Talk:Behe: The Edge of Evolution, Interview/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Extra extra: I spoke with Michael Behe today[edit]

No B.S.

He was being interviewed on a local radio station, and I called in my question about speciation.

Specifically, I asked, per the infamous fruit fly experiment, if I were a different species than Swedish women, because, when I was in college, Swedish women would not date me (I did not say this on the radio, but it was because I chewed Copenhagen--I think I might have had a chance if I had chewed something more minty, like maltose based chew). Behe said it was because I am a different species...but he was laughing when he said it, so he might not be the specieist his answer indicates.

This is no B.S. I asked the question, and I really talked with him....But, before I called, and this is true (truth is stranger than fiction) infamous athiest idiot Janos (Jan), the brother of former governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura, also called, promoting Stephen Gould's ideas (as though he understood them). This was hillarious...Janos is like the "caveman scientist" akin to Caveman Lawyer from some old comedy show. Complete idiot. Jan sounds a lot like Jesse Ventura, and made a dork of himself during Ventura's reign--calling various right wing talk radio with his athiestic and communist ideas. Janos is less intelligent than Jesse.

By the way, Behe took a mild amount of flak today (this was on a Christian radio station) because:

1. He stated today that he believes in an old Earth, citing specifically (and ironically) random mutations in DNA (but in unusful sections of DNA), as well as physics and astronmony etc. (though he said he was a biologist). He said he did not follow and does not usually discuss young Earth ideas. 2. He stated today that he believes in common descent and evolution. 3. He stated today that the point of his book is that random mutations alone do not explain the useful adaptations we see (specified complexity), and that intelligent design best explains most useful (and complex) adaptations.

Now that I heard Behe speak, I'll go see how much you guys are "quote mining." HeartGold tx 21:09, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

"Quote mining"? I beg your pardon, sir. The left side of this piece is an exact copy of the entirety of his "interview" promoting his new book, as you will plainly see if you follow the link at the top of the file. humanbe in 21:45, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
By the way, the part you added today to the article (starts with "NOTE I talked to..."), does nothing for the article either way, as far as I can see. All you did was quote what he says over and over again in his "interview" already. If you had found a source backing up what he says that would be different. Just sayin'... humanbe in 21:52, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Striking that, I moved both our "NOTE"s to a new section at the bottom. humanbe in 23:45, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Human, I thought you would be as excited as I was that I talked with Behe. The boss himself. :) Sorry about the quote mining comment...such allegations can only be made against creationists I suppose. :) Lighten up, I had two brushes with fame today. HeartGold tx 00:10, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
Sorry - yes, excited for you. Fame or infamy, though? Anyway, feel free to glow in your brushes and don't let me extinguish that flame! And anyone can quote mine - the reason I bristled is that the slightest investigation would show that I didn't. Making the accusation, however lighthearted (get it?), a baseless slur. What was the other brush? humanbe in 00:34, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
The second was with Jesse Ventura's idiot evolutionist brother. Rather light brush. I hope he keeps calling arguing for evolution...this is the second time he has done it that I have heard. Janos Sounds like a WP contributor to me.... HeartGold tx 00:36, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
Ah, ok. I used to "hang out" with Andrew Schlafly on line - a well known idiot christian creationist. Maybe the two of them should get a radio show? humanbe in 00:41, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
From you report it sound like he got an easier ride than the got when he had to defend his ideas in court of law. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

whatever happened to flagella?[edit]

I remember when ID's pet topicy was the protozoan flagella, which "couldn't possible evolve" due to its "irreducible complexity". Now Behe is all excited about malaria and its apparent inability to evolve a specific trait he demands of it. At least he's sticking to one celled bugs. I wonder when he will use influenza to "prove" something? humanbe in 14:47, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I remember reading something like scientists discovering another component within bacteria that was genetically only a few steps away from a flagellum, but it had an entirely different function and was located within the cell, Behe probably read this too.
But, hey, that's what you get when you support your theories with what we don't (yet) know, instead of what we do know. MiddleMan 15:02, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
That's kinda what I figured - they made a big noise about, so real scientists investigated it in more depth and answered the question ;). So now they have to chase another "gap" humanbe in 15:19, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

One could equally argue that homo sapiens' lack of infrared (night) vision shows that we, also, could not evolve a useful trait. Therefore, evolution is a lie and god did it. QED. God, when do I get my night goggles? humanbe in 14:47, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

His statements on malaria are either over my head or just outright batshit crazy and wrong. Malaria is constantly evolving resistance. What is his point?User:PalMD
It might be evoloving resistance, but it is still malaria. Is there anybody who critiques evolution who does not affirm "micro-evolution" (within bounds)? Even Behe seemed to affirm "macro-evolution", just not the random adaptation part, which is more than I believe. (I have yet to see any convincing experiment that shows organisms can evolve without bound either naturally or artificially.) I think laboratory investigators would do well to conduct experiments to either show that evolution via artificial selection can continue without bounds or to probe the limits of those bounds. Has anybody explicitly set out to conduct such an experiment? Would such an experiment be likely to attract grant money, or would it be viewed as heresy by the evolution establishment? HeartGold tx 08:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Speciation has been observed, certainly. If the argument is that Plasmodium should have speciated, well, that is an invalid argument. Why should it have? It is extremely successful.--PalMD-yada yada 09:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
Speciation has been observed? I am familiar with the fruit fly experiments, and the changing of the definition of species to achieve a successful result, but has there been another example, something that a layman would recognize as a new species? HeartGold tx 23:44, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
see baraminology humanbe in 23:53, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
Oh, and by the way, do you know why we need new flu shots every few years? humanbe in 23:53, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
Ah, you're baiting me, aren't you? We have to have new flu shots because chinese live too close to pigs and ducks. Or, the CT is, big pharmeceuticals keep releasing new strains of, ahem, flu. (Either case, micro-evolution, or do you contend that these are different species of, ahem, flu?). HeartGold tx 00:22, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
Yes, no, no, and yes. There are often more than one species of things we use one word to name. humanbe in 13:47, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

"Is there anybody who critiques evolution who does not affirm "micro-evolution" (within bounds)?" Actually, it is only the critics of evolution who use the micro/macro distinction. humanbe in 13:47, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Thank you. That is the difference between hard science (empirical) and metaphysics (inferred story to fit the facts). Micro evolution can be observed; macro evolution has to be inferred. HeartGold tx 23:34, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
If I don't reply, do you "win"? Evolution has been observed. humanbe in 03:20, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Weren't SARS and that new type of bird flu new species? You might say it's still the same strain and phyically they're still similar (of course there are lots of microbes that look alike but are completely different), but it's hard to distinguish between species anyway when talking about bacteria and viruses, even with mammals there often is no clear distinction between species, are zebra's and horses different species, are they members of the same "strain"? Are cats and dogs members of the same strain? MiddleMan 06:54, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

@human ...homo sapiens' lack of infrared (night) vision shows that ... God would never allow infrared vision because it would be used (probably) to tell when a woman was sexually excited. That might lead to promiscuity or just humping for fun and he hates that. Some people do have vision outside the "general" range but I think the receptors in the eye are not suited to infra-red or ultraviolet ranges. Hamster (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

malarial "evolution"[edit]

I find it ironic that the only adaptation Behe thinks malaria should develop is resistance to our prevetative efforts. A much more useful adaptation for the baramin to incorporate would be for it to not make people sick any more - then we wouldn't try to kill it. It could even develop a trait making it useful to people (like enabling us to digest cellulose, or paint). humanbe in 13:44, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Added link at Amazon[edit]

In a comment on one of Behe's other posts (since the Q&A did not allow reponses) I added a quick note with a link to this file. humanbe in 13:00, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

cover story[edit]

(please do not archive this section)

  • SusanG - nominated it, so probably "yes"
  • I think it's an awesome piece of work, so I vote yes as well. humanUser talk:Human 12:40, 29 January 2008 (EST)
  • I would vote yes for this article, as long as potential negative attention from Behe's ilk would not cause a problem for RW. -Arcan 11:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Barring any future votes against, I'm going to change the template and include the article. Thanks, humanUser talk:Human 14:00, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Front page formatting[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but when this is the random featured article, I get the start of the TABLE formatting after the first question (it shows up as "< the entire article"). I'd fix it, if I had any idea what I was doing :-\ Hope a knowledgeable someone is watching the recent changes! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Your comment is well founded, I have seen this bug myself. At least, "we" are working on it, in our copious spare time. By the way, if "we" didn't already know, your input would be a desperately needed bit of feedback - so THANKSSSS!!! humanUser talk:Human 01:10, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Borks main page[edit]

I've just noticed that this thing borks the main page worse than before. It's most likely because of the new parser, so I've removed the approved parameter to remove it from the main page for now. I can't fix it now, so if someone wants to do it, be my guest, otherwise I'll do it when I have some free time. -- Nx / talk 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fixing this now. Please don't edit Nx (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)