I wonder why this channel wouldn't have Behe on to discuss his work with Sawmidass rather than simply offer a critique of Behe's book. Seeking truth is supposed to be the point. You can't seek truth with presenting one side only.
I wonder if Dr. Swamidass's note on disagreement on the small things isn't a broader philosophic disconnect in worldviews. Repeatedly he notes Dr. Behe's refusal to accept designed experiments, and given a particular worldview that may be self defeating as Josh explains. Indirectly some of this comes up during questioning and methodological naturalism et'al. Josh dismisses what I think may be more significant source of disagreement as a surface issue, but it seems to me the other way around, and the problem isn't surface, but foundational. Provided, I am not any more wise to Behe's position in the respect I am talking about. Respecting Josh's language, 'on the surface', it absolutely seems there is no way to draw a scientific conclusion the way Behe wants to approach the question of evolution. To be fair to Behe, I'm not sure there IS a way of approaching the question respecting evolution being intelligent/unintelligent unless via indirect observation, see it occurring outside of designed experiment which is obviously problematic in a pragmatic sense. Anyway, I'm year behind on this discussion.Thank you for hosting.
This idea of "neutral evolution" strikes me as very speculative. What is the idea here? That random mutations that do not increase or decrease an organisms fitness can accumulate to produce novel molecular structures such as new functional proteins, genes, molecular machines etc? Did I miss something or was the only evidence for this that he mentioned from simulations? I have a hard time imagining how a sufficient number of so called neutral mutations could stick around in a species long enough to accumulate all the parts to put together something like a flagellum or kinesin.
No mutations are neutral. That's just misinformation altogether. All mutations, or virtually all, have some impact on organisms, and the vast majority are damaging. Read Dr J C Sanford's book, Genetic Entropy.
@@kymvanderkaag1474 well it's a mutation that helps those it afflicts survive but it's a broken gene that leaves a person sickly. There are mutations that have a positive side effect like sickle cell but are in fact harmful over all.
I realize you posted this over a year ago but I couldn't let your question go unanswered. Perhaps you already know the answer now. If God chose evolution to bring about all the diverse life on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that evolution is supposed to be a natural process. We don't see evidence of that being the way He did it. We see evidence of abrupt introduction of new species, phyla etc. We don't see any evidence of any natural processes capable of arranging the nucleotide bases into a functional arrangement. The same goes for the polypeptide chains of amino acids which make up the large amount of different proteins necessary for getting a functional cell. If natural processes got extremely lucky and correctly "sequenced" a chain of amino acids for one protein (which is not likely because amino acids need the right conditions and have to be chemically linked), it would have to wait around, without breaking back down, for another matching protein, and then another, and then another, and on and on, for just one of the many cell parts. That's just the very, very beginning of the problem. To get any macro evolutionary change, that requires a huge infusion of new information (new DNA sequences) for the new body parts and plans, regulatory networks and proteins. Random mutations of already existing genes, lateral gene transfer, rearrangement of codons, etc won't get it.
Swamidass sounds more like a politician than a biologist, I don't think I have ever heard so much rhetoric. No clear answers to very simple questions and a multitude of squishy definitions for everything. The first 45 min was pure exercise in poisoning the well.
Really? He cited specific studies, articles, researchers and points that clearly contradict Behe. How is that being political? He seems quite factual. If God used evolutionary processes, I don’t see the problem. God created each and every one of us yet he does it through human reproductive processes and not special creation. God seems to enjoy processes as opposed to constant miracles. I think that’s cool.
@@gfujigo If evolution is true, that would mean all Israelites of antiquity and Hasidic Jews today misinterpreted their very own book of Genesis. It would also mean Adam was not the first man nor Eve the mother of us all making God a liar. It would also mean sin wasn't the cause of death making Jesus sacrifice for us unnecessary. Could God have evolved us from monkeys if he wanted...I suppose, but there is no science supporting it, and I believe God over men.
@DocrorKnows Michael behe has addressed all these critics. You don't add your evolutionary interpretations to the studies. Michael behe has better papers
@DoctorKnows oh really The LORD JESUS CHRIST DIDNT HEAL LAZARUS AS A PROCESS HE DID IT IMMEDIATELY. HE TOLD LAZARUS TO GET UP AND HE GOT UP. HE INSTANTLY TURNED WATER TO WINE. CONTINUE BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT
The discussion begins at minute 22.
I wonder why this channel wouldn't have Behe on to discuss his work with Sawmidass rather than simply offer a critique of Behe's book. Seeking truth is supposed to be the point. You can't seek truth with presenting one side only.
I wonder if Dr. Swamidass's note on disagreement on the small things isn't a broader philosophic disconnect in worldviews. Repeatedly he notes Dr. Behe's refusal to accept designed experiments, and given a particular worldview that may be self defeating as Josh explains. Indirectly some of this comes up during questioning and methodological naturalism et'al. Josh dismisses what I think may be more significant source of disagreement as a surface issue, but it seems to me the other way around, and the problem isn't surface, but foundational.
Provided, I am not any more wise to Behe's position in the respect I am talking about. Respecting Josh's language, 'on the surface', it absolutely seems there is no way to draw a scientific conclusion the way Behe wants to approach the question of evolution. To be fair to Behe, I'm not sure there IS a way of approaching the question respecting evolution being intelligent/unintelligent unless via indirect observation, see it occurring outside of designed experiment which is obviously problematic in a pragmatic sense.
Anyway, I'm year behind on this discussion.Thank you for hosting.
I'd be curious about Dr. Swamidass' view on process structuralism and if it has theistic implications.
This idea of "neutral evolution" strikes me as very speculative. What is the idea here? That random mutations that do not increase or decrease an organisms fitness can accumulate to produce novel molecular structures such as new functional proteins, genes, molecular machines etc? Did I miss something or was the only evidence for this that he mentioned from simulations? I have a hard time imagining how a sufficient number of so called neutral mutations could stick around in a species long enough to accumulate all the parts to put together something like a flagellum or kinesin.
No mutations are neutral. That's just misinformation altogether. All mutations, or virtually all, have some impact on organisms, and the vast majority are damaging. Read Dr J C Sanford's book, Genetic Entropy.
@@TruthSword7 I suspect that is right , and I have read that book.
@@TruthSword7
Sickle cell anemia as an adaption to Malaria????
@@kymvanderkaag1474 well it's a mutation that helps those it afflicts survive but it's a broken gene that leaves a person sickly. There are mutations that have a positive side effect like sickle cell but are in fact harmful over all.
If evolution is how God brought about life on earth, what’s the problem?
Because GOD is not a GOD OF CONFUSION
@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 What’s the confusion?
I realize you posted this over a year ago but I couldn't let your question go unanswered. Perhaps you already know the answer now.
If God chose evolution to bring about all the diverse life on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that evolution is supposed to be a natural process. We don't see evidence of that being the way He did it. We see evidence of abrupt introduction of new species, phyla etc.
We don't see any evidence of any natural processes capable of arranging the nucleotide bases into a functional arrangement. The same goes for the polypeptide chains of amino acids which make up the large amount of different proteins necessary for getting a functional cell.
If natural processes got extremely lucky and correctly "sequenced" a chain of amino acids for one protein (which is not likely because amino acids need the right conditions and have to be chemically linked), it would have to wait around, without breaking back down, for another matching protein, and then another, and then another, and on and on, for just one of the many cell parts.
That's just the very, very beginning of the problem.
To get any macro evolutionary change, that requires a huge infusion of new information (new DNA sequences) for the new body parts and plans, regulatory networks and proteins. Random mutations of already existing genes, lateral gene transfer, rearrangement of codons, etc won't get it.
This is so very very irreducibly poor.
Trust me just this once, chicken soup didn't make a chicken...
He knows which side his bread is buttered
Swamidass sounds more like a politician than a biologist, I don't think I have ever heard so much rhetoric. No clear answers to very simple questions and a multitude of squishy definitions for everything.
The first 45 min was pure exercise in poisoning the well.
Really? He cited specific studies, articles, researchers and points that clearly contradict Behe. How is that being political? He seems quite factual.
If God used evolutionary processes, I don’t see the problem. God created each and every one of us yet he does it through human reproductive processes and not special creation. God seems to enjoy processes as opposed to constant miracles. I think that’s cool.
@@gfujigo
If evolution is true, that would mean all Israelites of antiquity and Hasidic Jews today misinterpreted their very own book of Genesis.
It would also mean Adam was not the first man nor Eve the mother of us all making God a liar.
It would also mean sin wasn't the cause of death making Jesus sacrifice for us unnecessary.
Could God have evolved us from monkeys if he wanted...I suppose, but there is no science supporting it, and I believe God over men.
@DocrorKnows Michael behe has addressed all these critics. You don't add your evolutionary interpretations to the studies. Michael behe has better papers
@DoctorKnows oh really The LORD JESUS CHRIST DIDNT HEAL LAZARUS AS A PROCESS HE DID IT IMMEDIATELY. HE TOLD LAZARUS TO GET UP AND HE GOT UP. HE INSTANTLY TURNED WATER TO WINE. CONTINUE BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT
They don't contradict Behe. He used rhetoric to make it sound like they contradicted behe