Creationist guy coming to UC Davis this Fri

[Alyrium Denryle]

I can pull out equations that model underdominant selection which actually disprove intelligent design

And I can ask you for a link. Please?

Sure, hold on let me get them for you... They arent linkable, but are rather in my notes....

Delta P= P/WBar(pW(subscript: AA)+qW(subscript AB)-Wbar)

p equals the frequency of the dominant Allele while q equals the frequency of the recessive. W(subscript: AA) equals the fitness of the homozygous dominant genotype while W(subscript: AB) is the fitness of the heterozygous genotype while Wbar is total population fitness.

Underominant selection si when the heterozygous is the least fit, what this has the effect of doing is creating on a graph a parabola. Depending on the original number of individuals with the given genotype, the frequency alleles will change. However if it goes one way, the fitness of the population will increase less than it could had the frequency of the other genotype been even 2 individuals larger. This means that while selection always increases the fitness of the population it may not increase it to its maximum potential. Hence the sytem is not intelligently designed

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So essentially, the system is doing less, less efficiently than it could?

[tharkûn]

This means that while selection always increases the fitness of the population it may not increase it to its maximum potential. Hence the sytem is not intelligently designed

And a quick response I've heard to that is along the lines that you are optimizing fitness for exactly one population; that is not necessarily congruent with global optimization. For instance if AA allows a predator to eat a poisonious species without harm, Aa means the poison is still lethal, and aa means the poison is merely toxic; then obviously AA is the most fit. However the ability of the predator to eat with impunity might not be globally optimal - without some counterbalancing force the predator might eat all the prey and collapse an entire branch in the food chain.

Mind you I know you could further pick the above crap apart, but the point is these guys have reams of handy jargon and stories that will sound legit. Face it, this wouldn't be a fair fight - it's his turf with his rules. Even if it was a fair fight his orational skills HAVE to be almost brilliant to have come thus far.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I never understood that if they are so intelligent and so brilliant, and if they put so much effort and work into sounding intelligent and supporting arguments, why do they not just tell the truth and do it at the same time?

[sketerpot]

I can pull out equations that model underdominant selection which actually disprove intelligent design

And I can ask you for a link. Please?

Sure, hold on let me get them for you... They arent linkable, but are rather in my notes....

Delta P= P/WBar(pW(subscript: AA)+qW(subscript AB)-Wbar)

p equals the frequency of the dominant Allele while q equals the frequency of the recessive. W(subscript: AA) equals the fitness of the homozygous dominant genotype while W(subscript: AB) is the fitness of the heterozygous genotype while Wbar is total population fitness.

Underominant selection si when the heterozygous is the least fit, what this has the effect of doing is creating on a graph a parabola. Depending on the original number of individuals with the given genotype, the frequency alleles will change. However if it goes one way, the fitness of the population will increase less than it could had the frequency of the other genotype been even 2 individuals larger. This means that while selection always increases the fitness of the population it may not increase it to its maximum potential. Hence the sytem is not intelligently designed

Hey, cool. By the way, if I got it right this should be easier to read:



The problem with that argument, even if you could explain what the equation means to an audience, is that creationists are very good at handwaving around the fact that the world acts like it isn't designed. I guess you can't convince everybody.

[DPDarkPrimus]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

[sketerpot]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

Which brings us back to the big reason Intelligent Design isn't science: it's unfalsifiable. If the people you mentioned aren't a perfect example of ID rationalization, I don't know what is.

[Alyrium Denryle]

sketerpot... you got it slightly incorrect. The parenthesiesed part of the equation is seperate from the fraction. P divided by Wbar all of it multiplied (stuff in parentheses)

[Alyrium Denryle]

This means that while selection always increases the fitness of the population it may not increase it to its maximum potential. Hence the sytem is not intelligently designed

And a quick response I've heard to that is along the lines that you are optimizing fitness for exactly one population; that is not necessarily congruent with global optimization. For instance if AA allows a predator to eat a poisonious species without harm, Aa means the poison is still lethal, and aa means the poison is merely toxic; then obviously AA is the most fit. However the ability of the predator to eat with impunity might not be globally optimal - without some counterbalancing force the predator might eat all the prey and collapse an entire branch in the food chain.

Mind you I know you could further pick the above crap apart, but the point is these guys have reams of handy jargon and stories that will sound legit. Face it, this wouldn't be a fair fight - it's his turf with his rules. Even if it was a fair fight his orational skills HAVE to be almost brilliant to have come thus far.

the cool thing about that equation is that it deals specifically with local populations.

[tharkûn]

the cool thing about that equation is that it deals specifically with local populations.

So what? He will have dozens of fun stories to tell and hundreds of terms to throw around. The fact that each successive wave can further be picked apart is meaningless in a stage debate format - eventually you run out of time.

In any event virtually all "X is not optimally designed" arguements can be eventually copped out of by claiming that local optimization is not equivalent to global optimization. The designer designed flaws for some arcane reason that ends up making the world a warmer and fuzzier place.

[Alyrium Denryle]

the cool thing about that equation is that it deals specifically with local populations.

So what? He will have dozens of fun stories to tell and hundreds of terms to throw around. The fact that each successive wave can further be picked apart is meaningless in a stage debate format - eventually you run out of time.

In any event virtually all "X is not optimally designed" arguements can be eventually copped out of by claiming that local optimization is not equivalent to global optimization. The designer designed flaws for some arcane reason that ends up making the world a warmer and fuzzier place.

That is when I point out that this designer is scientifically worthless due to unfalsifiability.

Though you are right, without a Ph. D and the accompanying freakish amount of knowledge required to get to that degree, He would simply bombard me with more than I could counter effectively.

[Darth Servo]

the cool thing about that equation is that it deals specifically with local populations.

So what? He will have dozens of fun stories to tell and hundreds of terms to throw around. The fact that each successive wave can further be picked apart is meaningless in a stage debate format - eventually you run out of time.

In any event virtually all "X is not optimally designed" arguements can be eventually copped out of by claiming that local optimization is not equivalent to global optimization. The designer designed flaws for some arcane reason that ends up making the world a warmer and fuzzier place.

And then he pulls out the "tornado through a junkyard" bullshit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

the cool thing about that equation is that it deals specifically with local populations.

So what? He will have dozens of fun stories to tell and hundreds of terms to throw around. The fact that each successive wave can further be picked apart is meaningless in a stage debate format - eventually you run out of time.

In any event virtually all "X is not optimally designed" arguements can be eventually copped out of by claiming that local optimization is not equivalent to global optimization. The designer designed flaws for some arcane reason that ends up making the world a warmer and fuzzier place.

And then he pulls out the "tornado through a junkyard" bullshit.

If he pulls that shit out, I rip it apart in ten seconds. I cant count how many times I have done so.

[DPDarkPrimus]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

Which brings us back to the big reason Intelligent Design isn't science: it's unfalsifiable. If the people you mentioned aren't a perfect example of ID rationalization, I don't know what is.

But then the say that I'm asking for a philisophical answer to a scientific question, or vice versa. To which I reply "gee, doesn't that kind of demonstrate how your claims SUCK". But they never get it.

[Darth Servo]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

Really? They say that its "pure speculation" that having humans eat and breathe through different openings thus eliminating a potentially lethal choking hazzard would be an improvement?

[DPDarkPrimus]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

Really? They say that its "pure speculation" that having humans eat and breathe through different openings thus eliminating a potentially lethal choking hazzard would be an improvement?

They say there could be consequences to having seperate tubes that I'm not considering.

[Darth Servo]

They say there could be consequences to having seperate tubes that I'm not considering.

But I suppose they don't give any EXAMPLES, do they. There are already two tubes. They just connect for a short space in the back of the mouth.

[DPDarkPrimus]

They say there could be consequences to having seperate tubes that I'm not considering.

But I suppose they don't give any EXAMPLES, do they. There are already two tubes. They just connect for a short space in the back of the mouth.

If you really wanted to subject yourself, I'll PM you the link.



Back on topic, did anybody at the lecture bring up how rediculous Behe's example of a mousetrap as being irreducibly complex is?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm a christian and all, but Behe is a giagantic douche. He spent the first hour of his lecture going over all the ways people agree with him and why, while barely providing any evidence or support for his arguments.

[The Spartan]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

Really? They say that its "pure speculation" that having humans eat and breathe through different openings thus eliminating a potentially lethal choking hazzard would be an improvement?

We're perfect?!? Bullshit, I'm not even thirty and my knees already starting to fall apart. Perfect my lily-white ass.

[Wicked Pilot]

No one on this board could effectively challenge Behe in this type of arena. You'd be fighting him at his own game, on his turf. He has seen every arguement we have plus some and has five bullshit answers to every one of them. He could absolutely bury his opponent in jargon, and unless the audience if full of PhDs they will buy it hook, line and sinker.
If you want to effectively challenge this man you'd had better be thinking outside the box. Hit him up on geology or astronomy, make arguements that regular occuring phenomom like weather or plate techtonics are so complex and unpredictable there must be intelligence behind it, argue YEC if you have to, just don't engage him on biochemestry. If you want to trip up Behe you need to be a little bit more creative than simply arguing the facts.

[Darth Servo]

I'm a christian and all, but Behe is a giagantic douche. He spent the first hour of his lecture going over all the ways people agree with him and why, while barely providing any evidence or support for his arguments.

What do you expect from a fundie? The FOUNDATION for their ENTIRE world view is 'so-and-so said so'. As far as they're concerned, there is no other way to do it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm a christian and all, but Behe is a giagantic douche. He spent the first hour of his lecture going over all the ways people agree with him and why, while barely providing any evidence or support for his arguments.

What do you expect from a fundie? The FOUNDATION for their ENTIRE world view is 'so-and-so said so'. As far as they're concerned, there is no other way to do it.

Well, I've heard good creationist lectures before, and I've heard good evolutionist lectures before. This was just a bad lecture.

[Superman]

I'm a christian and all, but Behe is a giagantic douche. He spent the first hour of his lecture going over all the ways people agree with him and why, while barely providing any evidence or support for his arguments.

What do you expect from a fundie? The FOUNDATION for their ENTIRE world view is 'so-and-so said so'. As far as they're concerned, there is no other way to do it.

Well, I've heard good creationist lectures before, and I've heard good evolutionist lectures before. This was just a bad lecture.

But the difference is that creationism is FALSE.

[DPDarkPrimus]

People have been telling me that there's no reason why god had to make us perfect. Then they say that my pointing out things that could be improved in the human body is "pure speculation".

Really? They say that its "pure speculation" that having humans eat and breathe through different openings thus eliminating a potentially lethal choking hazzard would be an improvement?

We're perfect?!? Bullshit, I'm not even thirty and my knees already starting to fall apart. Perfect my lily-white ass.

We're not perfect, but not being perfect doesn't disprove an intelligent creator.