Are you presenting Constructive Neutral Evolution as a possible explanation for the flagellum?
If not, why did you bring it up?
If yes, why do you refuse to just say that?
If you would like me to explain in more detail, I suggest a question such as: “Would you explain in more detail please?”
Not,
I never claimed to present an alternative explanation for the flagellum, let alone one you would find satisfying.
1 Like
You claimed neutral evolution explains molecular machines and changes in DNA. Are you not including the bacterial flagellum in the category of molecular machines?
Trivially false statement.
2 Likes
There’s video evidence.
I already posted two papers with evolutionary explanations. I can post dozens more. Papers Behe lied about and claimed don’t exist. Go back and read the thread.
2 Likes
Go ahead and provide a precise word for word quote, not a paraphrase, with time stamps.
I’ll wait for the podcast to come out for better audio. If you know what you said then why don’t you post it?
As the has-been linguist of the group, I’ll reply to this one—seeing how the importance of definitions and contexts comes up on so many of our thread.
The word debate has more than one meaning. This topic heated up when you criticized @Swamidass for not pursing a particular idea back-and-forth with Dr. Behe. You were apparently expecting some type of structured debate where the objective is to convince the audience that a speaker’s position is the best supported and argued. Dr. Swamidass even emphasized more than once that his goal wasn’t necessarily to push people to abandon their positions and embrace his. The evening was structured quite simply (with few of the standard elements of a formal debate, such as cross-examinations and rebuttal outlines) because it was meant to be informational and focused on cordial dialogue.
As to the Eventbrite promotional page, the word “debate” is used three times. The text reinforces the discussion objective. It is clear to me that whoever wrote that page is using the word “debate” in the casual sense of a dialogue between parties of different viewpoints and not a systematic and structured series of constructives-and-rebuttals which you are demanding of the subtopic.
Was the event a debate in the sense of speakers disagreeing on a controversial topic and explaining why they disagreed? Yes. Was it a structured debate where the Negative speaker was expected to deliver a first and second constructive to match each point of the Affirmative Constructives? No. Were there multiple rebuttal rounds further dissecting the Affirmative’s proposal outline? No. It wasn’t that kind of debate.
You were expecting something different than what the organizers and the speakers had in mind. Indeed, the above explains why the moderator kept curbing cross-examination and rebuttals that deviated from the discussion agenda.
Of course, the questions and issues you have brought up in this thread have been repeatedly addressed on various Peaceful Science threads and in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Nevertheless, various participants will no doubt continue to summarize and post links to those answers.
4 Likes
What would be a sufficient explanation for you?
2 Likes
This is where I think you are allowing HEAT to hide the LIGHT.
You are not an Atheist, Joshua. You should not allow yourself to be forced into speaking like one!
Respond like a Christian - - to a particular Christian’s unfathomable inability to process science: “God conceived of how to evolve flagella.”
Full Stop!
Period!
End of Discussion!
How about a series of sequential mutations in the ~40 proteins involved and what those mutations do in terms of binding to build the structure where it did not exist before?
I thought I understood your position after the debate and now this is confusing.
If you have to claim that it wasn’t really a debate, it means you lost.
I know right? The debate clearly went:
Swamidass: Neutral evolution explains complex molecular machines.
Behe: Here’s Kimura saying that it doesn’t.
Swamidass: I agree with that.
This was pretty much the only substantial and relevant argument that was made the entire night, and Swamidass ceded it without a fight.
Do you understand the term equivocation fallacy?
If you have to claim that yours is not an equivocation fallacy, it means you lost. (Aren’t shoot-from-the-hip cheap-shots fun? They don’t achieve much–but they can be fun.)
Peace be with you.
4 Likes
I understand that changing the definitions of words to suit you is a weasel move.
Ben, on PS we’re not about winning or losing here, but instead finding common ground and moving forward productively. Please change your tone and adopt a more irenic attitude.
3 Likes
I was referring to a debate that didn’t occur on the site.
That is false @BenKissling. I said Neutral Theory plus common descent explains detailed patterns in the genome, giving us evidence of common descent, and without telling us how new functions arise. I also said that there is more to evolution than the Darwinian mechanism.
1 Like