|
|
| Author |
Message |
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: "The Edge of Evolution" Michael Behe |
 |
|
In his new book M. Behe explains the limits of the power of random mutations and therefore the limits of evolutionary pressure.
Darwin always depended upon massive amounts of animals over eons of time and yet the amount of even humans over the millions of years of our existence is not enough time for any evolutionary change to occur.
Whereas the bacteria have as many as 10 *20th power individuals each generation and they can in fact evolve within the time frame we might actually notice.
Behe focuses on Malaria and the evolutionary changes it has made and/or failed to make in the lifetimes of humans. Sickle cell trait is a single protein difference in the hemoglobin of the human, yet it grants immunity from Malaria. Even a carrier of the sickle cell trait will be free from malaria.
Malaria has in fact adapted to humans use of some anti-malarial drugs especially Chloroquine. Without going into the mechanism of how it works against Malaria, the Malaria will adapt in just a few generations of the bacteria and the drug becomes much less effective. (Months in human time.) If use of this drug is stopped and another substituted for it (for about another three months) the chloroquine will regain its effectiveness.
Whereas the malaria bacterium has yet to overcome the natural change brought about by the sickle cell and those with sickle cell trait maintain their immunity.
Simply put there are far too few of the major animals/humans to allow for the forces of evolution to bring about the effectiveness of those evolutionary forces. Whereas the bacteria and viruses are able to adapt in this fashion. According to Behe there needs to be at least 10*40th power individuals in a given population before any evolutionary events will show, far more than all the humans ever to live on Earth.
Behe accepts that what is call micro-evolution has always worked but there just isn't enough time and individuals for the forces of evolution to bring about major shifts in animals even with the billions of years and billions of humans here on earth.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6093
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Darwin always depended upon massive amounts of animals over eons of time and yet the amount of even humans over the millions of years of our existence is not enough time for any evolutionary change to occur. |
You believe humans haven't evolved at all since the inception of Homo s. s.?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Whereas the malaria bacterium has yet to overcome the natural change brought about by the sickle cell and those with sickle cell trait maintain their immunity. |
Well, yes. Do you understand why malaria doesn't affect those with sickle-cell disease or did you simply take Behe's word for it?
One might as well argue that due to the fact that bacteria haven't evolved to counteract the denaturing effects of alcohol there are problems with the theory of evolution.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes in fact but it would take the whole book to explain it properly. Essentially when the bacterium comes into contact with a cell that cell just immediately dies rather than allowing the bacterium to use its own DNA for replication, the cell is sloughed off with the bacterium and it leaves the body. It has to do with the molecular shape of the sickle chromosome and the bacterium. The protein mechanisms within the cell just jams up preventing any further reproduction.
The mechanism for Malaria to defeat the chloroquine merely takes a single difference in its protein configuration a mutation that can easily take place with a few generations for the malaria bacterium. But the chance of multiple and mutually beneficial mutations that would be required to defeat the sickle cell issue requires more than the total amount of bacterium in the history of the world.
The whole nature of DNA with its enormous amount of positions that control features within an animal body means that the odds of anything seriously changing our human bodies would require more humans than have ever lived on Earth, unless it is interfered with.
Statistically not possible for the larger animals since their populations are far to few for evolution to "Randomly" cause such a change. Remember Darwin wrote about evolution is terms that required completely random and non directed changes. The chances of a negative mutation is just as good as a beneficial one.
Both I and Behe agree with the concept of micro-evolution meaning development within a species. But evolution between species without some positive interference seems far fetched and statistically impossible based upon the DNA changes required.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6093
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | But the chance of multiple and mutually beneficial mutations that would be required to defeat the sickle cell issue requires more than the total amount of bacterium in the history of the world. |
Because it has no chance, no more chance than the common bacterium has against alcohol. It's not something that can be evolved around.
What makes you think this somehow affects the theory of evolution?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Both I and Behe agree with the concept of micro-evolution meaning development within a species. But evolution between species without some positive interference seems far fetched and statistically impossible based upon the DNA changes required. |
Because you appear to be starting from a strawman. The theory of evolution does not predict that malaria will evolve to defeat the defense of sickle-cell disease.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: Re: "The Edge of Evolution" Michael Behe |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | In his new book M. Behe explains the limits of the power of random mutations and therefore the limits of evolutionary pressure.
Darwin always depended upon massive amounts of animals over eons of time and yet the amount of even humans over the millions of years of our existence is not enough time for any evolutionary change to occur.
Whereas the bacteria have as many as 10 *20th power individuals each generation and they can in fact evolve within the time frame we might actually notice.
Behe focuses on Malaria and the evolutionary changes it has made and/or failed to make in the lifetimes of humans. Sickle cell trait is a single protein difference in the hemoglobin of the human, yet it grants immunity from Malaria. Even a carrier of the sickle cell trait will be free from malaria.
Malaria has in fact adapted to humans use of some anti-malarial drugs especially Chloroquine. Without going into the mechanism of how it works against Malaria, the Malaria will adapt in just a few generations of the bacteria and the drug becomes much less effective. (Months in human time.) If use of this drug is stopped and another substituted for it (for about another three months) the chloroquine will regain its effectiveness.
Whereas the malaria bacterium has yet to overcome the natural change brought about by the sickle cell and those with sickle cell trait maintain their immunity.
Simply put there are far too few of the major animals/humans to allow for the forces of evolution to bring about the effectiveness of those evolutionary forces. Whereas the bacteria and viruses are able to adapt in this fashion. According to Behe there needs to be at least 10*40th power individuals in a given population before any evolutionary events will show, far more than all the humans ever to live on Earth.
Behe accepts that what is call micro-evolution has always worked but there just isn't enough time and individuals for the forces of evolution to bring about major shifts in animals even with the billions of years and billions of humans here on earth. |
Thanx for this, 45.
If evolution were true,
it must have also produced God by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1749
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: "The Edge of Evolution" Michael Behe |
|
|
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced Thor by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced Isis by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced Osiris by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced Loki by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced the Flying Spaghetti Monster by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced the Invisible Pink Unicorn by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced Russell's Teapot by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
| atoz wrote: | If evolution were true, it must have also produced People That Will Not Take The Time To Read TalkOrigins.org by now!smile
in Love as the only real proof of God,
atoz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
  ,...that was...great.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wish i'd have thought of it...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read Michael Behe's new book, the "Edge of Evolution", when it was released last summer. It's a well reasoned scientific argument. It's also a bit technical, but I did get the gist of it.
I am somewhat amazed at the complexity of the cell which has, what I would call, little machines that look like automated conveyer systems in a factory.
The natural selection and mutation concept is proved "scientifically" to work within a very narrow limit. I expect the discoveries laid out in his book to have far reaching consequences.
Darwinism is dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7633
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | I read Michael Behe's new book, the "Edge of Evolution", when it was released last summer. It's a well reasoned scientific argument. |
No, it really isn't. What makes YOU think it's scientific? Are you a scientist?
The reason I ask is because the vast majority of professional scientists agree that the whole concept of 'irreducible complexity' is
a) Unscientific, and
b) False.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | rufus wrote: | | I read Michael Behe's new book, the "Edge of Evolution", when it was released last summer. It's a well reasoned scientific argument. |
No, it really isn't. What makes YOU think it's scientific? Are you a scientist? |
No, but Behe is! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7633
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
No, but Behe is! |
How would you know, if you by your own admission are not educated in science?
How can you tell scientific fact from fiction?
The truth of the matter is that Behe's intelligent design work is extremely unscientific, and his writings have been thoroughly debunked.
In fact, Behe didn't even come up with his ideas; they date back to at least the time of Darwin, and they were thoroughly refuted back then. Most scientists in the 1800s even new that irreducible complexity lacks any scientific merit, and since then its scientific support has dropped to virtually zero.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | rufus wrote: |
No, but Behe is! |
How would you know, if you by your own admission are not educated in science? |
Behe is not a scientist?
Your reasoning is fallacious. It's like saying one could not know that Dr. X is a surgeon unless they themselves were surgeons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7633
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | rufus wrote: |
No, but Behe is! |
How would you know, if you by your own admission are not educated in science? |
Behe is not a scientist?
Your reasoning is fallacious. It's like saying one could not know that Dr. X is a surgeon unless they themselves were surgeons. |
I'm not claiming that Behe is not a scientist, although that argument certainly could be made.
You seem to be a big fan of Behe's ideas, and you seem to think that they are scientific, and I'm asking for your justification for these beliefs. I'm trying to point out that since you yourself admittedly are not a scientist, you've got no clue whether or not Behe's 'theories' are worth spit in any scientific sense.
Because in fact, they are not. The guy violates the basic methodology in scientific thinking so badly that it would be reasonable to say that he is not a scientist. At the very least we can say that he is a very bad scientist.
Intelligent design and irreducible complexity are NOT scientific theories. They are both excellent examples of 'junk science'. I'd be happy to elaborate on this if you'd like. In fact, Behe's department thought that it was necessary to post this disclaimer about him:
| Quote: | | While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific. |
By contrast, evolution is an excellent example of good science.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Behe's department thought that it was necessary to post this disclaimer about him:
| Quote: | | While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific. |
|
This disclaimer is nothing more than a position statement. It's like a political statement, that's all. It's like when some people who are department heads at the University of Wisconsin sign some position paper stating that they oppose the state constitutional amendment that recognizes marriarge as between a man and a woman. Or, when they sign a paper endorsing February 12 as Darwin Day (what happened to Lincoln?). Or, when they send a written statement to the state house saying that the University professors should get a 200 percent pay raise, and so forth. It proves nothing except arrogance.
Behe is entitled to his view, and his colleagues are entitled to theirs. What happens if Behe, or someone like him, becomes the head of a department at some college or university? Will they then write a disclaimer saying they don't endorse their own book? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
