Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > BIO-Complexity

Pages: (5) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 >

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,01:36    Axe's latest paper got shredded by PZ. One of the Pharyngula comments pointed to the page of Thomas D. Schneider the inventor of EV where he demolishes Montanez, Ewert, Dembski, Marks "A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information" from the 2010 issue of Bio-Complexity. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2012,05:51    The new Ewert, Dembski, Marks article on the Steiner problem didn't change the number of authors who published in Bio-Complexity. The number increased from 11 to 13 when Axe's Stylus paper appeared in 2011. Right now it's still the same 13 authors. 5 of them belong to the Biocomplexity's editorial team of 32 (!) editors. 5 members of the editorial team and 3 authors (Dembski, Meyer, Nelson) are fellows of the Discovery Institute. The 13 authors of the now 7 papers come from only 5 Instituitions: Biologic Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA 1. Philip Lu 2. Stephanie Flatau 3. Ann K. Gauger 4. Pamela F. Fahey 5. Douglas D. Axe* Department of Biology and Earth Science, University of Wisconsin, Superior, Wisconsin, USA 6. Stephanie Ebnet 7. Ralph Seelke Department of Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA 8. George Montańez 9. Winston Ewert Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA; 10. William A. Dembski 11. Stephen C. Meyer 12. Paul A. Nelson Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA 13. Robert J. Marks II Marks, Ewert and Montanez seem to prefer the credentials of Baylor rather than their (and Dembski's) other affiliation the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. If they would use the later the number of institutions contributing to the journal would decrease to 4. Taking into account that the Biological Institute belongs to the DI  only 3 remain. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2012,08:19    Quote (sparc @ April 07 2012,05:51) ... the Biocomplexity's editorial team of 32 (!) editors ... How else can they cope with the avalanche of papers submitted each day? -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 07 2012,12:26    It's the usual horse-puckey, I see. Dembski et al. cite me and Jeff Shallit to say that they looked at more genetic algorithms than just stuff like "weasel" that obviously has the target in it. They do this to say that Dave Thomas was wrong in saying: Quote They claim that GAs cannot generate true novelty and that all such “answers” are surreptitiously introduced into the program via the algorithm’s fitness testing function They take issue with a quote Thomas makes, pointing out just how specific that quote was and how general Thomas' claim was. But one can justify Thomas' claim for Dembski at least, given the following: Quote This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated. There are no caveats there about multi-part, complex systems or what-have-you; just a straight-up universal claim about the abilities of evolutionary computation. Given that Dembski hadn't at that point even gotten well onto the dodge of claiming that CSI only meant CSI above his "universal improbability bound", this can only be taken to mean that he intended it to apply even to measures of "local small probability" as discussed in "The Design Inference". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 16 2012,07:38    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2012,18:26) It's the usual horse-puckey, I see. Dembski et al. cite me and Jeff Shallit to say that they looked at more genetic algorithms than just stuff like "weasel" that obviously has the target in it. They do this to say that Dave Thomas was wrong in saying: Quote They claim that GAs cannot generate true novelty and that all such “answers” are surreptitiously introduced into the program via the algorithm’s fitness testing function They take issue with a quote Thomas makes, pointing out just how specific that quote was and how general Thomas' claim was. But one can justify Thomas' claim for Dembski at least, given the following: Quote This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated. There are no caveats there about multi-part, complex systems or what-have-you; just a straight-up universal claim about the abilities of evolutionary computation. Given that Dembski hadn't at that point even gotten well onto the dodge of claiming that CSI only meant CSI above his "universal improbability bound", this can only be taken to mean that he intended it to apply even to measures of "local small probability" as discussed in "The Design Inference". So how does that work if you are a theistic evolutionist - All living things we see today are the result of evolutionary processes acting on, and from, the first life forms - but none of the specified complexity we see in life today is a result of those processes.

fusilier Posts: 252 Joined: Feb. 2003 (Permalink) Posted: April 16 2012,07:54    Quote (BillB @ April 16 2012,08:38) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2012,18:26) It's the usual horse-puckey, I see. Dembski et al. cite me and Jeff Shallit to say that they looked at more genetic algorithms than just stuff like "weasel" that obviously has the target in it. They do this to say that Dave Thomas was wrong in saying:   Quote They claim that GAs cannot generate true novelty and that all such “answers” are surreptitiously introduced into the program via the algorithm’s fitness testing function They take issue with a quote Thomas makes, pointing out just how specific that quote was and how general Thomas' claim was. But one can justify Thomas' claim for Dembski at least, given the following:   Quote This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated. There are no caveats there about multi-part, complex systems or what-have-you; just a straight-up universal claim about the abilities of evolutionary computation. Given that Dembski hadn't at that point even gotten well onto the dodge of claiming that CSI only meant CSI above his "universal improbability bound", this can only be taken to mean that he intended it to apply even to measures of "local small probability" as discussed in "The Design Inference". So how does that work if you are a theistic evolutionist - All living things we see today are the result of evolutionary processes acting on, and from, the first life forms - but none of the specified complexity we see in life today is a result of those processes. That's not what theistic evolution says. The CSI bullshit is from creationism, not evolutionary biology. -------------- fusilier James 2:24

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 16 2012,09:05    Quote (fusilier @ April 16 2012,13:54) Quote (BillB @ April 16 2012,08:38) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2012,18:26) It's the usual horse-puckey, I see. Dembski et al. cite me and Jeff Shallit to say that they looked at more genetic algorithms than just stuff like "weasel" that obviously has the target in it. They do this to say that Dave Thomas was wrong in saying:   Quote They claim that GAs cannot generate true novelty and that all such “answers” are surreptitiously introduced into the program via the algorithm’s fitness testing function They take issue with a quote Thomas makes, pointing out just how specific that quote was and how general Thomas' claim was. But one can justify Thomas' claim for Dembski at least, given the following:   Quote This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated. There are no caveats there about multi-part, complex systems or what-have-you; just a straight-up universal claim about the abilities of evolutionary computation. Given that Dembski hadn't at that point even gotten well onto the dodge of claiming that CSI only meant CSI above his "universal improbability bound", this can only be taken to mean that he intended it to apply even to measures of "local small probability" as discussed in "The Design Inference". So how does that work if you are a theistic evolutionist - All living things we see today are the result of evolutionary processes acting on, and from, the first life forms - but none of the specified complexity we see in life today is a result of those processes. That's not what theistic evolution says. The CSI bullshit is from creationism, not evolutionary biology. Yes, I know. My question was aimed at creationists. Perhaps I should have put an 'irony' tag before my comment.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,02:02    Denyse informs us that BIO-Complexity proudly published a review by Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, Douglas Axe: Lignin—Designed Randomness     Quote Here, we review what is currently known about the structural components of wood that make these materials so difficult to process industrially and so difficult to degrade biologically. We then move to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of lignin and the absence of an organism that can grow on lignin are more readily explained from the Darwinian perspective or from the design perspective. You didn't expect actual research, did you? It's a critical review - duh!     Quote In the end, it seems plausible that dining on lignin is only difficult, not impossible, but either way the design view seems to offer a more satisfactory account of what we know. The fatal blow to evolution is already dealt in the abstract:     Quote The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin—with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time. Exactly! And if flight appeared several times, why didn't humans evolve it by now? Because evolution doesn't work and the designer doesn't want us to fly, that's why. An interview with Matti Leisola in Creation Ministries International here. ETA: My emphasis Edited by Kattarina98 on July 04 2012,02:03 -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,08:38    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,00:02) Denyse informs us that BIO-Complexity proudly published a review by Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, Douglas Axe: Lignin—Designed Randomness         Quote Here, we review what is currently known about the structural components of wood that make these materials so difficult to process industrially and so difficult to degrade biologically. We then move to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of lignin and the absence of an organism that can grow on lignin are more readily explained from the Darwinian perspective or from the design perspective. You didn't expect actual research, did you? It's a critical review - duh!         Quote In the end, it seems plausible that dining on lignin is only difficult, not impossible, but either way the design view seems to offer a more satisfactory account of what we know. The fatal blow to evolution is already dealt in the abstract:         Quote The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin—with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time. Exactly! And if flight appeared several times, why didn't humans evolve it by now? Because evolution doesn't work and the designer doesn't want us to fly, that's why. An interview with Matti Leisola in Creation Ministries International here. ETA: My emphasis I think we should move on to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of IDiots is more readily explained from the "Darwinian" perspective or from the design perspective or from the 'some people are just arrogant loons that believe and promote religious bullshit pretending to be science' perspective. We should also consider, from a more philosophical level of course , that the design account/perspective must somehow reconcile an allegedly perfect, omnipotent, omniscient designer-god creating bullshit believing/promoting IDiots, and that that allegedly perfect god has had at least 13 billion years to get its creation (the universe and everything in it) right and yet it's still far from perfect. And one more thing we should consider is that the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient designer-god account/perspective must somehow reconcile the thousands of years of the failure of religious beliefs to provide any useful human knowledge, especially in comparison to the fact that reality based science (which also isn't perfect, and has been stifled by religious zealots) has produced an enormous amount of useful knowledge in far less time and continues to produce useful knowledge. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,09:39    must not submit blue "dine on my wood" comment. must not submit blue "dine on my wood" comment. must not submit blue "dine on my wood" comment. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

NormOlsen Posts: 104 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,09:54    Quote Here, we review what is currently known about the structural components of wood that make these materials so difficult to process industrially and so difficult to degrade biologically. We then move to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of lignin and the absence of an organism that can grow on lignin are more readily explained from the Darwinian perspective or from the design perspective. Next, we praise Jesus for the existence of lignin and what it tells us about the poverty of the Darwinian explanation.  And finally, we speculate that the long age of Methuselah and other antediluvians listed in Genesis 5 was due to the fact that they were actually made of lignin and thus could live as long as many trees, praise be to God. Last draft before final edit.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,10:07    -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,10:23    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,02:02) Denyse informs us that BIO-Complexity proudly published a review by Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, Douglas Axe: Lignin—Designed Randomness       Quote Here, we review what is currently known about the structural components of wood that make these materials so difficult to process industrially and so difficult to degrade biologically. We then move to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of lignin and the absence of an organism that can grow on lignin are more readily explained from the Darwinian perspective or from the design perspective. You didn't expect actual research, did you? It's a critical review - duh!       Quote In the end, it seems plausible that dining on lignin is only difficult, not impossible, but either way the design view seems to offer a more satisfactory account of what we know. The fatal blow to evolution is already dealt in the abstract:       Quote The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin—with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time. Exactly! And if flight appeared several times, why didn't humans evolve it by now? Because evolution doesn't work and the designer doesn't want us to fly, that's why. An interview with Matti Leisola in Creation Ministries International here. ETA: My emphasis I'm not a biochemist, but I think the answer to their riddle can be found in the abstract: Quote Fungi accomplish the biodegradation, and the surprising fact that it costs them energy to do so keeps the process gradual. Bolding mine. I expect their next paper to argue that extremophiles and the environments they live in are evidence of design because no animals evolved to live there... Edit to add: I'm not sure why it is surprising that it takes energy to biodegrade lignin -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,10:36    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,02:02) Denyse informs us that BIO-Complexity proudly published a review by Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, Douglas Axe: Lignin—Designed Randomness       Quote Here, we review what is currently known about the structural components of wood that make these materials so difficult to process industrially and so difficult to degrade biologically. We then move to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of lignin and the absence of an organism that can grow on lignin are more readily explained from the Darwinian perspective or from the design perspective. You didn't expect actual research, did you? It's a critical review - duh!       Quote In the end, it seems plausible that dining on lignin is only difficult, not impossible, but either way the design view seems to offer a more satisfactory account of what we know. The fatal blow to evolution is already dealt in the abstract:       Quote The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin—with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time. Exactly! And if flight appeared several times, why didn't humans evolve it by now? Because evolution doesn't work and the designer doesn't want us to fly, that's why. An interview with Matti Leisola in Creation Ministries International here. ETA: My emphasis Because with God, most things are impossible. Lignin digestion, native radio communication between intelligent brains (why don't we have some sort of ESP?), and getting beyond the limits of evolution. Evolution, by contrast, has no limits.  The IDiots themselves have said so over and over again, and they wouldn't be wrong. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,10:40    Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,11:39    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40) Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979. The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,12:17    Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,11:39) Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40) Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979. The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false. I thought there were extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. Or is it the radiation. I forget. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,13:13    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,12:17) Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,11:39) Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40) Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979. The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false. I thought there were extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. Or is it the radiation. I forget. Yes -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,14:06    I was thinking of this peer reviewed journal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....71.html -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,14:32    Quote (afarensis @ July 04 2012,11:13) Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,12:17) Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,11:39)   Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40) Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979. The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false. I thought there were extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. Or is it the radiation. I forget. Yes Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything at the end of that link that says anything about anything eating and digesting uranium. I also didn't see anything about extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. What I saw is an article about resistance to radiation. It's interesting but I don't think it refutes what I said. Besides, it really doesn't matter whether I put uranium or lugnuts in that sentence. What really matters is that the IDiots are playing their usual game where they look for something unrelated to whether evolution (at least in general) occurs and then they try to get people to take them seriously and play along with their ridiculous game. I'm sure that there are plenty of things that are not digestible and that organisms can't "grow on", yet evolution obviously occurs anyway. For instance, I really don't think that a human can digest and "grow on" water hemlock plants or asteroids but I'm pretty sure that humans have evolved. Even if nothing could eat, digest, or "grow on" lignin, it wouldn't mean a thing to whether evolution occurs. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,14:52    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,12:06) I was thinking of this peer reviewed journal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.....71.html That study appears to link the bacteria to using radiation in lieu of sunlight but it also appears that the bacteria are feeding on sulfur, not uranium. It's pretty cool anyway. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,15:16    Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,14:32) Quote (afarensis @ July 04 2012,11:13) Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,12:17)   Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,11:39)   Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40) Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979. The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false. I thought there were extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. Or is it the radiation. I forget. Yes Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything at the end of that link that says anything about anything eating and digesting uranium. I also didn't see anything about extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. What I saw is an article about resistance to radiation. It's interesting but I don't think it refutes what I said. Besides, it really doesn't matter whether I put uranium or lugnuts in that sentence. What really matters is that the IDiots are playing their usual game where they look for something unrelated to whether evolution (at least in general) occurs and then they try to get people to take them seriously and play along with their ridiculous game. I'm sure that there are plenty of things that are not digestible and that organisms can't "grow on", yet evolution obviously occurs anyway. For instance, I really don't think that a human can digest and "grow on" water hemlock plants or asteroids but I'm pretty sure that humans have evolved. Even if nothing could eat, digest, or "grow on" lignin, it wouldn't mean a thing to whether evolution occurs. I wasn't trying to refute anything you said, I was responding to midwifetoad... -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,15:17    Feeding is associated with "burning" in animals, but what does feeding mean to an organism that turns radiant energy into complex molecules? Couldn't you say that some organisms feed on energy gradients? Just asking. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2012,19:29    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,13:17) Feeding is associated with "burning" in animals, but what does feeding mean to an organism that turns radiant energy into complex molecules? Couldn't you say that some organisms feed on energy gradients? Just asking. Oh hell yes. Just ask Mike Elzinga... :-) -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2012,08:42    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,13:17) Feeding is associated with "burning" in animals, but what does feeding mean to an organism that turns radiant energy into complex molecules? Couldn't you say that some organisms feed on energy gradients? Just asking. I suppose it depends on how "feeding" is defined. In a way it could be said that all organisms "feed" on radiant energy because without radiant energy there wouldn't be any organisms. Feeding is usually thought of as something that's done through a mouth but of course there are many organisms that "feed" on various things in ways other than through a mouth. A bunch of words could be used to describe the ways that  organisms take in the energy they need to survive, such as feed, eat, consume, absorb, drink, digest, inhale, burn, convert, synthesize, and probably more that I can't think of right now. I guess the phrase "Nature will find a way" is true. By the way, I didn't mean to sound harsh to you or afarensis. That's the trouble with the written word. It leaves a lot to be desired when trying to convey some things. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2012,10:10    Quote (The whole truth @ July 05 2012,08:42) By the way, I didn't mean to sound harsh to you or afarensis. That's the trouble with the written word. It leaves a lot to be desired when trying to convey some things. The written word has not evolved!  Evolution is false!!! Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote The droghte of March hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which vertu engendred is the flour; -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 07 2012,11:36    Cross post from the Uncommonly Dense thread: It's getting even weirder - now Gauger has defended Axe et al.'s paper on lignin at BioComplexity, and O'Leary has copied it onto UD. What a bunch of cowards. Edit: http://tinyurl.com/c6p6u5a....c6p6u5a leads to UD -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 07 2012,13:19    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 07 2012,09:36) Cross post from the Uncommonly Dense thread: It's getting even weirder - now Gauger has defended Axe et al.'s paper on lignin at BioComplexity, and O'Leary has copied it onto UD. What a bunch of cowards. Edit: http://tinyurl.com/c6p6u5a....c6p6u5a leads to UD Man oh man, are those IDiots screwed up or what? Why on Earth do they think that lignin, or the digestibility of it, or anything else about it, has ANYTHING to do with whether THEIR god or ANY god exists or not? Something I often think about is that even IF it could be shown that the universe is designed or is likely designed, it would NOT show that the universe was/is designed by the christian god or any other particular god, unless the IDiots can find and show DIRECT evidence to the christian god or some other particular god. And of course they will never accept that a god other than the christian god is the creator/designer, so any suggestion of a different god is a non-starter with IDiots anyway. Oh sure, they're a so-called "big tent" and they pretend that they're open minded about "the Designer" or "God" or which god is the alleged creator/designer but it's abundantly clear that the only designer/god they believe in and promote is the christian god, and of course they all have their own version of the christian god. Arguments/assertions that lignin somehow disproves evolution and proves design shows just how desperate, delusional, arrogant, and ridiculous the IDiots are. They KNOW that their beliefs are absolute bullshit and they have no faith in their own so-called faith. They constantly bring up shit that is so absurd, and so irrelevant, and so insane that it's just mind-boggling! They spend all of their time looking for so-called "gaps" and other even more ridiculous shit and will resort to ANYTHING, no matter how asinine, desperate, or dishonest it is, to try to destroy science and to con people into swallowing their fairy tales. What a way to waste their lives. And what's next from the IDiot god zombies? No organisms have evolved that eat black holes dipped in galactic quasar sauce with atomic sprinkles on top, therefor jesus? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 07 2012,23:01    Quote And what's next from the IDiot god zombies? No organisms have evolved that eat black holes dipped in galactic quasar sauce with atomic sprinkles on top, therefor jesus? Don't forget the ad homonym word salad on the side. Henry

DiEb Posts: 312 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,12:19    Has anyone read BIO-Complexity's only "research article" for 2013:  Active Information in Metabiology? It was published last month...

Pages: (5) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard