RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 123 124 125 126 127 [128] 129 130 131 132 133 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,12:44   

Quote
Obviously, somewhere along the line the matter of an infinite loop would have to be resolved, but how is that different from methodological naturalism?


I suppose that methodological naturalism leads to verifiable descriptions of how things change from state to state.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,12:53   

Quote (Maya @ Dec. 09 2008,12:05)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 09 2008,08:29)
DaveScot sighting
   
Quote
DaveScot: IDSkeptic

Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.

Davey, you do realize that threatening and banning polite, on-topic posters just shows that you're utterly incapable of refuting their points, don't you?  I guess not, if you were intelligent enough to realize that, you wouldn't be supporting ID.

Gutless disgrace to the Corps....

Well, gollllllee, Shazam Maya!  


LISTEN UP HERE CUZ I'M TALKING!

I MUST A DONE ONE HECK OF A JOB PROTECTIN' YOU , WELL AT LEAST THAT PARKING LOT AND MOTOR POOL THAT MY BELOVED CORP ASSIGNED ME TO GUARD BACK IN THE LAT 1970'S!

AND I WAS SUCH A SUPER TROOPER TOO CUZ I WAS FRONT-PANTS-LOADED TO DESTROY SO NOT EVEN ONCE DID THE GERMANS OR JAPS OR   AYLOT IMMMMS  AYOTOL, MULAS, AYRABS EVEN TRY TO ATTACK US UNDER MY WATCH.  SO THERE.

HERE'S MY PICTURE, SHOPWIN' HOW I WUS ALWAYS IMPRTANT AND THEY ALWAYS CAME TO ME FOR THE TOUGH JOBS.  HERE I AM SHARING MY KNOWLEDGE OF ID WITH THE HIGHER UPS.




--------------
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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,19:11   

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 09 2008,12:53)
HERE'S MY PICTURE, SHOPWIN' HOW I WUS ALWAYS IMPRTANT AND THEY ALWAYS CAME TO ME FOR THE TOUGH JOBS.  HERE I AM SHARING MY KNOWLEDGE OF ID WITH THE HIGHER UPS.


I suspect that the closest Davey has gotten to being a Marine is stroking his belly with a surplus K-bar:



Members of my family and some of my friends are Marines.  They respect the ideals of this country, including the first amendment, they respect others enough not to censor them, and they respect themselves enough not to be censors.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,19:48   

Quote (Maya @ Dec. 10 2008,03:11)
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 09 2008,12:53)
HERE'S MY PICTURE, SHOPWIN' HOW I WUS ALWAYS IMPRTANT AND THEY ALWAYS CAME TO ME FOR THE TOUGH JOBS.  HERE I AM SHARING MY KNOWLEDGE OF ID WITH THE HIGHER UPS.


I suspect that the closest Davey has gotten to being a Marine is stroking his belly with a surplus K-bar:



Members of my family and some of my friends are Marines.  They respect the ideals of this country, including the first amendment, they respect others enough not to censor them, and they respect themselves enough not to be censors.

Don't forget backdooring his army buddy's bitch.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,21:20   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 09 2008,12:44)
Quote
Obviously, somewhere along the line the matter of an infinite loop would have to be resolved, but how is that different from methodological naturalism?


I suppose that methodological naturalism leads to verifiable descriptions of how things change from state to state.

Speaking of state changes, UD seems frozen in time.  No new comments all day.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,21:42   

Khan is still waiting for Jerry to stop quote-mining, ad hominem-ing, changing the subject, playing dumb etc and acknowledge the simple fact that a primitive cell gaining this very obscure, irrelevant piece of trivial tissue that clearly has no CSI called a mitokondreea or something is a perfect example of that thing that he claims in every other post that there is no evidence for, macroevolution. my guess is his next post won't address it at all. now we play the waiting game.. aw, the waiting game sucks, let's play hungry hungry hippos..

uD

  
stevestory



Posts: 8990
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,21:45   

Something might be weird with the database. I'm showing several new comments. Just in the last 4 hours:

Quote
Comment on UD Commenters Win One for the Gipper by Khan

p.s. Jerry, if you're saying that all Precambrian fauna are known from trace fossils, you're wrong. look up Ediacara fauna again.

and when you think about novelty, think about both morphological and genetic novelty. Part of Valentine's argument is that the novelty of body forms in the Cambrian came about through relatively simple changes in patterns of gene expression. this is because of the modular nature of their body plans. that's how i interpet it, but I could be wrong.

Quote
Comment on Altruism,  evolutionary psychology, and the heroes of Mumbai by JT

jerry said:

<i>"I agree that humans are different but when academics have put their mind to it, there was no defining characteristic that was unique or stood out. There is no conspiracy here, just the inability to find a distinguishing characteristic. Hence, the use of accumulated knowledge as a defining difference by some sub group of academia."</i>

Everything I say below is derived from a T.V. series: "Guns Germs and Steel"

Not all human groups accumulate knowledge to any significant extent. For there to be accumulation of knowledge from generation to generation, and an identifiable historical progression unfolding continuously through time for a group,  it requires that certain key attributes be present in that group.  Its most directly related not to human biology, but the biology of their environment.

If every member is spending every waking hour in a search for food, then there is no accumulation of knowledge.  There has to be food surpluses to enable divisions of labor and specialization, and subsequently the ability to maintain and promulgate knowledge and pass it on to subsequent generations through schooling and so forth, all of which requires ever increasing amounts of time and resources.

But anyway, that series was talking about tribes from New Guinea living in the same hunter-gatherer state for thousands upon thousands of years with no change whatsoever.  And as the series pointed out it had nothing to do with intelligence, but rather for example, their food.  Whatever the plants available to them were extremely labor intensive to secure in sufficient quantities.  But their were other problems, like the types of beast of burden available to them.  But society as we know it is directly tied to wheat, barley and the domestication of animals.  For very specific reasons, society as we know it in the West (and in most parts of the world today) are impossible without these things.

But in New Guinea, society reached a certain point sustainable by their physical environment and then just stuck there. There is a static level of knowledge that is passed from generation to generation but there  is no accumulation of knowledge, which is what you said was the key factor in distinguishing men from animals (which apparently it isn't).  Animals themselves most definitely have a certain static level of knowledge about their physical environment that is passed on from generation to generation.
Quote
Comment on Some Thanks for Professor Olofsson II by JT

CJYman [26]:

I will read that when I get a chance.  Thanks.
Quote
Comment on Altruism,  evolutionary psychology, and the heroes of Mumbai by Rude
</title>
?
<link>
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-299600
</link>
<dc:creator>Rude</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
?
<guid isPermaLink="false">
http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=4081#comment-299600
</guid>
?
<description>
JT, I agree.  There have been tribes whose technology differed little from that of a wolf pack, yet they all had language and they told stories and they speculated on the meaning of life.

Language is the key---not technology or accumulated knowledge which is made possible by language.

The ancients knew this, as in Targum Onqelos at Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God created Adam dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and there was in Adam a spirit of speech [<em>ruach m?mal?la</em>].”  And it’s there in the Yom Kippur prayer <em>Tephillah Zakkah</em>,

<em>ub?khoach haddibbur hivdalta et ha’adam min habb?hema</em>

‘And by the power of speech you differentiated man from animal’
Quote
Comment on Some Thanks for Professor Olofsson II by tribune7


<i>I believe you’d find that random chance has it’s place (which gene, how it will mutate is random) but the enviroment provides a very non random filter. The enviroment selects and improbable structures can so be constructed over time and generations.</i>

And some things are impossible for natural selection plus random genetic change to accomplish.

What was the environment in which proteins self-organized into a flagellum?
Quote
Comment on Some Thanks for Professor Olofsson II by Khan

something about this thread made me think of this: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
</description>
Quote
Comment on Altruism,  evolutionary psychology, and the heroes of Mumbai by JT

Rude I just looked at that picture of a dog pulling another dog to safety, that was amazing (I'll assume he wasn't merely claiming him as some sort of prize.)

As far as language, someone in this thread or the other one was quantifying the degree of variation in whale songs and comparing it to the complexity of human speech, so I don't know.

Well, anyway the following is a followup to my previous post.

In reference to the difference between men and animals -  why can't the accomplishments of humans be viewed as the accomplishments of  the collective biological organism on the earth.  As domesticated animals are an utterly indispensable attribute of human civilization, without which human civilization would not exist, why shouldn't they be given partial credit.  (For example, herding animals, which are the only domesticatable type of large mammal, the varieties of which actually being quite rare.)  Speaking of altruism, what about all the animals that continually give their lives and the lives of their offspring as sacrifices to sustain humans in society.  Their nature is to be amenable to serve us - either they're altruists or we're thieves.  

Also consider the properties of wheat which make it amenable to long term storage, and the attributes of it that facilitate its mass cultivation.  In other words human society  as we know it only results from the juxtaposition of numerous distinct organic elements - take any one of them out and society no longer exists.  So one organism cannot take credit for the entire complex system. Furthermore its not only man that undergoes accelerated advancement and change in civilization.  How many seeing-eye dogs are there in the wild.  Dogs in general are being selectively bred for increasingly complex tasks in society. And these sorts of tasks don't take place when only humans are in the mix.  Everything else has to be in place. For humans to take credit for human civilization is like the Pharohs of Ancient Egypt taking credit for Egypt.  They were the biggest beneficiaries in that society but could not take credit for it.

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,21:52   

Very strange.  When I look at it, the last comment is by IDSkeptic, dated 11:15 today:
linky-link
Quote

And Joe, your position “MY point that is in any “infinite regress” game, your position regresses back to the SAME point.” is a straw man.
I’m not arguing ‘who designed the designer’.
I’m stating that ID theory postulates that life cannot have natural origins anywhere in our universe at any time up to the present due to a lack of probabilistic resources.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,22:24   

Quote

?And by the power of speech you differentiated man from animal?


So parrots are human? ;)

Henry

  
sparc



Posts: 1722
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2008,22:48   

Quote
DaveScot:
IDSkeptic

Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.
Did DS loose global bannination privileges?

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,00:07   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 09 2008,22:24)
Quote

?And by the power of speech you differentiated man from animal?


So parrots are human? ;)

Henry

Not just parrots.  We have interesting studies done on cetacens, primates, and quite a few other mammals and birds, that indicate that they possess a wider array of "language" than previously thought.  Of course, in many cases, these are more vocalizations than "language" as we think of it, but in many cases, these are learned behaviors.

It's too bad that Bronze-Age people didn't have the understanding to see the amazing reality that existed around them, instead retreating to their imaginations.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,01:27   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 09 2008,20:48)
 
Quote
DaveScot:
IDSkeptic

Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.
Did DS loose global bannination privileges?

Yes.  When he resigned as blog czar he relinquished control over all but his own threads.

--------------
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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,01:38   

Every comment I've posted at UD today has gone into the moderation queue.  But unlike yesterday, at least they all got published eventually.

I asked them:
Quote
Moderators,

Could you please remove me from moderation? And if not, could you publicly state why I am under moderation?

(If I have already been liberated, thank you. I won’t know until I hit ‘Submit Comment’.)

No answer, and that comment went into the moderation queue.

I think I may start cross-posting my comments here until the moderation ends.

Here's my latest, posted to the Altruism thread:
Quote
17

ribczynski

12/10/2008

2:20 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

A test to see if my comments are still being placed in the moderation queue.

While I’m here, a few remarks on the subject of evolutionary psychology:

1. There is definitely a danger of falling for “just-so” stories in evolutionary psychology, as ID supporters love to point out, but that hardly invalidates the entire field.

Kin selection, for example, makes the following solid, falsifiable prediction: In any social species, individuals will on average treat close kin better than they treat strangers.

Think about that for a second. In the absence of natural selection, there’s no reason that this must be true. A Designer could easily make a species in which it worked the other way around. Yet we see it in all social species and in every human society that has ever been studied. That’s solid.

2. Evolutionary psychology doesn’t claim that everyone acts a certain way all the time. A single instance of anomalous behavior does not invalidate a prediction about average or typical behavior.

Denyse likes to cite the case of Marilyn Mock, the Texas woman who bought a house for a stranger. But this is anything but typical behavior, which is precisely why it is newsworthy. In fact, I’ll guarantee that Mock has been asked more than once, “Buying a house for a complete stranger? Are you crazy??”, which proves my point. We don’t expect that kind of behavior, so we sit up and take notice when it does happen.

It is the exception, not the rule.

3. Clive argues that ‘reciprocal altruism’ is an oxymoron, because something done for the sake of a future return is not really altruistic at all.

This overlooks the fact that adaptive behaviors are not always consciously adaptive.

A father jumps into the ocean to save his only child, not because he thinks to himself “If I don’t save her, I won’t leave any descendants”, but because he loves her and is willing to sacrifice his own life to protect her from harm. His action is genuinely altruistic. Nevertheless, the fact that he saves her is what allows his genes to propagate.

One teen lusts for another, not because she wants to have children with him, but to satisfy a desire that evolution has created within her. Nevertheless, her desire may end up bringing her a son or daughter.

A person may help a total stranger out of pure goodwill, but that doesn’t mean that the behavior is selfless in an evolutionary sense.

4. For the majority of their evolutionary history, humans (and their primate ancestors) have lived in small groups. Altruism toward non-kin might seem maladaptive to us as modern-day humans, especially when most of the strangers we encounter are people we will never see again, but it makes much more sense in the context of the small groups in which we evolved, where everyone knows everyone else. In such a setting it benefits you to have a reputation as a nice, generous person. Even if the person you help never repays you directly, your enhanced reputation will benefit you in interactions with others.

Reputation is a powerful thing, and it must have been even more powerful in small tribal groups where everyone knew everybody.

An aside: I recently sent a significant sum of money to a complete stranger in England. Why? He was selling a piece of equipment I needed on Ebay, and he had a 99% positive seller rating.

To my mind, the key of Ebay’s success was in coming up with a way to make buyers’ and sellers’ reputations visible to total strangers who otherwise would be reluctant to enter into a transaction.


--------------
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

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,02:26   

I tried posting something on the altruism thread and I didn't even get an 'awaiting moderation' message - my post just vanished.

I was trying to make the point that if you do good deeds because you believe God wants you to then it is not really altruistic as you are expecting either a reward or a lack of punishment - the only person who can be truly altruistic (according to the definition posted by a moderator on UD) is an atheist who hates everyone - if they help another person whilst also believing they will recieve no spiritual reward and gain no sense of satisfaction from the act then it is truly selfless and 'altruistic'.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,02:28   

So, we know that all creationists a lying assholes. We know that they are hypocrites. We have all partisipated in exposing the utter vacuity and falsehoods of all their argumants and positions. What I cannot understand is how do I stop?

I started out with just a few hits- not even a candy habbit, but then- wham- full bore tard junky. I even get up in the middle of the night and Google-news "creationism" and "science education," for early edition editorials.  I am a sick man. Maybe I need heroin. I have heard that heroin can be distracting for a little while. Enought time to wean off the straight creatotard for a few months. Cocaine- that might not work, because I heard you cannot sleep as well.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,03:15   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 10 2008,00:28)
So, we know that all creationists a lying assholes. We know that they are hypocrites. We have all partisipated in exposing the utter vacuity and falsehoods of all their argumants and positions. What I cannot understand is how do I stop?

I started out with just a few hits- not even a candy habbit, but then- wham- full bore tard junky. I even get up in the middle of the night and Google-news "creationism" and "science education," for early edition editorials.  I am a sick man. Maybe I need heroin. I have heard that heroin can be distracting for a little while. Enought time to wean off the straight creatotard for a few months. Cocaine- that might not work, because I heard you cannot sleep as well.

Maybe you and Steve Story should start a twelve-step program.

As for me, I don't have a problem.  I could quit anytime if I wanted to.

--------------
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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,03:23   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Dec. 10 2008,00:26)
I tried posting something on the altruism thread and I didn't even get an 'awaiting moderation' message - my post just vanished.

I was trying to make the point that if you do good deeds because you believe God wants you to then it is not really altruistic as you are expecting either a reward or a lack of punishment - the only person who can be truly altruistic (according to the definition posted by a moderator on UD) is an atheist who hates everyone - if they help another person whilst also believing they will recieve no spiritual reward and gain no sense of satisfaction from the act then it is truly selfless and 'altruistic'.

Kant said something very similar.   In his view, helping someone else is morally worthy only if done wholly from a sense of duty.  Taking pleasure in someone else's happiness actually counts against you morally.

--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,04:09   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 10 2008,10:28)
So, we know that all creationists a lying assholes. We know that they are hypocrites. We have all partisipated in exposing the utter vacuity and falsehoods of all their argumants and positions. What I cannot understand is how do I stop?

I started out with just a few hits- not even a candy habbit, but then- wham- full bore tard junky. I even get up in the middle of the night and Google-news "creationism" and "science education," for early edition editorials.  I am a sick man. Maybe I need heroin. I have heard that heroin can be distracting for a little while. Enought time to wean off the straight creatotard for a few months. Cocaine- that might not work, because I heard you cannot sleep as well.

Ok Tadaholic here is what you do.

Take a plane to Rio and lots of money. There you will find more gas and smack you can poke a stick at plus every other satisfaction; animal, vegitable and mineral. Make sure you stay at a place that has no internet connection.

Don't count on getting much sleep you won't notice anyway; after a month or so you will be completely cured either that......or get thee to a church.

Allow plenty of time to recover in either case you will be comfortably numb.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,04:12   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 10 2008,11:23)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Dec. 10 2008,00:26)
I tried posting something on the altruism thread and I didn't even get an 'awaiting moderation' message - my post just vanished.

I was trying to make the point that if you do good deeds because you believe God wants you to then it is not really altruistic as you are expecting either a reward or a lack of punishment - the only person who can be truly altruistic (according to the definition posted by a moderator on UD) is an atheist who hates everyone - if they help another person whilst also believing they will recieve no spiritual reward and gain no sense of satisfaction from the act then it is truly selfless and 'altruistic'.

Kant said something very similar.   In his view, helping someone else is morally worthy only if done wholly from a sense of duty.  Taking pleasure in someone else's happiness actually counts against you morally.

Yes that's why we do it for the LULZ.

Monkeys laughing at Humans

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,04:31   

Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 10 2008,03:42)
Khan is still waiting for Jerry to stop quote-mining, ad hominem-ing, changing the subject, playing dumb etc and acknowledge the simple fact that a primitive cell gaining this very obscure, irrelevant piece of trivial tissue that clearly has no CSI called a mitokondreea or something is a perfect example of that thing that he claims in every other post that there is no evidence for, macroevolution. my guess is his next post won't address it at all. now we play the waiting game.. aw, the waiting game sucks, let's play hungry hungry hippos..

uD

Jerry answers Khan.
I liked this bit:
     
Quote
On the case of the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, it is a non issue. Suppose it did happen. So what. It has nothing to do with the debate. If it did happen, it represents an interesting occurrence and nothing more and ID would not be upset about it because it does not invalidate the ID hypothesis. So it is not something ID is going to care a lot about. Maybe you should explain why ID should care.

Because all you guys pretend that ID is a better explanation of the diversity of life on earth than evolution theory? Just a thought.

And this bit:
     
Quote
In general ID is not as interested in single celled changes as they are in multi-celled changes. The flagellum is a particular example of interest and there may be others. What ID is interested in is how novel information can arise that governs systems of new capabilities.

We are not interested in single-celled changes.
We are particularly interested in a single cell structure, the flagellum.
Because that is a system of new capabilities while organelles are not.

Even if they were (but they aren't and we are not interested and we do not care), as gpucchio points out, the origination of  organelles is of course loss of information. Of course:
 
Quote
But, as the important point for me (and, I think, for ID) is the generation of CSI, would you agree that the model about origin of mitochondria (if it is acceptable, which I am not debating here) is not necessarily an example of generation of new CSI? After all, if I understand the essence of the model (and may be I don’t), it is essentially one of adaptation by loss of information.


--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,04:45   

ooops someone lost their script.

 
Quote
......adaptation by loss of information


Wait a minute god THREW OUT INFORMATION?


Fuck HOW INTELLIGENT IS THAT?


Jesus that g$d guy is one fucking smart bastard!!!!


I'm going to invite HIM to my next party HE will be able to show us all how smart HE is just standing there LOSING INFORMATION......hmmmmmm....maybe not.

Just imagine with infinite regression HE could be so FAR AHEAD OF HIMSELF when HE gets to my front door that HE has forgotten WHO THE FUCK HE IS!!!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,06:41   

Quote
CJYman: I have also read through “Specifications: the Patterns which Signify Intelligence” and I have put my two cents into the discussion on my own blog. It is a little long, but I try to explain it from what I understand as best I can. If you wish to check out my perspective, go to

http://cjyman.blogspot.com/2008....re.html

So, I visited CJYman's blog. I have been trying to get someone to show me how to actually calculate the Dembskian Specificity for some time.



 
Quote
Today, William got an incredible deal on an old Victorian house. Highly satisfied with his business acumen, William settled in for a blissful night of sleep in his new home.

SLAM!

William woke with a start. He listened intently. But he didn't hear anything, so he settled back to sleep.

Cree..eak

William listened even more closely this time until, after a bit, the creaking noise died away. For some reason, he recalled the seller's maniacal laughter just after William signed the papers to buy the house.

SLAM!

William was trembling and his teeth were rattling. He thought about getting out of bed to investigate. Instead, he pulled the covers over his head.

Cree..eak

Hmm, William thought. Being a famous design theoretician, I can use the patented (not really) Dembski Inference to determine if the pattern is being caused by a ghost, er some unspecified intelligent cause.

SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak


For our first calculation. Let's assume the pattern is 01010101010101 …

Using Dembski's Inference, what can we infer about the pattern without risking a venture about the house? Be sure to show your math (e.g. Chance Hypothesis). And remember! No peeking from underneath the covers.

The idea is that if it tapped out the Gettysburg Address, then you shouldn't have to go about the house looking for Lincoln's ghost, er unspecified intelligent cause.

 ..-.  ---  ..-  .-.  
 ...  -.-.  ---  .-.  .  
 .-  -.  -..  
 ...  .  ...-  .  -.  
 -.--  .  .-  .-.  ...  
 .-  --.  ---

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,07:12   

Ha! U forget the monkey using five million typewriters in his basement who typed I kid you not a ghost named Poe.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,07:18   

BTW what would we call Don Count Sir Rev. Dr, Dembski's Spesivesity?.... in units of? DCSDrDD essis?



Clive & whispers n u 2 dave u guys might need help on this one pm me I LOVE MARKETING oops i mean psssst marketing pm me

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,10:02   

DO'L about altruism:
 
Quote
More generally, psychologists who are searching for an animal model are doubtless looking in the wrong direction. They should, in my view, begin by rcognizing that this type of behaviour is characteristically human and probably requires a human level of consciousness.


Current Biology (unfortunately not open access)
 
Quote
Andrew F.G. Bourke. Social Evolution: Daily Self-Sacrifice by Worker Ants. Available online 8 December 2008. [doi:10.1016]

Summary

Each evening, a few workers of a Brazilian ant doom themselves to die overnight by remaining outside the nest to seal its entrance. This striking behaviour is a novel form of worker self-sacrifice.

Main Text
According to the precepts of Stalinist society exposed so vividly by Arthur Koestler in Darkness at Noon, the definition of an individual was “a multitude of one million divided by one million”. The implication is clear that, in such a society, selfhood has dissolved in a mass of interchangeable units, each existing only to serve the collective. This social model, nightmarish to the liberal human mind, is close to the reality in some insect colonies. In many species, workers have adaptations the use of which destroys or at least handicaps their bearer, while benefiting the colony. The canonical example is the sting of the honey bee worker, deployment of which kills the stinging bee [1]. In other cases, workers of some ants become distended and immobilized within the nest through use as living food stores [2], and larvae of other species provide queens with blood meals via special organs from which queens sip their haemolymph [3].

An international team of researchers, led by Adam Tofilski of the Agricultural University of Krakow and Francis Ratnieks of the University of Sussex, has now added to the catalogue of adaptations for worker self-sacrifice by describing a novel behaviour in the Brazilian ant Forelius pusillus [4]. When external activity ends at the close of each day, a small group of workers seals the nest entrance from the outside with sand or soil. Because at night-time the external environment proves fatal to them, these workers effectively condemn themselves to death. This behaviour differs from previously-described forms of defensive self-sacrifice, like the stinging behaviour of honey bee workers, because it is not facultative: it does not arise in direct response to danger, but occurs routinely as a defence in anticipation of a possible threat. In the words of the researchers, it is pre-emptive self-sacrifice [4]. [...]


--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,10:19   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 10 2008,10:02)
DO'L about altruism:
   
Quote
More generally, psychologists who are searching for an animal model are doubtless looking in the wrong direction. They should, in my view, begin by rcognizing that this type of behaviour is characteristically human and probably requires a human level of consciousness.


Current Biology (unfortunately not open access)
   
Quote
Andrew F.G. Bourke. Social Evolution: Daily Self-Sacrifice by Worker Ants. Available online 8 December 2008. [doi:10.1016]

Summary

Each evening, a few workers of a Brazilian ant doom themselves to die overnight by remaining outside the nest to seal its entrance. This striking behaviour is a novel form of worker self-sacrifice.

Main Text
According to the precepts of Stalinist society exposed so vividly by Arthur Koestler in Darkness at Noon, the definition of an individual was “a multitude of one million divided by one million”. The implication is clear that, in such a society, selfhood has dissolved in a mass of interchangeable units, each existing only to serve the collective. This social model, nightmarish to the liberal human mind, is close to the reality in some insect colonies. In many species, workers have adaptations the use of which destroys or at least handicaps their bearer, while benefiting the colony. The canonical example is the sting of the honey bee worker, deployment of which kills the stinging bee [1]. In other cases, workers of some ants become distended and immobilized within the nest through use as living food stores [2], and larvae of other species provide queens with blood meals via special organs from which queens sip their haemolymph [3].

An international team of researchers, led by Adam Tofilski of the Agricultural University of Krakow and Francis Ratnieks of the University of Sussex, has now added to the catalogue of adaptations for worker self-sacrifice by describing a novel behaviour in the Brazilian ant Forelius pusillus [4]. When external activity ends at the close of each day, a small group of workers seals the nest entrance from the outside with sand or soil. Because at night-time the external environment proves fatal to them, these workers effectively condemn themselves to death. This behaviour differs from previously-described forms of defensive self-sacrifice, like the stinging behaviour of honey bee workers, because it is not facultative: it does not arise in direct response to danger, but occurs routinely as a defence in anticipation of a possible threat. In the words of the researchers, it is pre-emptive self-sacrifice [4]. [...]

You know, that's the beauty of Denyse.  She is not one to be let a little thing - like actual knowledge about a subject - prevent her from writing about said subject.

And I apologize for all of you that just threw up in your mouths a little bit seeing the words "beauty" and "Denyse" in the same sentence.

--------------
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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,10:26   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 10 2008,03:23)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Dec. 10 2008,00:26)
I tried posting something on the altruism thread and I didn't even get an 'awaiting moderation' message - my post just vanished.

I was trying to make the point that if you do good deeds because you believe God wants you to then it is not really altruistic as you are expecting either a reward or a lack of punishment - the only person who can be truly altruistic (according to the definition posted by a moderator on UD) is an atheist who hates everyone - if they help another person whilst also believing they will recieve no spiritual reward and gain no sense of satisfaction from the act then it is truly selfless and 'altruistic'.

Kant said something very similar.   In his view, helping someone else is morally worthy only if done wholly from a sense of duty.  Taking pleasure in someone else's happiness actually counts against you morally.

The way I understood it, this was because feeling good was a reward, and (the thought goes) that people help others to get this feeling.  Of course, I think that line of thought is BS, as most people will help someone else whatever the feeling.  A rewards is not necessarily a cause.

Naturally, if the argument is different than this one, then this does not apply.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,11:24   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 10 2008,02:45)
I'm going to invite HIM to my next party HE will be able to show us all how smart HE is just standing there LOSING INFORMATION......hmmmmmm....maybe not.

I heard that he brings his own wine.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc

Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 10 2008,09:38

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
stevestory



Posts: 8990
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,11:35   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 10 2008,04:15)
Maybe you and Steve Story should start a twelve-step program.

As for me, I don't have a problem.  I could quit anytime if I wanted to.

I was pondering why UD is so addictive the other day.  Many people here are knowledgeable about how science operates. Most ID people have ridiculous notions of how science works. If you have some expertise in a field, watching a group of amateurs say things that are totally out-to-lunch, that nobody with a 101 level education would say, you've got an absurd situation, and people find absurdity funny. When an expert on statistics like Olofsson says that an ID statistical argument is bogus, and a commenter who doesn't know the basics of hypothesis testing says that not only is Olofsson wrong, but that he, the commenter, doesn't even have to understand the argument to know that, people who are knowledgeable about math and science are naturally going to bust out laughing.

But so far this is nothing restricted to UD. Bradford over at TT is just as clueless as Barry at UD. So why does the UD thread have 50 million pages, while, for instance, the Telic Thoughts thread barely exists?

I propose an explanation. It's because Dembski is a jerk. ID people everywhere make ridiculous, comically defective and ignorant arguments, but there's something a little unseemly in laughing at a person for being stupid. But if a person is stupid and mean, the meanness makes them more acceptable for abuse. So while you can find the same absurdity at UD, TT, or EN&V, Dembski's 'petulant 13-year-old' behavior causes us to be more interested in laughing at him. And of course Dembski, being a jerk, puts another jerk in charge, Davetard, for the occasions when Dembski's not around to be a jerk in person, and so UD is extra-jerky and the UD thread here goes through the roof.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2008,11:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2008,09:35)
I propose an explanation. It's because Dembski is a jerk. ID people everywhere make ridiculous, comically defective and ignorant arguments, but there's something a little unseemly in laughing at a person for being stupid. But if a person is stupid and mean, the meanness makes them more acceptable for abuse. So while you can find the same absurdity at UD, TT, or EN&V, Dembski's 'petulant 13-year-old' behavior causes us to be more interested in laughing at him. And of course Dembski, being a jerk, puts another jerk in charge, Davetard, for the occasions when Dembski's not around to be a jerk in person, and so UD is extra-jerky and the UD thread here goes through the roof.

You may be overthinking this. Bottom line, the folks at UD are funny*, while the folks at TT are not**.

(*Without ever meaning to be. When they occasionally try to be funny, it's excrutiating.)

(**Well, except for Joy. She can be funny. But I'll grant that with her there's a definite squirmy feeling of laughing at the kids at your school who take that special bus home.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 123 124 125 126 127 [128] 129 130 131 132 133 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]