DNAunion

DNAunion: Excuse me, pz, but all I am doing is explaining the meaning of YOUR original statements AS YOU WROTE THEM. I am not modifying the meaning.

Now, if you meant something other than what you actually wrote, then it is YOU who is in the wrong here, not me.

So, are you ready yet to admit that your ORIGINAL statement - as originally stated - is incorrect?

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: Unfortunately, Nic doesn’t read DNAunion closely enough!

My meaning of a direct pathway is based on Behe’s statements, not Darwin’s. Nic is launching a cheap shot here. If he isn’t smart enough to understand what I am saying, he should ask instead of assuming that I have misread Darwin somehow.

Shoot, even Nic has based his statements about the evolution of the Venus Fly Trap being a direct route on Behe’s meaning, emphasizing this multiple times – does that mean that Nic himself is guilty of not having read Darwin closely enough?

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: And if Nic is supposed to refuting Behe's position - the one that I confidentally and correctly repeated - then Nic must stick to Behe's meaning.

So, did Nic?

NO! Thus, Nic's whole tangent about the Venus Fly Trap is a red herring! By Behe's own explicit statements, that is an INDIRECT pathway. Nic isn't even addressing the correct issue - he has failed. I win!

Damn, I've got a perfect score in this thread so far: 5 out of 5, I think.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

pz

No. I've already gone over this: see the second to the last post on the first page of this topic. You are floundering against a straw man, and seem to have little comprehension of the processes actually ascribed to evolution.

DNAunion

DNAunion: What's the word for that....pigheaded? Obstinate? Close minded? Proud? Incapable of admitting being wrong even though it is obvious to everyone that you are?

Let me guess. Soon you will abuse your authority and close the thread or boot me off because I am refuting your ass off! LOL!!!

Principia

Nice try, Rick. First a brief diversion nitpicking about some generalization of biologists. Then a brief attack on Nic. And finally, an attack on the moderator of this forum. And it still all comes down to this unsupported assertion of yours. Yes, Rick, you are quite a whinner.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Principia

BTW, let's examine just whose reading comprehension is faulty here.

In Nic's first post:
To which, Rick says:
In other words, either he distorted what Nic said, or he blatantly ignored it.

Then, Nic replies:
To which, Rick answers:
In other words, once again, it is quite obvious that Rick is the one who is evading the issues and scoring cheap shots. Yep, he was definitely 5 for 5 on the 'who can be the most obnoxious and evasive loser on this thread' scorecard!

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

pz

As I already said, "I've already gone over this: see the second to the last post on the first page of this topic." Please refer to that if you think you can actually address something substantively.
I don't think so. I haven't even suggested taking any moderating role here.

We don't boot people off for making fools of themselves. Carry on.

Nic Tamzek

So, we have established that my characterization of Behe's use of "direct" and "indirect" is correct. If the basic function didn't change but simply improved, then that is a direct pathway.

DNA, you can't say this and also maintain that you agree with your previous quote of me regarding Behe's usage of "direct" vs. "indirect".

Well, you can, but you're contradicting yourself.

Here you go, in the VFT scenario:

Initial system: Passive glue trap (and Behe says that glue traps aren't IC BTW...)

Function: insect trapping


Final system: Active, multipart snap trap

Function: insect trapping

The basic function remained constant. Ergo, the hypothesized pathway was "direct" (on Behe's usage, that is -- please note that almost any other biologist will mean other things by "direct" and "indirect" and therefore quoting them proves nothing unless you can show that they believe in "direct" (same function) evolution to the exclusion of "indirect" (changing function) evolution).

You can count it up however you like, but here's my summary:

1) You started by admitting that the central argument of the ID movement is bunk, because IC systems can evolve after all (indirectly) according to you.

2) You claimed that Behe did succeed in showing that IC systems couldn't evolve directly (Behe usage), but you have not been able to rebut the scaffolding counterargument in the form of VFT evolution. So even you much weaker (and pretty much pointless from an ID point-of-view) argument has not held up.

3) I think you've also been trying to argue that Behe was only trying to show that "direct" pathways didn't work, and that he allowed that "indirect" pathways could work.

But what Behe in fact asserted (he didn't provide an argument) was that indirect pathways were so unlikely as to be disregardable, and he proceeded to disregard them for the rest of his book and focused on "debunking" "direct" pathways, thereby arriving at his earth-shaking conclusions of ID.

But, if you concede that indirect pathways are reasonable, then you have to concede that Behe's ID conclusion was unfounded.

And even if Behe was just arguing about the ineffectiveness of "direct" pathways, he has been shown to be incorrect even there by scaffolding example with cases like VFT evolution.

You win, DNAunion!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

nic

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Nic Tamzek ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: Uhm, no we didn’t. Your characterization is in fact wrong.

I have been waiting for you to explicitly state that the evolution of the Venus Fly Trap was direct by Behe’s usage – you avoided answering my questions directly. Once you unequivocally said, “Yes”, I would have you absolutely committed – at that point, I was going to administer the knockout punch. Your refusal to be nailed down is what has dragged this out longer than need be.