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... > DI EN&V

Pages: (28) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2013,14:16    Quote (sparc @ Sep. 27 2013,13:49) EN&V in all seriousness     Quote If it weren't important, why would cells work so hard to translate it? Dark Matter A new study at Penn State looked into the "dark matter" of the human genome. Like cosmologists, evolutionary geneticists call anything they don't understand "dark." In this case, though, they saw some light: scads of molecular machines busily translating "non-coding RNA." (sic!)     Quote A duo of scientists at Penn State University has achieved a major milestone in understanding how genomic "dark matter" originates. This "dark matter" -- called non-coding RNA -- does not contain the blueprint for making proteins and yet it comprises more than 95 percent of the human genome. The researchers have discovered that essentially all coding and non-coding RNA originates at the same types of locations along the human genome. (Emphasis added.) There's no difference in the way molecular machines seek out the coded (sic!) parts and the non-protein-coding parts, in other words. When they went looking for the "initiation machines" that translate DNA, B. Franklin Pugh and Bryan Venters were in for a shock ... Transcription: They are IDiots. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2013,14:49    Let's see, they're asking why do the molecules that transcribe DNA onto RNA (or whatever) do this for the non-coding DNA as well as the coding DNA? If I might ask a silly question, how is the molecule(s) that do the transcribing supposed to distinguish coding from non-coding? To keep the molecules from doing that, there would have to be some kind of sensor system (firewall?) to detect and block such things. I wonder if such a system would use less resources than the transcribing that it would then be preventing?

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2013,12:18    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2013,14:49) Let's see, they're asking why do the molecules that transcribe DNA onto RNA (or whatever) do this for the non-coding DNA as well as the coding DNA? If I might ask a silly question, how is the molecule(s) that do the transcribing supposed to distinguish coding from non-coding? To keep the molecules from doing that, there would have to be some kind of sensor system (firewall?) to detect and block such things. I wonder if such a system would use less resources than the transcribing that it would then be preventing? I wonder why the designer wasted effort in transcribing everything. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2013,13:37    Why would that cause the designer to expend more effort? Seems to me like adding something to prevent that would add to the design effort, but omitting it only adds to the resource use by the creature, but not to that of the designer of it. ;)

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2013,22:35    A little while ago I linked to Casey Luskin's EN&V attack on Dr. Jennifer Raff (of Violent Metaphors). He was unhappy that she implied that a DI affiliation might be considered relevant to an author's credibility, and impliedly challenged her to take ID research at face value. Challenge accepted!

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2013,08:07    Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 30 2013,22:35) A little while ago I linked to Casey Luskin's EN&V attack on Dr. Jennifer Raff (of Violent Metaphors). He was unhappy that she implied that a DI affiliation might be considered relevant to an author's credibility, and impliedly challenged her to take ID research at face value. Challenge accepted! I particularly liked this little backhand at Casey:   Quote In order to understand this paper, you need to understand how proteins are made. Don’t let this daunt you! Remember, Mr. Luskin isn’t a scientist either, he’s a lawyer. And I have to assume, given his position, he’s read this article and understood it. So you can too... A simple reading comes across as, "don't let knowing how proteins are made daunt you. I mean, if Casey Luskin - a lawyer - can understand this, feh...it will be easy for anyone else..." I'm sure Raff didn't intend it that way, but it was funny to think of it that way when I came across it. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2013,16:14    Yes, I took a look at it. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2013,16:30    EnV: Anatomy of a Review David Klinghoffer takes a dig at me for not keeping up on the review of Darwin's Doubt. I've already written more for Chapter 1 than Meyer did.  I'm not like Meyer, I have a real job.  I guess Meyer didn't take very long to write the book... if Klinghoffer thinks that it should only take me a few weeks to review every word and every reference that Meyer misquotes. Meyer's book is one big 'ole Gish Gallop with a heaping tablespoon god of the gaps. It takes a crap load of research to dedunk each sentence and figure.  And I have both a life and a job. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2013,18:58    They're reading your stuff. That's good. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2013,22:57    Intelligent Design Comes to UC Irvine. Well, not really. It was just Casey Luskin invited by Ratio Christi a Christian apologetics campus group.  Luskin will not be happy that The Fix which reported on the event allows comments. Especially, since UCI alumnus Gary Hurd weighed in. -------------- "[...] 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 -

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2013,16:07    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2013,22:57) Intelligent Design Comes to UC Irvine. Well, not really. It was just Casey Luskin invited by Ratio Christi a Christian apologetics campus group.  Luskin will not be happy that The Fix which reported on the event allows comments. Especially, since UCI alumnus Gary Hurd weighed in. Added my bit in response to somebody dissing Gary. Quote Gary sees "intelligent design" creationism as a form of creationism because it offers a subset of the same content. There are the negative arguments against evolutionary biology, and then there are the apologetics-derived arguments, all of which have long histories with clear provenance in creationism. IDC doesn't deliver anything in the apologetics-derived category that wasn't seen before in "creation science". Consult the Kitzmiller transcripts for DI Fellow Scott Minnich being forced to admit that the various "bacterial flagellum is designed" arguments could be found in "creation science" sources predating IDC, and being bewildered as to why that was relevant. The top four IDC arguments, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", cosmological arguments, and "privileged planet" arguments, all are derivations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 "Natural Theology". The only novelty IDC presents is in which apologetics-related arguments from "creation science" were considered too hot to handle for defending in a court room, thus defining the new subset, much as "creation science" excised direct biblical quotation to have a shot at legal vindication. The antievolution socio-political movement cannot admit this clear observation, as that would remove the pretense that IDC could be shoved into public school science curricula. Certainly the advocates of a legal sham (wording courtesy of the SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard and citation thereof in the Kitzmiller decision) cannot be expected to say it was a fair cop. The evidence is quite clear to those of us who have read the sources. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2013,12:09    I hope you all jump into these newspaper comment sections as Wes has done. It does influence people's opinions. The Lee Bowman person writes pro-ID creationism comments on newspaper BBs as often as I post anti- IDC comments. Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 10 2013,10:12 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

ScottBuchanan Posts: 1 Joined: Oct. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2013,22:24    Just a note of appreciation to all the good folks associated with PT. I have no biology background to speak of, so I rely on your expertise to debunk the DI's publications. I wrote up a pretty detailed description of the reviews of Darwin's Doubt ( http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/darwins....s_doubt ) and drew heavily on PT, especially Nick's magesterial rebuttals. I added a tutorial on fossilization for laymen. I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.") OgreMkV, am looking forward to your next posts.

Cubist Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2013,22:57    Quote (ScottBuchanan @ Oct. 10 2013,22:24) I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.") One should never judge the advisability of a response-to-Creationism by the possibility that Creationists will make propagandistic hay of that response. Why? Because Creationists can and will find ways to spin anything in their favor. If respected authorities don't respond to Creationist bullshit, it's because they're afraid to confront the undeniable Truth of Creationism, ergo Creationism FTW; if respected authorites do respond to Creationist bullshit, it's because Creationism is Real Science™, ergo Creationism FTW. Since Creationists can and will find ways to propagandistically spin anything in their favor, any response to Creationism should not take that expected propagandistic spin into account. Otherwise, you might just as well be arguing that nobody should ever respond to Creationist bullshit.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,09:24    Quote (ScottBuchanan @ Oct. 10 2013,22:24) Just a note of appreciation to all the good folks associated with PT. I have no biology background to speak of, so I rely on your expertise to debunk the DI's publications. I wrote up a pretty detailed description of the reviews of Darwin's Doubt ( http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/darwins....s_doubt ) and drew heavily on PT, especially Nick's magesterial rebuttals. I added a tutorial on fossilization for laymen. I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.") OgreMkV, am looking forward to your next posts. ID is taken seriously in the same way that a particularly annoying chihuahua is taken seriously by a herd of elephants.  It's best to stomp on them and then ignore the remains. Marshall said his piece and should pretty much ignore it from now on.  Meyer made a huge mistake.  When the guy one quote comes out and says "this book is crap" and "I was taken completely out of context", then there's only so much one can do to "spin it".  The people who would believe anyway, will.  And the people who wouldn't believe anyway won't. There are very, very few fence sitters in this 'struggle'.  The only good way to stop the anti-science position is to have better science education in schools.  Note that this isn't "science brainwashing", but giving student (even in elementary school) the skills to think critically. And thanks!  It's a slow slog, but continuing. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2013,21:51    Meyer is so dumb, he doesn't even know what a God-of-the-Gaps argument is.   Quote Thus, my argument does not qualify as a God-of-the-gaps argument for the simple reason that the argument does not attempt to establish the existence of God. - See more at: URL=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/does_darwins_do078001.html#sthash.XR0fAQ4g.dpuf HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2013,07:39    Meyer's conclusion seems to be that humans are the designer. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2013,09:27    Meyer quotes Michael Shermer: Quote For example, Michael Shermer represents the case for intelligent design as follows: "Intelligent design ... argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) ... to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by. . . an intelligent designer." Three ellipses and no reference to the source. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2013,10:02    Meyer's recent defense of critiques to DD that he recently posted at EN&V are the identical ones he used in Signature In The  Cell a few years back. Larry Moran at Sandwalk did a good smackdown of Meyer's stupidity back then that's still applicable to this latest IDiocy. Moran on Meyer: Detecting God's Signature -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2013,23:29    After I read in Nick Matzke's A Very Darwinian Halloween that  dcoppedge has definitely written lots of posts for the DI’s Evolution News and Views I had a look for other hidden authors. If Google is right Steve Meyer himself wrote at least two responses to  Charles Marshall's Science review of Darwin's doubt: Surprisingly, opening the links you will not find any traces of Steve Meyer. Instead David Klinghoffer is listed as the author. So much for scientific integrity. ETA: Unfortunately, we can not rule out that they just messed up their databases. Of course this would only be a little less embarassing for these self-declared information theorists. Edited by sparc on Nov. 01 2013,03:49 -------------- "[...] 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: Nov. 01 2013,03:57    Maybe Google displays the name of the ID-creationist who was the last to edit a post.  They have to make sure nobody is leaving the party line especially if it is not their brightest light who's posting. In addition you have to recall that they always claimed that ID is peer reviewed. -------------- "[...] 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 -

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,09:46    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 01 2013,11:57) Maybe Google displays the name of the ID-creationist who was the last to edit a post.  They have to make sure nobody is leaving the party line especially if it is not their brightest light who's posting. In addition you have to recall that they always claimed that ID is peer reviewed. Don't you mean pee-er co-sighted? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2013,15:17    What's up with Dense O'Leary posting a byline at the Tute? I thought even the Tute had standards, but turning Dense loose?

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,00:06    Granville Sewell informs us via EN&V that he has published yet another article claiming Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles. Until now his article has gained 438 comments in a heated debate. Note to Glanville: Better do not leave the secure havens provided by DI and ID websites. -------------- "[...] 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 -

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,03:18    Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2014,22:06) Granville Sewell informs us via EN&V that he has published yet another article claiming Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles. Until now his article has gained 438 comments in a heated debate. Note to Glanville: Better do not leave the secure havens provided by DI and ID websites. I had most of his crap fisked, but I crashed my main machine. It has been 2 weeks and I don't think I can bring it back. I hate Microsoft. I hate them more than I did before. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,09:37    Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 09 2014,03:18) Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2014,22:06) Granville Sewell informs us via EN&V that he has published yet another article claiming Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles. Until now his article has gained 438 comments in a heated debate. Note to Glanville: Better do not leave the secure havens provided by DI and ID websites. I had most of his crap fisked, but I crashed my main machine. It has been 2 weeks and I don't think I can bring it back. I hate Microsoft. I hate them more than I did before. No, I think they were doing you a favour this time. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2014,17:05    BwaHaHA!  I finally read my "Special Discovery Institute" email account and they are as crazy as you think! Here is a cut n paste from their latest poorly written screed: "Academic Freedom & Public Policy - We will come alongside state and local policymakers who want to promote policies which protect critical thinking about issues of human origins, as well as defend the right of educators to freely teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution." My bolding.  At least they tell you right out loud what they want to do to the American Public... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2014,20:47    The Uninentional Humor Department reports that Denyse O'Leary has a new series at ENV: The first installment is entitled In Search of a Road to Reality.  We really, really hope you find one, Denyse. You can't make this stuff up. Edited by keiths on Jan. 15 2014,18:54 -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2014,00:00    Why EN&V is worth a reading (more than UD nowadays I must say): Kinkhoffer points to a must read by Zack Kopplin. It's always refreshing to see IDiots desintegrate. -------------- "[...] 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: Jan. 22 2014,00:01    Why EN&V is worth reading (more than UD nowadays I must say): Kinkhoffer points to a must read by Zack Kopplin. It's always refreshing to see IDiots desintegrate. -------------- "[...] 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 -

Pages: (28) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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