Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 12-20-2002, 08:24 PM

Over at the Thomas-ReMine Debate Page at NMSR, there is this message:

POSTING HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO TCCSA WEBMASTER'S FLU-BUG, THE HECTIC HOLIDAYS, AND ONGOING DISCUSSIONS OVER DEBATE CONTENT._ CHECK BACK NEXT WEEK TO SEE THE LATEST SUBMISSION, OR TO LEARN WHEN IT WILL BE FORTHCOMING.

I wonder what "ongoing discussions over debate content" refers to. Though the debate is about

"Comparisons of molecules (proteins, DNA) of various species provide independent and compelling support for the hypothesis of biological macro-evolution"

in his first submission, Mr. ReMine wandered way off-topic, hoping to establish that evolution is a fundamentally unfalsifiable explanation. By comparison, Mr. Thomas stayed squarely on-topic.

So could it be that Mr. ReMine's most recent would-be submission is also grossly off-topic?

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

pz · 12-21-2002, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
So could it be that Mr. ReMine's most recent would-be submission is also grossly off-topic?

I wouldn't be at all surprised. ReMine has also been so thoroughly outclassed by his opponent that I also wouldn't be surprised if he were resorting to delaying tactics out of desperation -- I suspect that he's looking to elicit a response he can use to abandon the debate altogether while placing the blame on Thomas.

Dr.GH · 12-21-2002, 10:29 AM

The only thing you can count on from ReMine is: "You have misrepresented me" and "I discussed that in my book."

Dr.GH · 12-22-2002, 12:42 PM

ReMine's responce is up. It seems very disjointed, and even weaker than I had expected.

http://www.nmsr.org/round2b.htm

theyeti · 12-22-2002, 12:50 PM

From Water ReMine's "response":

Quote:

Plants make cellulose. Then fungi and microorganisms digest it with complex forms of "cellulase" enzyme-systems.

Generally, multicellular-animals don't have cellulase, so cannot digest cellulose. Instead, herbivores prolong digestion long enough for microorganism symbionts to digest the cellulose - then the animal digests the symbionts. Anti-creationists raised this issue, noting the panda is only 17% efficient at assimilating bamboo. It's bad design, they said, a good designer would've endowed herbivores with proper enzymes![11]

A theory is especially potent when it turns critical objections into corroborating evidence. Message Theory does that.

We're concerned about planetary de-forestation, so consider the consequences if most higher-animals could efficiently convert forests into progeny - catastrophe for the system. Therefore, a designer should protect plants from limitless overgrazing. Multicellular animals' inability to efficiently digest cellulose is one-facet of ecological balance for the system.

This has got to be the stupidest argument I've ever seen. The inefficiency of cellulose digestion makes animals eat more plant material than they would otherwise need to. Many herbivores do almost nothing but eat during their waking hours. And what does this have to do with molecular systematics anyway?

The fact that a clown like this is a Discovery Institute fellow speaks volumes about their standards.

theyeti

KC · 12-22-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:
From Water ReMine's "response":

This has got to be the stupidest argument I've ever seen. The inefficiency of cellulose digestion makes animals eat more plant material than they would otherwise need to. Many herbivores do almost nothing but eat during their waking hours. And what does this have to do with molecular systematics anyway?

The fact that a clown like this is a Discovery Institute fellow speaks volumes about their standards.

theyeti

Another glaring example of ID's almost complete ignorance of ecology.

KC

pangloss · 12-23-2002, 08:37 AM

Truly amazing...

I have to wonder why ReMine cannot keep on topic?

And, more importantly, why he is allowed to do this?

Darwin's Finch · 12-23-2002, 08:49 AM

pangloss, wasn't it you who butted heads with ReMine at Baptist Board? I vaguely remember a debate he had with an infidel that didn't turn out well for him. About all he could offer after a while was the charge that he was being misrepresented. *Waaaah*

I see he hasn't changed his stripes one bit.

lpetrich · 12-23-2002, 02:28 PM

The only thing good about ReMine's latest comment is that he is actually discusses some biochemistry. But he stumbles and quote-mines, and his response is far from coherent.

He claims that evolutionary biologists had somehow predicted that there would not be the great resemblance of biochemistry that we see. However, he quotes only Francis Crick's surprise as evidence, and not any discussions of some decades back of what biochemical research might be expected to reveal. In fairness to Mr. ReMine, Dr. Crick was hardly alone in his surprise; Russell Doolittle was surprised at how close human proteins are to corresponding chimp proteins.

But that biochemical unity is completely consistent with many biochemical features having been invented only once by the ancestors of present-day life.

Mr. ReMine is also confused about how some biologists have speculated about there having been many different origins of life with many different biochemistries; however, what we see today is consistent with there being only one early survivor.

And as to how pandas' inefficient digestion is good for bamboo forests, all that would happen if pandas got more efficient digestion is that a bamboo forest could support a larger population of pandas.

As to why the non-evolution of cellulase in the animal kingdom, one reasonable hypothesis is that many plant eaters are spoiled by gut symbionts. The symbionts themselves are unable to have their own gut symbionts, which gave them an incentive to do their own evolution of cellulose digestion. Also, their generation times are sometimes much shorter than that of their hosts, and their populations are much larger, offering many more opportunities for trial and error.

lpetrich · 12-23-2002, 02:45 PM

ReMine also "answers" the question of macroscopic-molecular correspondence with some quote mining; he fails to note the context of these quotes.

One of them is from an article on the relationships of the animal phyla; this has long been a very difficult problem, and molecular techniques can easily be confounded by rapid divergence, such as what is expected of the animal phyla in the late Precambrian.

Mr. ReMine approvingly quotes Syvanen on gene transposition, a.k.a. lateral gene transfer; he is correct that it would cause family-tree discordance. And, in fact, there is an abundance of evidence of that among one-celled organisms. Sometimes the discordance follows well-defined patterns, as in the case of endosymbiosis. But it is rare among multicelled organisms, since their germ cells tend to be sequestered.

Finally, Mr. ReMine discusses a virus-evolution experiment. Not suprisingly, he dismisses that as micro-evolution. And he claims that the experimenters were controlling divergence rates, when they were merely setting up environments for the viruses to live in.

It's the classic creationist two-step:

C: Evolution doesn't happen!!!
E: [points to numerous examples of small-scale evolution]
C: That's micro-evolution, not macro-evolution! It's only macro-evolution that doesn't happen!!

12-20-2002, 08:24 PM	#1
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Where's Walter ReMine? Over at the Thomas-ReMine Debate Page at NMSR, there is this message: POSTING HAS BEEN DELAYED DUE TO TCCSA WEBMASTER'S FLU-BUG, THE HECTIC HOLIDAYS, AND ONGOING DISCUSSIONS OVER DEBATE CONTENT._ CHECK BACK NEXT WEEK TO SEE THE LATEST SUBMISSION, OR TO LEARN WHEN IT WILL BE FORTHCOMING. I wonder what "ongoing discussions over debate content" refers to. Though the debate is about "Comparisons of molecules (proteins, DNA) of various species provide independent and compelling support for the hypothesis of biological macro-evolution" in his first submission, Mr. ReMine wandered way off-topic, hoping to establish that evolution is a fundamentally unfalsifiable explanation. By comparison, Mr. Thomas stayed squarely on-topic. So could it be that Mr. ReMine's most recent would-be submission is also grossly off-topic? [ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2002, 10:29 AM	#3
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	The only thing you can count on from ReMine is: "You have misrepresented me" and "I discussed that in my book."

12-22-2002, 12:42 PM	#4
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	ReMine's responce is up. It seems very disjointed, and even weaker than I had expected. http://www.nmsr.org/round2b.htm

12-23-2002, 08:37 AM	#7
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Truly amazing... I have to wonder why ReMine cannot keep on topic? And, more importantly, why he is allowed to do this?

12-23-2002, 08:49 AM	#8
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	pangloss, wasn't it you who butted heads with ReMine at Baptist Board? I vaguely remember a debate he had with an infidel that didn't turn out well for him. About all he could offer after a while was the charge that he was being misrepresented. Waaaah I see he hasn't changed his stripes one bit.

12-23-2002, 02:28 PM	#9
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The only thing good about ReMine's latest comment is that he is actually discusses some biochemistry. But he stumbles and quote-mines, and his response is far from coherent. He claims that evolutionary biologists had somehow predicted that there would not be the great resemblance of biochemistry that we see. However, he quotes only Francis Crick's surprise as evidence, and not any discussions of some decades back of what biochemical research might be expected to reveal. In fairness to Mr. ReMine, Dr. Crick was hardly alone in his surprise; Russell Doolittle was surprised at how close human proteins are to corresponding chimp proteins. But that biochemical unity is completely consistent with many biochemical features having been invented only once by the ancestors of present-day life. Mr. ReMine is also confused about how some biologists have speculated about there having been many different origins of life with many different biochemistries; however, what we see today is consistent with there being only one early survivor. And as to how pandas' inefficient digestion is good for bamboo forests, all that would happen if pandas got more efficient digestion is that a bamboo forest could support a larger population of pandas. As to why the non-evolution of cellulase in the animal kingdom, one reasonable hypothesis is that many plant eaters are spoiled by gut symbionts. The symbionts themselves are unable to have their own gut symbionts, which gave them an incentive to do their own evolution of cellulose digestion. Also, their generation times are sometimes much shorter than that of their hosts, and their populations are much larger, offering many more opportunities for trial and error.

12-23-2002, 02:45 PM	#10
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	ReMine also "answers" the question of macroscopic-molecular correspondence with some quote mining; he fails to note the context of these quotes. One of them is from an article on the relationships of the animal phyla; this has long been a very difficult problem, and molecular techniques can easily be confounded by rapid divergence, such as what is expected of the animal phyla in the late Precambrian. Mr. ReMine approvingly quotes Syvanen on gene transposition, a.k.a. lateral gene transfer; he is correct that it would cause family-tree discordance. And, in fact, there is an abundance of evidence of that among one-celled organisms. Sometimes the discordance follows well-defined patterns, as in the case of endosymbiosis. But it is rare among multicelled organisms, since their germ cells tend to be sequestered. Finally, Mr. ReMine discusses a virus-evolution experiment. Not suprisingly, he dismisses that as micro-evolution. And he claims that the experimenters were controlling divergence rates, when they were merely setting up environments for the viruses to live in. It's the classic creationist two-step: C: Evolution doesn't happen!!! E: [points to numerous examples of small-scale evolution] C: That's micro-evolution, not macro-evolution! It's only macro-evolution that doesn't happen!!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.