Not only that, but there’s even a Wikipedia article on the topic. How easy is that? 
Lee’s apparent fear of learning anything is becoming quite comical.
2 Likes
Siegfried Scherer is a well-known creationist. So he has the relevant expertise, just not in the ostensible subject of the journal.
Not the paleontologist of that name?
1 Like
Yes, as Lee has already admitted.
The same. I’m sorry if I minimised the relevance to evolutionary biology excessively.
1 Like
Then there was that time when he rejected an experiment on the basis that bottles were shaken prior to pipetting bacterial culture to a new flask, because this shaking was unnatural and we couldn’t prove to his satisfaction that shaking the flask would not induce large amounts of indel mutations.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
5 Likes
Well, again, I mention laptops, with working theorem-proving programs. A reasoning agent produced that, is an example of reason coming from reason.
So you dispute that people insist on real designers for their laptops? Would you fly in a plane that was the result of a mindless, unguided process, with no intent to make a plane, that again, had no designer? “Reason coming from reason” is not some arcane, obscure concept, examples could be multiplied.
Yet you say (do you not?) that human thinking comes from motions of atoms in your brain! Our thinking doesn’t just pop out of thin air, it doesn’t come from nothing, no one says that, not you, not me. But the discussion is now moving around, we were discussing reason, as in our ability to reason, and then you switched to “thinking” per se, as in where thoughts come from.
Oops, did something slip? You just repeated what I said in reply.
Didn’t you claim that motions of atoms in our brains produce our thoughts? If not, what produces them?
I have presented evidence for the soul, OOB experiences, NDEs, Dr. Egnor’s experience as a neurosurgeon.
Oh dear. Did you or did you not just make a post here? What people did or didn’t do are facts about them, they are facts, especially if in the positive sense, they did something. And again, people are considered agents, and their bodies are not considered to participate in agency. People with a missing leg, are they missing some agency? No. Courts do not treat people and their bodies and their tools as together being accountable. The gun is evidence. But it doesn’t go to jail with the person, if they are found guilty.
Actually, I give examples where I think it is so, laptops, you trust them because you know they have a designer, they are not coming from a mindless, unguided process. And people do have reasons, generally, for their beliefs, courts have reasons for treating people as agents, and so on.
Are you thinking people are feeding information about what happened to them when they were unconscious, somehow? That seems odd, why would anyone try and convince someone they knew what happened, and observed it, when they were out?
But you just did just that! What evidence do you have to rule out the supernatural? How could you possibly know it doesn’t exist?
Do you not remember what I said about this? I think a better approach is to examine positive evidence for a soul, if this is true, p-zombies don’t exist, and the question of how to tell beings with souls from p-zombies is irrelevant.
Incredibly lame sounds more accurate. Almost as lame as Bio-Complexity! That’s really the only metric needed to dismiss the journal.
Speaking of getting bogged down in trivialities! Now we’re deciding truth by counting up papers? Idea after idea was kind of a lone voice at first, Copernicus, Einstein, quantum mechanics, even evolution! The question is whether the ID claims are true.
So where has anyone made a point that I had no response to? Where have I been refuted? Where have I had to give up? And I discussed Axe’s response to Art Hunt with people, with Art Hunt, even! And they have not yet shown how Axe is wrong. People make this kind of claim here all the time, and I challenge them to show me one post. Just one. So far, no reply.
No. We are determining the reliability of a person as a scientific authority based on their contributions to the field. Their publication history is one good way of assessing this.
Yes. And if they had remained just lone voices with no supporting evidence, none of them would be remembered today.
The DI’ers have been shrieking their apologetics thru various media for over two decades now. And yet they still have had absolutely no impact on how science is understood and practiced. That’s a pretty good indicator that their ideas are worthless.
1 Like
If your definition of “response” includes writing a bunch of words that only confirm your utter ignorance and stupidity and fail to even correspond to the argument being made, never mind refute it, then sure your have “responded” to most of the points here.
I don’t think anyone here would deny that you write lots of words.
Sez the guy who doesn’t even know what an amino acid side chain is. You are hardly in a position to know if anyone has failed to refute Axe, are you?
Something appears to be broken on the BioCosmos / Paradigm “top-cited” page, “Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life” (2025) does not appear there, and it has 3 citations.
And it’s been pointed out that 10^24 was adjusted to 10^53. The claim was that no other papers have come up with a miniscule result like is in Axe’s paper, this claim is manifestly false.
Sometimes the best comedians are the ones who don’t realize how funny they are.
I wonder who you think has made that claim? Certainly not @Art:
10^-10 → 10^-63 (or thereabout): this is the range of estimates of the density of functional sequences in sequence space that can be found in the scientific literature. The caveats given in Section 2 notwithstanding, Axe’s work does not extend or narrow the range.
That doesn’t change the fact that the articles published in BioCosmos have very few citations.
Here was your claim: “and anyone with basic computer literacy (far less than those who claim to be programmers) can search PubMed for the papers and see that no one has come up with a number as absurdly tiny as Axe’s extrapolation.”
So 1 in 10^63 is not absurdly tiny? Like Axe’s extrapolation? Well it is, and your claim is false.
Now you’re being coy, you know, and can’t say?
Yes, science can progress, people used to think the Milky Way galaxy was all there was to the universe, estimates can be off by quite a bit. So we keep at it, like people here insist Axe should be doing.
But people would say, as a fold transitions, it’s a fold in a different state, not that it’s a different fold.
Uri Geller said he bent spoons, and no one said “Look! He made a different spoon.”
Great, thank you, that was what I understood, and was trying to say. But you need to respond to Axe’s claim, that I quoted, that said his work was about beta-lactimase domains in general. And generalizable beyond that. The editors can’t have missed this in his title! When they approved it.
I don’t know, I’m not a biologist, but it’s odd, the biologists here can’t seem to refute Axe, when I set out to defend his paper. I can understand enough to make relevant comments.
So how did the editors and reviewers miss this? And how is your claim true? And how is posing me technical questions in biology in any way an answer to Axe?
So postdocs are to be viewed as unreliable until they have enough papers published? I’m not sure this is a good approach, though I agree it’s one indicator.
That’s odd, if the DI’ers had no good points without supporting evidence, they should have vanished, right? But they’re still here, and various people, various scientists have been convinced. Michael Behe is one, Günter Bechly was another.
But see the thread here on the Royal Society conference! That would be an impact, several of their concerns at the conference are exactly what ID people have been saying. That would be a pretty good indicator that their ideas are actually not, worthless.
As is the fact that no one here has been able to refute Axe’s paper, here in this thread! Though the claim that this was done keeps coming up, but no one can point me to a skeptic post that has proven unanswerable.
You people are suffering from a delusion…
This from the person who believes they are under constant assault from demons.
1 Like
Ah, but propagandists never vanish just because of a lack of evidence. There are are still neo-Nazis, there are still creationists, there are still homeopaths, there are still believers in “ancient astronauts,” chakra alignments, and even a few weird holdouts who believe in the credibility of the DI.
Bechly was indeed one of those, though a subscriber only to a certain subset of weird DI beliefs. I’m not sure I’d be happy to rely upon him for anything. Ehefrau schlug Alarm - Aus Verzweiflung? Die Hintergründe zur Todesfahrt | krone.at
3 Likes
Ah, no response, no unanswerable post. And where have I failed to respond in a way that corresponded to the argument being made? Linky, linky, please.
I do know if I have been able to reply to each proposed refutation. Again, please point me to the refutation that was unanswerable. Linky, linky. And it turns out I did know what side chains are, I just learned that this term applies to what I already knew about.
John Mercer made that claim. Glad Art Hunt denied it, and I agree that his comment refutes Mercer’s claim. Though it’s odd to say Axe’s work does not extend or narrow the range, another estimate can’t do that! It’s another estimate, and then each estimate needs to be evaluated for applicability and accuracy.