I think he’s asking why Swamidass didn’t take a much more confrontational stance with Axe in their “debate”. I don’t know why that’s so interesting to him.
That’s funny. So which comical ID howler should we discuss? How about we begin by addressing the inane statement by Axe that you wanted Swamidass to ask him about? Do you genuinely believe that it is true that the current stance by evolutionary biologists, is that evolution has perfected life to the point that modern forms no longer evolve? Axe wrote those words. Do you believe that is correct?
Utterly, completely false. There are ID hypotheses all around you. @Midhun stumbled into one the other day–that somatic hypermutation is site-specific.
ID proponents, particularly the ignorant ones, offer up ID hypotheses all the time, falsely presented as facts. The better-informed ones dance around them.
What, exactly, is preventing IDcreationists from advancing and testing an ID hypothesis themselves?
You might want to search the forum for “Behe polar” then. There was a long thread about Behe’s gross misrepresentations of the data themselves.
Instead of going on about what Swamidass said or didn’t say, why not look for data to back up a sample of the IDcreationist claims that you find attractive?
See if you can find the idiocy and/or buffonery of these written claims by Meyer:
Meyer, Signature in the Cell, p. 128:
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction…”
p. 298:
“According to this model, these RNA enzymes eventually were replaced by the more efficient proteins that perform enzymatic functions in modern cells.”
p. 305:
“Problem 3: An RNA-Based Translation and Coding System Is Implausible”
“…RNA-world advocates offer no plausible explanation for how primitive self-replicating RNA molecules might have evolved into modern cells that rely on a variety of proteins to process genetic information and regulate metabolism.”
“…These mRNAs would need to be able to direct protein synthesis using, at first, the transitional ribozyme-based protein-synthesis machinery and then, later, the permanent and predominantly protein-based protein-synthesis machinery.”
p. 304:
Problem 2: Ribozymes Are Poor Substitutes for Proteins
…Other studies have shown that the RNA in ribosomes (rRNA) promotes peptide-bond formation within the ribosome [15] and can promote peptide bonding outside the ribosome, though only in association with an additional chemical catalyst [16].
These are all from a chapter devoted to the RNA World hypothesis. Meyer misinforms you about the hypothesis itself, its predictions, and then lies to conceal the most important confirmation of a prediction–which won a Nobel.
I think it is also concerning that appearance of the strength of sides is suggested to be determined by a debate performance.
I struggle to discuss this with colleagues as they point to various debates on scientific issues and behaviour of the opposing side (both in and outside the debate) to inform them of what is correct.
I’ve had a hard time understanding the word gaslighting. More confusion, eh Faizal?
But, thanks to the Anti-Creationist ‘Psychiatrist’ I’m getting a handle on it. Where’d you learn that psychiatric technique? Is that, like the “new math,” the new psychiatry? Or is it your invention? Are you seeking to publish on it? May you achieve tenure for your ground-breaking work in the field.
Some of your field work includes,
Is there a metric you use to determine when one is greatly confused as opposed to merely confused? Or how do you conclude perpetually and irredeemably confused? as you have here,
I know it is deep isn’t it, but isn’t it the job of the Psychiatrist to be able to sort through the deep? Give it another shot and see if you can spot the question. Tell you what, I’ll clip it for you,
I’m just funning with you @Faizal_Ali but how asleep are you to be confused over a post with one question,
But good on you @Rumraket for at least steering Faizal toward the right direction with,
although you greatly overstate it. You could have just pointed him to the question. I didn’t ask that @swamidass be 1) confrontational, nor 2) more confrontational, nor 3) much more confrontational. I merely asked, “Did you discuss it with Axe” Why would it require any amount of confrontation?
Why do you so overstate your case? It is so Peaceful Science -esque.
I’m not suggesting that the only metric of strength be debate performance.
But surely it has to be seen as necessary in a truth-discovery exercise that you allow both sides to be heard. It is how jurisprudence works. It seems superior to a kangaroo court.
It’s funny, like you, I had trouble understanding the meaning of the word gaslighting. But thanks to this exchange with Ali, I understand it better now. Thank you for this.
I’m still not sure what the significance would be of Joshua asking about the quotation. Axe can’t deny saying it, because it’s in a book he wrote and published. And he can’t defend it, because it is indefensible. Maybe you were offering Joshua some post-hoc debate advice, that it is a good tactic to quote your opponent saying something utterly ridiculous?
You can share and be heard through a variety of media that is endless. ID has been heard from for a very long time. Your use of one-sided vitriol and kangaroo court accusations is tiring.
You also include the terms jurisprudence and truth-discovery exercise. What definitive models (or even theories) have been proposed that are sufficiently testable and predictive by ID? If they are not, why is that?
I could do that, but the chance I’ll understand the science is nill. But rather, as I just said to @djkriese,
“surely it has to be seen as necessary in a truth-discovery exercise that you allow both sides to be heard. It is how jurisprudence works. It seems superior to a kangaroo court.”
The words “polar bears” did show up in @swamidass debate with Behe at 1:09:17 but no discussion.
In my Kindle copy of Behe’s “A Mousetrap for Darwin” a search for the word “polar” turns up 60 matches, so Behe has most likely addressed a lot on the topic. @swamidass mentioned, approvingly, I think C.S. Lewis in the Behe exchange at 1:26:33.
When I say, “I never heard Josh clearly state a position that he holds that Behe disagrees with. At least not about science.” I’m referring to what Lewis comments on here,
“Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, ‘I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,’ or, ‘I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.’ Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is."
If Behe is skeptical of anyone’s claims to scientific discovery as referred to by Lewis in that quote, all one has to do is invite Behe to join them in the lab to observe, ‘I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.’ Are you doubting that Behe would do this, or that he is denying actual repeatable science?
Where my brother-in-law lives, their Provincial Health Officer said this, (and please, let’s not do Covid here),
In like manner, as she says “data never tells you what to do” so scientific data allows one to extrapolate only with uncertainty and I guess the further the extrapolation the less assurance of accuracy.
It is of no value as a metric of strength. A nervous and ill prepared man advocating for the truth will come off as having lost a debate to a well-prepared, confident, and experienced fraud.
You should entirely dispense with your infatuation with time-limited public/verbal debate and instead focus on writings and critical thinking.
I again invite you discuss key ID concepts advanced by various ID proponents. I propose we begin with statements by Axe himself, or made by other public ID proponents about his work. Or how about Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity?
No it isn’t. Some times it takes a relatively simple demonstration to show how and why something is wrong, or how it works, and it really isn’t as complicated as you might fear it is.
More importantly, if you admit you don’t understand the science, how can you determine who won a debate about science? They said things you agree with with confidence?
So how do you assess the debate with literally zero understanding?
I said in this forum, not on the video.
Stop quoting. It is a tool of obfuscation in this context.
Real science is about testing the predictions of hypotheses, not retrospective extrapolations. This is how you’re being played by the pseusoscientists.
Except that in science, we are avoiding cheating by testing the predictions of hypotheses.
Let’s take commanding your dog to sit as an example (I use this for 9-year-olds, so you have no intellectual excuse). There are two clear hypotheses regarding how the dog responds, no? Can you name them?
Yep.
Or, @Sam could take some of that rhetoric and subject it to detailed analysis.
How is it that you think you need to be sure of this? Is that your confusion again? It is my question to @swamidass that can be answered with a yes or no. You have no need to see how it is significant.
Are you still,
Shall I defer to the Psychiatrist for his determination of feigned authority? How about you show me where I’ve done this?
Is it feigned authority to note that Behe addresses,
No. Rather, it is feigned authority for one to state that whenever an ID proponent debates an evolutionary scientist the ID proponent “seems to emerge unscathed”, and then admit that even if scientific evidence was presented that showed the ID proponent to be wrong, the chance that one would understand such evidence is “nil”.
I have read Behe’s Dover Trial testimony and cross-examination. I read various Meyer articles and listened to some of his lectures. Same with Axe. I have read Bechly and Berlinski articles on the Discovery Institute website. I read and heard enough to where I am not at all ambivalent towards any of these men’s arguments for ID.
Did any of the aforementioned gentlemen look or sound foolish? That’s a highly charged term and it is applied to ID proponents so often that I doubt that my opinion would contribute much additional weight to that position. I will simply say that I foolishly affirmed some poorly supported (and poorly understood) positions in my early days in the academy—but fortunately “ID theory” was not one of them.
Only if you have been a sleeping Rip Van Winkles[sic] for the past twenty years or so. You could catch up by reading the Dover Trial court transcripts. (You could also take note of how the Discovery Institute witnesses left town prematurely after they realized that their ID arguments were being eviscerated and that they didn’t want to experience what Behe endured on the witness stand where he sheepishly admitted that he was not at all familiar with the peer-reviewed journal studies which had destroyed the DI’s favorite ID arguments years before.)
Meanwhile, I get the impression that you didn’t listen carefully to the Behe-Swamidass video of the Texas A&M event. Swamidass was quite clear in various areas of disagreement with Behe. I was sitting in the front row just a few feet away (with Jim Tour to my right) but I won’t claim to speak for Dr. Swamidass. I will simply encourage you to watch the video again and take careful notes this time.
