Dr Behe's new Peer-reviewed paper
-
Mike Behe has been doing some scientific research after all. He has been combing the literature looking for mutations that are constructive, mutations that can actually build something functional. Mutations that are required by the current understanding of the theory of evolution:
Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).
It doesn't look like he has found any. That should be evidence against the theory, don't ya think?
Mike Behe has been doing some scientific research after all. He has been combing the literature looking for mutations that are constructive, mutations that can actually build something functional. Mutations that are required by the current understanding of the theory of evolution:
Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).
It doesn't look like he has found any. That should be evidence against the theory, don't ya think?
posted by Joe G @ 1:46 PM
24 Comments:
At 2:26 PM,
oleg said…
How would you know it if you haven't even read the paper?
At 2:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Haven't you heard?
I am a freakin' ID god!
Not only that I didn't need Dr Behe to tell me what I already knew. Ya see I have been looking also. I have even asked evolutionists for help but as usual they were in no hurry to support their position.
So as far as adding information to my database goes Dr Behe might as well have written a paper saying on average there are 365.25 days in a year.
But now it is there for evos to choke on.
Yeah baby...
At 2:42 PM,
oleg said…
Then what's the point of even mentioning Behe's paper and stressing that it has been peer reviewed? Just for kicks?
At 3:25 PM,
Joe G said…
1- I didn't stress it was peer-reviewed. Just said it. Shit this is aready old news.
2- I brought it up because a) people like you say Behe doesn't do any research, b) people like you say that Behe doesn't have any recent peer-reviewed papers and c) to find out if any evolutionists can produce any evidence to the contrary- you know produce positive evidence for the construction of functional protein machinery.
3- I don't mind kicking the "theory" of evolution, nor evolutionists- both need it.
At 4:19 PM,
oleg said…
This paper isn't an indication that Behe has done any research lately. In case you missed it, the journal's title is Quarterly Review of Biology. It publishes reviews, not original research articles.
At 4:30 PM,
Joe G said…
blah, blah, blah oleg.
Research takes many forms dude. In this particular case Dr Behe's research consisted of combing the scientific literature in search of those elusive constructive mutations.
Geez oleg this was all in the OP. You should have had that syphillis fixed before it started rotting your brain.
At 4:40 PM,
oleg said…
"Combing the scientific literature" isn't called research, Joe. It's called learning. Behe hasn't done any research in a long while. He's been writing comments and replies to comments, popular books, and now, supposedly, a review of the literature.
And that's the best ID has to offer!
At 4:48 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
"Combing the scientific literature" isn't called research, Joe.
It can be. It all depends on the context.
oleg:
It's called learning.
That is what research leads to, duh.
LoL! Oleg we do research so we can learn! That's the whole fucking point!
oleg:
And that's the best ID has to offer!
And your position has what?
It appears it has absolutely nothing. Perhaps you need to refocus your energy.
At 4:54 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
Behe hasn't done any research in a long while.
And how do you know that mr full of bullshit?
At 5:00 PM,
oleg said…
Oh, I dunno. Maybe Behe has been conducting some super-duper-secret research at an undisclosed location. It's just that we don't see any research output from him. Perhaps it exists, but we have no evidence of that.
At 5:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Geez oleg- the ole saying evos rely on applies-
"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
The research doesn't have to be secret, just nothing new to report. It's not like if he went into a lab and genetically engineered a flagellum that would prove ID.
Also I a sure the research for this paper required quite a bit of time. And it does add credence to his past claims.
You do understand that it hasn't gone unnoticed that you have only attacked Behe and STILL cannot produce any scientific evidence to refute him.
Forget the cheap tuxedo, your's just an empty polyester suit- pure fabrication.
At 6:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Seeing that oleg is too cheap to buy a dictionary and too poor to buy a vowel:
research:
1: careful or diligent search
2: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3: the collecting of information about a particular subject (bold added)
So according to the standard and accepted definition of "research" Dr Behe was indeed conducting research.
At 6:20 PM,
oleg said…
Joe,
I'm sure a science fair project qualifies as research in your book as well.
At 6:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Did you see the movie "October Sky"? The one about the kids from a coal-mining town getting together and making their own rockets. They entered their stuff in a local science fair and won. then they enter the nationals and win there too.
It is quite clear that their science project involved quite a bit of research, by anyone's standards.
At 6:34 PM,
oleg said…
I'm sure the students put a lot of effort into learning about rockets. However, their little project did not produce any original knowledge.
Original knowledge. That's what counts in science. Behe hasn't produced any insights that are worth learning.
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
I'm sure the students put a lot of effort into learning about rockets.
They did quite a bit of research.
oleg:
However, their little project did not produce any original knowledge.
We were talking about RESEARCH.
Do try to stay focused.
oleg:
Original knowledge.
OK. It was all original to them.
oleg:
That's what counts in science.
Which is why your position doesn't count as science.
oleg:
Behe hasn't produced any insights that are worth learning.
So are you saying that everyone knew that there aren't any constructive mutations or are you saying that you don't care to learn about that?
I guess I would also get sick of learning my position is a total failure.
At 6:49 PM,
Joe G said…
So Lenski's science project must not count as research either.
Shit we already knew that bacteria could process citrate. No original knowledge there.
At 6:57 PM,
oleg said…
Joe wrote: OK. It was all original to them.
You know, Joe, when you finally figure out what nested hierarchies are, you will have learned something new. But it will not be original.
On the subject of Lenski's experiment, surely that research was original. Nobody has previously observed E. coli evolve the ability to process citrate. Not only that, Lenski and his students were able to determine which mutations triggered that. That's evolution caught in the act, pretty cool.
At 7:07 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg:
You know, Joe, when you finally figure out what nested hierarchies are, you will have learned something new.
You have that backwards- when YOU finally figure out what nested hierarchies are, you will have learned something- you still haen't gotten it yet though.
oleg:
On the subject of Lenski's experiment, surely that research was original. Nobody has previously observed E. coli evolve the ability to process citrate.
Your ignorance is meaningless here:
Hall, B.G. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 151:269-273
and
Pos, K.M., Dimroth, P., and Bott, M. 1998. The Escherichia coli citrate carrier CitT: a member of a novel eubacterial transporter family related to the 2-oxoglutarate/malate translocator from spinach chloroplasts. J. Bacteriol. 180:4160-4165
oleg:
Not only that, Lenski and his students were able to determine which mutations triggered that.
I was unaware they did that.
oleg:
That's evolution caught in the act, pretty cool.
And that is equivocation caught in the act.
At 7:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Dr Behe's paper adds original knowledge because I am sure the majority of evolutionists "knew" there was plenty of evidence for constructive mutations.
Ya see when you can take multiple papers and tie them together, if no one else has done that, then that is original knowledge.
At 9:58 PM,
Zachriel said…
Hall, B.G. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 151:269-273
Pos et al. concerns anaerobic citrate utilization. Hall did observe aerobic citrate utilization. He hypothesized a cryptic gene. What Lenski et al. accomplished, among other observations, was to catch evolution in the act allowing for analysis of the actual mutational contingencies.
At 9:59 PM,
Zachriel said…
Citrate utilization in E. coli has also been traced to plasmids.
At 10:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
What Lenski et al. accomplished, among other observations, was to catch evolution in the act allowing for analysis of the actual mutational contingencies.
And more equivocation. Not to mention a complete failure to produce evidence for constructing mutations.
At 10:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Citrate utilization in E. coli has also been traced to plasmids.
No original knowledge there either.
Post a Comment
<< Home