Eddie and ID books

Wow. That is a truly spectacular misrepresentation, Eddie.

Meyer misrepresented the strongest evidence for the RNA World hypothesis, to which he devoted an entire chapter of his book. They (and you) cannot come up with an ID explanation for that relic. Dembski and Wells made the same misrepresentation in the book you’re recommending.

The demonstration that the core of the ribosome is entirely RNA won the Nobel Prize in 2009 for its evolutionary and biomedical importance.

And your description of the ribosome as “a molecule” is objectively false. Do you really not know that ribosomes are composed of rRNAs and more than 80 proteins? If not, you’ve established that you have a less-than-Wikipedia understanding of the ribosome.

That suggests a lot about the accuracy and quality of books you’re recommending.

3 Likes

Puck had nothing good to say about the book. To someone with @Eddie’s mentality, that is prima facie evidence of bias. Eddie will not consider the possibility that the book might actually just be that awful.

2 Likes

No merits? The Mendelssohn review refuted every single point made in the book?

I was not referring to the ribosome as a totality, but to peptidyl transferase, which you went on and on about. It’s an enzyme (an aminoacyltransferase enzyme to be exact), and enzymes are proteins, and proteins are biomolecules or macromolecules. My terminology was correct. It’s bad enough that you are a pedant who tries to catch people out on tiny “errors”, but a least you could be an accurate pedant.

Even if Meyer’s alleged “error” regarding this molecule destroyed the entire argument of its chapter – which it didn’t – it didn’t destroy the entire argument of his book – a fact which you have routinely evaded. In fact, I can’t recall anything, in the thousands of words your wrote against Meyer’s book on BioLogos or here, about any flaw in his book other than this one. This is why it could never be profitable to discuss books with you. You simply seem to be unaware of how scholars discuss and review books. They don’t seize on one error and say, “Therefore this book is worthless.” They don’t just go through books looking for flaws in hopes of being able to dismiss everything an author says or argues. They read with open minds and bend over backwards to make sure they are giving the author a fair chance to make his case. Only when this scrupulous fairness is observed can the motivations of the reviewer be trusted.

Lack of good points in The Design of Life noted.

So, Amazon will now publish as reviews 1000-page tomes?

When @Puck_Mendelssohn says “no merits”, I am happy to grant that he has considered every single point, and provided an accurate summary of his evaluations. @Eddie, if you beg to differ, then maybe you could provide @Puck_Mendelssohn with an aspect of the book that has merit.

5 Likes

I do encounter that quite often. But it does raise the question: what should one say when a book truly is horrendous? Do horrendous books have a kind of immunity from criticism: that nobody can say they are horrendous because to say so is to betray fatal bias? I can’t think that that makes a great deal of sense.

And publications by the DI’s principal authors really do fall in that category, again and again. It needn’t be so. For example, if Stephen Meyer had wanted to write an educational book about the Cambrian explosion, AND include his bizarre take on the explosion therein, one could praise the educational content and pan the pseudoscientific garbage. But when the presentation on the Cambrian explosion is so highly dishonest as it is in Darwin’s Doubt, surely the fact that some isolated sentences in the book here and there make true, and genuinely educational, statements about the Cambrian explosion is no vindication of the book in general. Nobody who would like to know anything about the CE would be well advised to read Meyer, when other works are available.

One could sort of reverse-nit-pick a book like The Design of Life, isolating small portions of it which are not wholly false. But what would be the point? If one is assessing the book as a whole, one cannot do that – the book can do no good for anyone except for a student of the rhetorical tactics of pseudoscience, and it is not a lack of objectivity to point that out.

5 Likes

Peptidyl transferase is the core function of the organelle named the ribosome. You’re still spectacularly wrong and digging yourself deeper in a hole.

You’re also demonstrating why one should not get one’s information from ID books.

Yes, but so what?

Wrong. This enzyme is a ribozyme, not a protein. That’s the whole point, man.

It’s not a protein. The ribosome is not a molecule.

The whole point of this is that it is consistent with being a relic from an RNA World, as predicted. Despite all of the proteins framing it, the entire active site is RNA. It demonstrates how evolution is highly constrained in ways that no omnipotent designer ever could be. It can’t just replace essential functions with better designs.

No, it was not. It is, however, entertaining.

Hilarious.

Wait. Are you saying that the anonymous EN&V author who described it as an error was lying?

3 Likes

This is just not a reasonable way to counter the critique of the book. I am just one of many (most? nearly all?) here in this conversation who believes that an author can discredit themselves with dishonesty or oblivious ignorance (just two examples of how to do that) and who believes that a book can become worthless by revealing itself to be riddled with falsehood. Your rebuttals now look like pleas for critics to acknowledge the inclusion of complete sentences, and unfortunately your rebuttals lack any content of their own.

Even if Puck is–as I suspect–overstating the degree of awfulness of The Design of Life, he has dealt it a crippling if not fatal blow by quoting a passage that illustrates falsehood so egregious that critics on this thread are struggling to describe how it even came to be. @Eddie, this is really important: falsehoods like that do discredit books, and their authors, and at some point, they discredit people who defend the work. If The Design of Life includes more examples of shit like that, then it is a book that should be exposed as worse than worthless.

Your plea by itself–to give credit where it is due–is not unreasonable. My reviews of ID books have always pointed out things that the authors did well and got right. Maybe there are some good sections in The Design of Life, and maybe there are even some pages that contain interesting explanation or theorizing. That doesn’t mean the book is redeemable. And no one should have to explain that to you.

6 Likes

The same goes for knowing anything about the RNA World hypothesis, when both books are false on the strongest evidence favoring it.

I’m sure that there are a few passages that we would not find to be misleading! The question is, can Eddie find any?

For Meyer (which I’ve read, @Eddie), we’d find that those parts are sophomoric at best. I’d bet that The Design of Life would be more of the same.

3 Likes

I stand corrected on that point. Enzymes have generally been classed as proteins, but the ribozyme would be an exception to that. And yes, I do understand that the whole point of the RNA world hypothesis is that RNA can in some cases have some catalytic ability.

But it’s my understanding that peptidyl transferase is essentially a stretch of RNA within the ribosome. Is that correct? And RNA is considered a macromolecule. So it’s not wrong to call it a molecule, and that’s what I was originally defending – my use of the term “molecule.” Of course, if you want to go pedantic again, and say that within the ribosome it’s not called a “molecule” but a “moiety”, well, have it your way.

I didn’t say that it was. I understand it to be an organelle, composed of more than one kind of molecule.

I read that column, long ago. Give me the link to it again. The author did admit that Meyer made a slip, but did the author agree that the slip invalidated Meyer’s entire book? Or even the entire chapter? I have my doubts. But give me the link, and I’ll review it.

My additional point is that reading those books completely misinformed you about a fact that is so important that it won the Nobel Prize.

No, you don’t understand the point in the slightest.

The whole point of the hypothesis is that life was entirely based on RNA catalysis before any protein catalysis arose. That’s why it predicts that we will find incredibly important functions, like the meat of protein synthesis, will still be handled by ribozymes. There’s no reason why an Intelligent Designer would choose a ribozyme for something so important, but evolution can’t replace it. That’s why there is nothing pedantic about my point.

Another question: why are the adapters in protein synthesis RNAs (tRNAs) and not proteins?

You’re moving the goalposts. You are also claiming that this is not important and that peptidyl transferase is a protein. You’ve only retracted one of those false claims.

Neither they nor Meyer put out this falsehood in passing. They base arguments on the false claim.

So, back to the OP, here is the argument they make:

“It follows that without some catalyst that promotes peptide bonds (for amino-acid sequences) or 3-5 phosphodiester linkages (for nucleotide sequences), there can be no materialistic route to proteins, DNA, and RNA.”

The current catalyst does precisely that. It is a ribozyme. Therefore, that “materialistic” route clearly exists.

“But the only catalysts we know capable of handling this task are enzymes and other protein-based products (e.g., the ribosome)”

This was known to be false 7 years before this was published.

You have now admitted that the ribosome is a ribozyme, so this challenge has been met in spades. Will they admit it? Will YOU admit it?

Calling the ribosome “protein-based” is like calling the Mona Lisa “wood-based” because it has a wood frame, while claiming that no one has shown that it is an oil painting. It also suggests deliberate deception to me.

“… and these in turn presuppose the entire DNA-RNA-protein machinery. This machinery, however, is precisely what origin-of-life research may not presuppose but rather must explain.”

And the fact that the ribosome is a ribozyme, with proteins as mere decorations around TWO rRNA cores (one for each subunit), explains that very well. That’s why it’s so important.

So, what’s your ID explanation for this relic?

No, let’s discuss the book whose flaws you said you were more than willing to address instead.

Nice try, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying that it is representative of ID scholarship–when you can’t explain the facts, hide them or blatantly misrepresent them.

Yes, I would say that ignoring the most important evidence necessarily invalidates any chapter claiming to address the RNA World hypothesis.

But then, unlike you, I’ve known that the ribosome is a ribozyme for 20 years, and we suspected it many years before that:

4 Likes

Yes, I understand it exactly.

Which is exactly the understanding of the RNA world theory that I have, and which I understood from reading Meyer and many other ID writers, as well as non-ID writers.

So you know how such a being would think? Another example of evolutionary thought being based on tacit theological premises.

Only a limited catalytic capacity has been demonstrated for RNA. It’s a long, long way from being established that RNA catalysis explains origins. But then, speculation beyond the data has been evolutionary theory’s stock-in-trade since Darwin, who didn’t even know what the insides of a cell looked like or how inheritance worked, but was certain of his conclusions.

So, you won’t provide the reference that would enable me to answer your question whether the writer of the Discovery column was “lying”?

Interesting. So if you weren’t saying that, why didn’t you clarify that you weren’t saying that when you were asked the question (whether Meyer’s error invalidated more than a few pages of the book) about ten times over about a three-year period on BioLogos? Just being difficult for the sake of being difficult?

That’s not what you wrote.

Because RNA is an inferior catalyst.

False. It literally assembles every protein in your body!

Nice straw man! That suggests that you don’t understand the RNA World hypothesis, then.

Here, we are discussing how ID proponents, whom you claim to be great thinkers, conceal evidence from their readers. It worked very well on you.

I prefer to discuss the glaring flaws of the book mentioned in the title. You said that you were “more than willing” to discuss the flaws IIRC. Shall we?

How many pages was the RNA World chapter, Eddie?

1 Like

You used the singular article “a” to diminish the significance of the finding. There are two rRNAs within the large subunit of the ribosome and another one in the small subunit. Are you suggesting that they are dispensable for ribosomal function?

The evidence for them strengthens the RNA World hypothesis even more. Shall we go there? I’m more than willing, and when I write that, it is true.

1 Like

This is crudely and disgracefully dishonest. @Mercer is offering you the opportunity to learn about the RNA World, after showing you that you were deliberately and systematically misled. You have an opportunity to recover some integrity after yours was eroded, perhaps by your own weakness but maybe because you made the understandable mistake of trusting some like-minded scholars who you assumed would try to deserve that trust.

I think you have failed here, and I think you should reconsider your stance. You admitted to being mistaken, which should earn you praise and respect, that I will offer unconditionally right now. The next step should have been something like “okay, let me find out where I went wrong.” And ideally the next step would have been “I look forward to learning more.” You opted for a pitiful redirection and a blanket insult, aimed at science. Disgraceful. Reconsider.

4 Likes

I didn’t offer it as such. I offered it as a rebuttal to Art Hunt’s claim that the review showed that the book had “no merits.” The review did not establish that the book had no merits.

I am not saying that it is wrong to render a negative judgment on a book that has some merits. For example, I think Darwin’s Origin of Species has some merits, and more than some – it has a lot of merit. But that doesn’t mean that I have to conclude that the argument of the book is correct. (I’m speaking of the argument Darwin puts forward regarding mechanism, not regarding common descent.) It’s possible to believe that a book is intelligent, well-researched, well-argued, yet not finally convincing. And the flip side of this is that one doesn’t have to dogmatically assert that a book has “no merit” just because one finds one or more of its fundamental theses to be flawed. It might have merit regarding a number of subsidiary points. It might have merit in raising certain important questions, even if it does not answer them successfully.

The problem with anti-ID bloggers is that they have the compulsive need to assert that Page 1 of the book is crap, Page 2 of the book shows scientific ignorance, Page 3 shows deliberate dishonesty … up to Page 500. This renders their judgments suspect, even when those judgments are probably reasonable on some points. Nobody trusts a review that is obviously extremely partisan and written out of animus or indignation. (Indeed, ID garnered much sympathy for itself among “neutral” folks merely because of the extreme hostility with which it was met.)

A actual rebuttal would point out the points YOU think have merit, Eddie.

I can’t help but notice that Steve described your response to me as dishonest, but you did not even attempt to rebut him, just launching into a page-long rant of whataboutism.

I’m not a blogger, Eddie.

Why are you ranting about bloggers instead of thinking about why your heroes either don’t know or can’t tell (the choices are equally bad) the truth about an enzyme at the very center of all life?

3 Likes

That doesn’t even come close to doing it justice. Here is a much more accurate description, including a better art simile than my Mona Lisa one:

"Viewing the three-dimensional structure of the bacterial ribosome (Cate et al. 1999; Ban et al. 2000; Schluenzen et al. 2000; Wimberly et al. 2000) makes a profound impact on the viewer that has a variety of manifestations. First, there is a level of detail in the structure that the brain is simply not equipped to grok. The soft and gentle curves from the models constructed by Jim Lake are now familiar and somehow pleasantly sufficient to represent the ribosome in our minds (Lake 1976). Second, there is a strangeness in seeing how all of the RNA that we knew in an abstract way was at the core of ribosome function, really is there at the core of the ribosome after all. It is as if the artist Christo was commissioned to drape the stately RNA core with a set of absurd protein festoons. Finally, as if the intricacy of the RNA fold in the ribosome was not overwhelming enough, we are left to grapple with the question ‘‘By Jove, how does this thing get put together?’’

And how it gets put together tells us a lot about its design, whether it was a Designer or evolution.

Showing that the active site was only partly RNA would still have supported the RNA World hypothesis strongly. The astounding thing about the structure is that evolution has been unable to insert even a tiny finger of protein into the catalytic site in billions of years. None. No one expected it to be that segregated. The RNA is the guts of the other ribosomal functions in protein synthesis too, all combining to scream that RNA came long before protein. [That should in no way be taken to mean that RNA was necessarily the very beginning of life.]

It’s incredibly constrained in a way that could not possibly constrain any conceivable intelligent designer, especially an omnipotent one.

1 Like

I’ll bow out by asking everyone but especially @Eddie to think about this and to aim to understand it. It’s worse than @Mercer writes here, actually. Not only did this author miss or misrepresent the truth about this epic and central enzyme, but he did it while writing about the RNA World in an attempt to discredit it. To portray this as a little mistake in the midst of an otherwise sound treatise is to butcher truth and knowledge grotesquely.

The next step is to admit that the author is not credible and that writings by him and his collaborators are suspect. And the immediate step after that is to ask whether and how to learn from credible sources. Basic intellectual integrity.

3 Likes