Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Guts · 08-12-2003, 07:33 PM

PZ writes:

Quote:

No, it is not so simple. There is a substantial difference between inventing a prediction and a test, and coming up with a good and appropriate test. You and Mike seem to be incapable of doing the latter.

How is testing whether enolase functions as an adaptor in the degradosome not a good test?

PZ writes:

Quote:

For instance, I could claim that rainfall in my area is a consequence of whether I burn my toast in the morning or not. It's certainly trivially testable. It's also a really stupid hypothesis. It becomes even more stupid if I document an instance of burned toast on the same day that it later rained, and claim that this is an example of tested prediction that supports my hypothesis.

This is precisely what Mike Gene does on his website.

No, he uses three criteria that lead him to his prediction:

Quote:

1. The helicase in the degradosome is ATP dependent.

2. Enolase, along with PNPase and the helicase, form a multimeric complex docked on the C-terminus of RnaseE (the endonuclease).

3. Experiments in other cells show that enolase can form high-affinity complexes with pyruvate kinase and phosphoglycerate mutase, the two enzymes that flank enolase on each side in the glycolytic pathway.

4. Pyruvate kinase carries out a reaction that forms ATP.

Based again, on an ID view of the origin of life, I don't really see how this is "stupid" hypothesis, but I guess everyone has their own opinion.

Guts · 08-12-2003, 07:35 PM

Pangloss writes:

Quote:

There are no 'experiments' shown in textbooks. Ther are pictures shown to demonstrate the phenotypic differences between the different moths.

I see. So those were just pictures of moths. So that they could look pretty. Unfortunately all the textbooks that talk about this referr to the Kettlewell experiment . Pointing to the phenotypic differences between the different moths and how they came about (through the Kettlewell experiment) is showing it.

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Principia and PZ,

Being able to formulate a prediction and to pursue whether the prediction is correct or not, makes the hypothesis concerning the observation testable. This is simple.

If what lead Mike to predict that enolase functions as an adaptor because of the machine-like complexity of the degradosome, and that it is not a functionless vestige of co-option, then you can see how ID makes testable hypothesis.

And when non-anonymous "orthodoxy promulgaters" actually find out what that one type of enolase does in the degradosome, what will you and your hero do then? Proclaim victory? A triumph for "teleology" (which of course means 'Darwinism" is false)?

AGAIN, if he is right, so what? He will not have found out, and thopse that do will not have used his predictions or his method of any sort of ID gibberish to do it.

Mike Gene reminds me of the guy that trucked away the rock shards at Mt.Rushmore and told his grandkids that HE took part in making the sculptures...

Guts · 08-12-2003, 07:43 PM

It doesn't even matter. Whats important is that the utility of the teleological perspective is revealed.

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Pangloss writes:

I see. So those were just pictures of moths. So that they could look pretty. Unfortunately all the textbooks that talk about this referr to the Kettlewell experiment . Pointing to the phenotypic differences between the different moths and how they came about (through the Kettlewell experiment) is showing it.

Is that what 'they' do, Guts? Really?

Well, lets see...

I believe Jonny the credential inflater refers to Raven and Johnson's text... I have it here in my lap... Oh - there's the picture! Let's see what the caption says:

"Two peppered moths, Biston bistula, resting on lichens..."

Nothing about an experiment.

How about the accompanying text?

Lets see... Nothing...

There is more in later chapter...

ANOTHER picture! No mention of 'experiments' in the caption...

Accompanying text... Kettlewell.... hypothesized...tests the hypothesis...

Nope. Nothing about experiments.

Indeed - the pictures I mentioned had captions that clearly indicated that the pictures were just to show phenotpyic differences.

Maybe you have another text in mind? I have Mader at my office.

Maybe that one?

Which one, 'Guts'?

Guts · 08-12-2003, 07:46 PM

Really Pangloss? The Kettlewell experiment wasn't an experiment? Do you really want to say that?

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
It doesn't even matter. Whats important is that the utility of the teleological perspective is revealed.

You just don't get it...

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Really Pangloss? The Kettlewell experiment wasn't an experiment? Do you really want to say that? Is a test of a hypothesis not an experiment?

How about you support your claims?

In which text does an elaboration of the "experiment" accompany the infamous pictures, as you indicated?

By the way - 'I' don't want to say anything. I am quoting (sort of) one of the texts in question.

So, which text is it?

Guts · 08-12-2003, 07:50 PM

Answer my question first, is the Kettlewell experiment an experiment? When a textbook discusses such a thing, what are they discussing?

pangloss · 08-12-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
[B]Albion writes:

Many IDers do think that the designer is supernatural, however, as I said, ID does not entail supernatural causation. This is stated explicitely in an ARN faq:

Dembski and his ARN pal Behe co-authored a book called something like "ID- the Bridge between science and theology".

It would appear that the ARN faq is a bit misleading...

Quote:

Albion wrote:

Well I'm not a Christian (but then again, I have no idea what I am

) . There are plenty of muslims, pantheists, Jews, etc in the ID movement. ID seems to have a large collection of religious as well as agnostic supporters.

Really?

Like who?

Whom on their list of fellows is an agnostic?

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

08-12-2003, 07:43 PM	#94
Guts Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 90	It doesn't even matter. Whats important is that the utility of the teleological perspective is revealed.

08-12-2003, 07:46 PM	#96
Guts Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 90	Really Pangloss? The Kettlewell experiment wasn't an experiment? Do you really want to say that?

08-12-2003, 07:50 PM	#99
Guts Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 90	Answer my question first, is the Kettlewell experiment an experiment? When a textbook discusses such a thing, what are they discussing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.