GRVDA schreef:Prediker,
waar het om gaat is wat je basis is en waarom je daarvoor kiest.
Ik neem aan dat je Thunderf00t donexodus2 Aronra dprjones enz wel kunt vinden op youtube daar staat het allemaal lekker handig in filmpjes. En je kunt er nog discussieren over de inhoud.
kijk vooral even naar "foundational falsehood" van Aronra.
zo ongeveer alle leugens op een rijtje
met vriendelijke groet,
Een leugen is een onwaarheid die verspreid wordt
met als doel misleiding. De onwaarheden die aan de kaak worden gesteld door Thunderf00t, Aronra en de anderen, zijn niet aantoonbaar met dat doel verspreidt. Ja Kent Hovind heeft aantoonbaar gelogen over zijn belasting aangifte en Ted Haggard over zijn relatie en VenomFangx ten opzichte van de DCMA, en Ben Stein impliciet over het doel van zijn film Expelled, maar dat zijn allen persoonlijke zaken die niets met het creationisme te maken hebben. Dus ja er zijn onwaarheden verkondigt in de discussie rondom creationisme en evolutie, maar niet met als doel misleiding.
Mortlach schreef:Prediker schreef:Dat is de ene kant van het verhaal. Heb jij de transcripts doorgelezen?
Ja.
Heb jij de reactie van Behe gelezen?
Ja.
Heb jij artikelen gelezen die de zaak van de andere kant belichten?
Ja.
Of is bovenstaand een lichtvaardig oordeel over een zaak waar je weinig tot niets over weet?
Dat valt reuze mee, aangezien ik nogal in deze zaak geinteresseerd ben.
Ik begrijp dan niet hoe je tot de volgende uitspraak komt: "
Het werd duidelijk dat Behe dogmatisch aan zijn idee van Intelligent Design vasthield, en weigerde argumenten op te geven zelfs nadat hij direct met stapels bewijs werd geconfronteerd.". Heb hieronder de relevante stukken geplaatst die naar mijn mening een heel ander geluid laten horen.
De transcripts:
Q. Professor Behe, what I have given you has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 743. It actually has a title, "Behe immune system articles," but I think we can agree you didn't write these?
A. I'll have to look through. No, I did not.
Q. And there are fifty-eight articles in here on the evolution of the immune system?
A. Yes. That's what it seems to say.
Q. So in addition to the, some of these I believe overlap with the eight that I previously identified that Dr. Miller had talked about, so at a minimum fifty new articles?
A. Not all of them look to be new. This one here is from 1991 that I opened to, I think it's under tab number 3, it's entitled "Evidence suggesting an evolutionary relationship between transposable elements and immune system recombination sequences." I haven't seen this article, but I assume that it's similar to the ones I presented and discussed in my testimony yesterday.
Q. And when I say new, I just meant different from the eight that I identified with Dr. Miller.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. A minimum of fifty, and you're right they're not all new. Some go back as early as 1971, and they go right through 2005, and in fact there's a few that are dated 2006, which I guess would indicate a forthcoming publication.
A. I assume so.
Q. Okay. So there's at least fifty more articles discussing the evolution of the immune system?
A. And midpoint I am, I certainly haven't had time to look through these fifty articles, but I still am unaware of any that address my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of the immune system.
Q. I think you said in your deposition you would need a step-by-step description?
A. Where in my deposition did I say that?
Q. Do you remember saying that?
A. I probably said something like that, but I would like to see it.
Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.
Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.
Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those?
A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.
Q. It would be a waste of time?
A. It would not be fruitful.
Q. And in addition to articles there's also books written on the immune system?
A lot of books, yes.
Q. And not just the immune system generally, but actually the evolution of the immune system, right?
A. And there are books on that topic as well, yes.
Q. I'm going to read some titles here. We have Evolution of Immune Reactions by Sima and Vetvicka, are you familiar with that?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System, by Pasquier. Evolution and Vertebrate Immunity, by Kelso. The Primordial Vrm System and the Evolution of Vertebrate Immunity, by Stewart. The Phylogenesis of Immune Functions, by Warr. The Evolutionary Mechanisms of Defense Reactions, by Vetvicka. Immunity and Evolution, Marchalonias. Immunology of Animals, by Vetvicka. You need some room here. Can you confirm these are books about the evolution of the immune system?
A. Most of them have evolution or related words in the title, so I can confirm that, but what I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous detailed fashion of how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.
Q. Or transposition and natural selection?
A. Or transposition is a form of mutation, so when I say random mutation, that includes that, yes.
Q. Okay. Even though we have all these articles we have seen discussing the transpositions and the transposon hypothesis?
A. Well, again as I have tried to make clear in my testimony yesterday, often times people when they're working under the aegis of a theory simply assume some component of it, and my example of that was the ether theory of the propagation of light. All of the physicists of the relevant era, the late 19th century, including the most eminent ones, thought that that happened and they thought that ether was absolutely required by their theory, but it had turned out later not to exist. And so as somebody who's not working within a Darwinian framework, I do not see any evidence for the occurrence of random mutation and natural selection.
Q. Let me give you some space there.
A. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
Q. There's also books on the immune system that have chapters on the evolution of the immune system?
A. Yes, and my same comment would apply to those.
Q. I'm just going to read these titles, it sounds like you don't even need to look at them?
A. Please do go ahead and read them.
Q. You've got Immune System Accessory Cells, Fornusek and Vetvicka, and that's got a chapter called "Evolution of Immune Sensory Functions." You've got a book called The Natural History of the Major Histocompatability Complex, that's part of the immune system, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And here we've got chapter called "Evolution." Then we've got Fundamental Immunology, a chapter on the evolution of the immune system.
A lot of writing, huh?
A. Well, these books do seem to have the titles that you said, and I'm sure they have the chapters in them that you mentioned as well, but again I am quite skeptical, although I haven't read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.
Q. You haven't read those chapters?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. You haven't read the books that I gave you?
A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.
Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?
A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.
Q. And all of these materials I gave you and, you know, those, including those you've read, none of them in your view meet the standard you set for literature on the evolution of the immune system? No scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system?
A. Again in the context of that chapter, I meant no answers, no detailed rigorous answers to the question of how the immune system could arise by random mutation and natural selection, and yes, in my, in the reading I have done I have not found any such studies.
Q. Let me see if I can summarize the intelligent design project. You've studied peer reviewed articles about the structure and function of the cell, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you conclude from them that certain structures are irreducibly complex that could not have evolved through natural selection, and therefore are intelligently designed?
A. I conclude from them that we see very detailed molecular machinery in the cell, that it strongly looks like a purposeful arrangement of parts, that in fact a purposeful arrangement of parts is a hallmark of intelligent design. I surveyed the literature and I see no Darwinian explanations for such things. And when one applies one's own reasoning to see how such things would be addressed within a Darwinian framework it's very difficult to see how they would, and so one concludes that one explanation, Darwinian processes, doesn't seem to have a good answer, but that another explanation, intelligent design, does seem to fit better.
Q. And that conclusion tells you design is not one that's being asserted by the people who wrote the articles about the structure and function of the cell?
A. That's correct.
Q. And as we discussed before, one, a conclusion that many have actively disagreed with?
A. That's correct, too.
Q. And you stated that if the natural mechanism is to be accepted, its proponents must publish or perish?
A. I'm sorry.
Q. And then you stated in the Darwin's Black Box that, "If the natural mechanism is to be accepted, its proponents must publish or perish."
A. I'm sorry, can I see that phrase?
Q. Yes, could you go to page 185 and 186 in the chapter "Publish or Perish"?
A. Yes. Okay, and what are you referring to here, sir?
Q. You stated in this book that on the subject of molecular evolution the advocates of the natural mechanism, the Darwinian mechanism, must publish or perish, correct?
A. I'm hanging up on the word natural mechanism. Where does that occur? I don't see that.
Q. The Darwinian mechanism?
A. Okay, Darwinian mechanism. Okay, yes, that's correct.
Q. You conclude the chapter called "Publish or Perish" by saying, "In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish," right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And then all these hard working scientists publish article after article over years and years, chapters and books, full books, addressing the question of how the vertebrate immune system evolved, but none of them are satisfactory to you for an answer to that question?
A. Well, see, that again is an example of confusing the different meanings of evolution. As we have seen before, evolution means a number of things, such as change over time, common descent, gradualism and so on. And when I say Darwinian evolution, that is focusing exactly on the mechanism of natural selection. And none of these articles address that.
Q. Again at the same time you don't publish any peer reviewed articles advocating for the alternative, intelligent design?
A. I have published a book, or -- I have published a book discussing my ideas.
Q. That's Darwin's Black Box, correct?
A. That's the one, yes.
Q. And you also propose tests such as the one we saw in "Reply to My Critics" about how those Darwinians can test your proposition?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don't do those tests?
A. Well, I think someone who thought an idea was incorrect such as intelligent design would be motivated to try to falsify that, and certainly there have been several people who have tried to do exactly that, and I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.
Q. Professor Behe, isn't it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don't agree with their hypothesis?
A. That's true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction.
Q. We'll return to the induction in a few minutes.
A. Yes, sir. Mr. Rothschild, would you like your books back? They're heavy.
Q. Help me get to sleep tonight.
A. Thank you.
En nog een quote uit het boek "Intelligent design will survive Kitzmiller v. Dover":
Judge Jones ruled that a pile of fifty-eight papers dumped upon the witness stand during Behe’s cross-examination refuted the claim that “science would never find an evolutionary
explanation for the immune system.” Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 741 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Judge Jones provided no reference for that claim. Behe merely requested a reasonable standard of evolutionary proof of “detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.” Transcr. of Procs. Afternoon Sess. at 23 (Oct. 19, 2005), Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707. Did the fifty-eight papers meet that standard? One of the papers, an authoritative article recently published in Nature, reveals the answer is “no,” as it clearly discussed the lack of step-by-step accounts of the evolution of key components of the immune system: “In contrast, the deployment of immunoglobulin domains as core components of jawed vertebrate recombinatorial lymphocyte receptors represents an intriguing although as yet untraceable evolutionary innovation, as immune recognition of pathogens and allografts by means of immunoglobulin superfamily members [IG domains] have been shown only in the jawed vertebrates.” Z. Pancer et al., Somatic Diversification of Variable Lymphocyte Receptors in the Agnathan Sea Lamprey, 430 Nature 174, 179 (2004) (emphasis added). Immunoglobulin (IG) domains are a common structure in proteins found throughout biology from bacteria to humans. Id. at 174. When the paper found that the evolution of IG domains is “untraceable,” it was therefore not asking “from what might these structures have been borrowed during evolution?” It was asking the deeper question Behe raises: by what detailed, step-by-step pathway did IG domains come into their critical function in the adaptive immune system? Judge Jones said “each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system” had been “confirmed.” Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 741. Yet Pancer’s recent, authoritative paper reveals that Judge Jones’s finding merely recapitulated the plaintiffs’ literature-dump bluff, and that Behe’s actual arguments were never refuted.
En de reactie van Behe:
(11) In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
Several points:
1) Although the opinion’s phrasing makes it seem to come from my mouth, the remark about the studies being “not good enough” was the cross-examining attorney’s, not mine.
2) I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.
3) The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.
I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection — if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).
4) This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the “fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system” and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them?
In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony.
Mortlach schreef:Nou ja, nou ja, onveranderd? Na de ontdekking van genen, DNA, en sexuele selectie is er aardig wat gesleuteld aan de theorie hoor. Dat het basis-principe overeind blijft lijkt mij getuigen van het feit dat Darwin het simpelweg bij het rechte eind had.
De basis is hetzelfde gebleven, zoals je al aangaf. De drijvende kracht achter evolutie is nog steeds willekeurige mutaties en natuurlijke selectie. Er zijn in de loop van tijd geen nieuwe mechanismen bij gekomen. Seksuele selectie is bijvoorbeeld een vorm van natuurlijke selectie en niet een mechanisme naast natuurlijke selectie.
Mortlach schreef:Ik kan me niet bedenken waar het feit dat ergens veel wetenschappelijk debat over is, een argument is voor of tegen iets. Over quantum mechanica is ook ontzettend veel wetenschappelijk debat, en toch hoor je daar op fora zoals dit nooit iemand over, terwijl die theorie vele malen vreemder is dan de ET.
Het is ook geen argument voor of tegen de evolutie theorie, maar een argument tegen het idee dat de cambrian explosion "perfect" binnen de evolutie theorie past. Als dat namelijk het geval was, dan was er niet zoveel wetenschappelijk debat geweest over dit onderwerp.
), dat jij meer inzicht hebt verkregen dan de ander. De ander heeft namelijk angst voor het onbekende, en kan zelf geen zin aan zijn leven geven. En jij kan dat wel 
