, the strain it immunizes against has already mutated into a new one that requires a brand new vaccine. Also, each flu vaccine generally immunizes against three strains which are predicted to dominate each year, though if you spend a few more bucks you can toss a fourth one in there.

Basically, testing the flu vaccine as stringently as other vaccines are tested would be like buckling your seat-belt half an hour after you've already gotten out of your car at your destination.

Yes that is why I am concerned. It is believed drugs should be tested at great lengths of time for other vaccines and drugs because it is safer. What you offered me was that the vaccine is made and tested in a less safe way out of necessity for it to be any use at all. Why shouldn't i feel unsafe taking the flu vaccine if other drugs are considered 'unsafe' and unfit for mass production by the FDA unless tested at a greater length of time?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yes that is why I am concerned. It is believed drugs should be tested at great lengths of time for other vaccines and drugs because it is safer. What you offered me was that the vaccine is made and tested in a less safe way out of necessity for it to be any use at all. Why shouldn't i feel unsafe taking the flu vaccine if other drugs are considered 'unsafe' and unfit for mass production by the FDA unless tested at a greater length of time?

Because it's no different from any other vaccine? They're not including anything chemically experimental in it. It's just like any other vaccine, it just has dead flu in it. It's not a brand new medicine that requires experimentation to determine if it's safe. We already know it's safe. It's only experimented with to determine it's effectiveness.

 

[Grayman]

Because it's no different from any other vaccine? They're not including anything chemically experimental in it. It's just like any other vaccine, it just has dead flu in it. It's not a brand new medicine that requires experimentation to determine if it's safe. We already know it's safe. It's only experimented with to determine it's effectiveness.

The virus is different and although dead can still have consequences for those differences. This is, in my understanding, why they cannot make a vaccine for HIV. It is a fear that HIV vaccines might even cause a person to contract the virus even though they try to use dead virus.


http://www.aidsmap.com/Why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-a-vaccine-against-HIV/page/1271042/

He said HIV vaccine development was difficult because of the following factors:

An HIV vaccine cannot consist of attenuated, actively replicating (live) HIV, due to possible reactivation.
Killed whole virus (like the polio vaccine) might also be dangerous because one could not be sure one has killed all viral particles. A killed whole virus vaccine had also worked poorly in animal studies.

I am not saying that this exact thing will happen with a flu virus but that the effects of each virus in the vaccine are unknown because they are not fully tested.

A minor risk is normally acceptable. Sometimes a drug can get through the system and then need to be recalled. However, the entire population is expected to take this drug.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You're blowing this out of proportion. The worst thing that can happen with a flu vaccine, assuming it's terrible super-flu, is that people just get the flu. They test to ensure against that, too. I mean, they make sure it's a vaccine, not just a flu-injection. You're also ignoring that there's nothing actually new about it except the virus strains. It's not brand-new medicine requiring years of study to figure out if it's safe. That simply doesn't apply.

 

[Pyropyro]

The virus is different and although dead can still have consequences for those differences. This is, in my understanding, why they cannot make a vaccine for HIV. It is a fear that HIV vaccines might even cause a person to contract the virus even though they try to use dead virus.


http://www.aidsmap.com/Why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-a-vaccine-against-HIV/page/1271042/


I am not saying that this exact thing will happen with a flu virus but that the effects of each virus in the vaccine are unknown because they are not fully tested.

A minor risk is normally acceptable. Sometimes a drug can get through the system and then need to be recalled. However, the entire population is expected to take this drug.

Inactivated vaccines are a bit too old school for my tastes and since there is a threat of reactivation. I think DNA vaccines and protein subunit vaccines (which are now in clinical trials for different viruses) would be safer bets.

 

[8151147]

As mentioned the evolution, anyone remember Richard Dawkins? His criticism against religion gave me a cancer and ridiculous laughs. He is a childish INTP to me anyhow.

 

[The Introvert]

Either way I deem the conversation irrelevant because I don't find flu shots to be all that useful. To me, anti-vaxers are those that refuse life-long immunities to more serious illnesses.

 

[Grayman]

Either way I deem the conversation irrelevant because I don't find flu shots to be all that useful. To me, anti-vaxers are those that refuse life-long immunities to more serious illnesses.

Where I live the anti-flu shot people are considered radical

I am of the opinion people who work around children or the old should be required to take them but hten there is the argument that points out a seemingly healthy person can have an autoimmune disorder. Personally I don't feel the need since I work alone and not around people and I have no children.