Marty's testable ID hypothesis

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

No one I know does that in biomedical research, primarily because those who are counting references (grant reviews, tenure reviews) tend to simply not count reviews and book chapters as productivity.

[AlanFox]

@John_Harshman

Though he got it from Sal Cordova, Sal hasn’t been seen for the longest time.

I think Sal has turned over a new leaf.

[John_Harshman]

@Mercer

No one I know does that in biomedical research, primarily because those who are counting references (grant reviews, tenure reviews) tend to simply not count reviews and book chapters as productivity.

This is not the case in evolutionary biology.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

No one I know does that in biomedical research, primarily because those who are counting references (grant reviews, tenure reviews) tend to simply not count reviews and book chapters as productivity.

So you’ve been representing what happens in your branch of science as what happens in “science” period. That’s illuminating.

Here’s another statement someone made that I thought you might want to comment on:

“… science is all about predictions… biology is less predictive, and has no laws to compare with those of physics, but even so the predictive power of evolutionary biology is embarrassingly bad.”

True or false? Written by a competent scientist, or by a creationist critic of science?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

So you’ve been representing what happens in your branch of science as what happens in “science” period.

I never worked in a single branch of science, Eddie.

@Eddie

Here’s another statement someone made that I thought you might want to comment on:

“… science is all about predictions… biology is less predictive, and has no laws to compare with those of physics, but even so the predictive power of evolutionary biology is embarrassingly bad.”

True or false? Written by a competent scientist, or by a creationist critic of science?

I agree; genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience, and even cell biology have better predictive power. But that doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology isn’t still about testing the predictions we have of theories and hypotheses, does it?

Do you think that it means that books aimed at lay audiences that present zero new evidence, zero hypothesis testing, and gross misrepresentations of the relevant evidence can be called science?

How is reading that book going for you? Or is it too much?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

@Eddie

So you’ve been representing what happens in your branch of science as what happens in “science” period.

I never worked in a single branch of science, Eddie.

You’re ducking the fact that you were lecturing me on the role of books in science, and were caught making a false statement about the role of books in a branch of science you don’t work in – and caught by someone who does work in that branch of science. You might at least admit that you overgeneralized. But I guess that sort of admission is not your style.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

You’re ducking the fact that you were lecturing me on the role of books in science, and were caught making a false statement about the role of books in a branch of science you don’t work in – and caught by someone who does work in that branch of science. You might at least admit that you overgeneralized.

I believe I did.

@Eddie

But I guess that sort of admission is not your style.

Speaking of admissions, you made this false statement:

@Eddie

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.

You at least admitted it was incorrect, after defending Meyer for literally months without ever bothering to look into his false claim.

But you followed that with two more falsehoods that illustrate your kind, Christian nature:

@Eddie

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.

Admitting that those were just as false just isn’t your style, is it?

And more recently:

@Eddie

First they always try to give the impression (even if they don’t claim it directly) that design is incompatible with a nested hierarchy, and bully their opponents into submission that way, but then, when it’s demonstrated that design is not incompatible with a nested hierarchy, they change the argument to: “Well, design is only compatible with a nested hierarchy, whereas unguided evolution predicts a nested hierarchy, so unguided evolution is the right view.” But of course, since either view is compatible with a nested hierarchy, the existence of such a hierarchy doesn’t constitute a proof that unguided evolution is true and design is false. A philosopher can see this, but apparently some scientists can’t.

@Eddie

@John_Harshman

But does anyone say anything like that, much less “always”?

I withdraw “always.” I did honestly report what I thought had happened sometimes.

When did this ever happen, Eddie? Honestly.

[John_Harshman]

Do I have to turn this web site around? I will if you don’t stop hitting each other, and nobody will get ice cream.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

Ice cream? If that’s at stake, I’ll quit.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

I will if you don’t stop hitting each other, and nobody will get ice cream.

Make it orange sherbet, and I’ll go along.