RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
PicoFarad



Posts: 24
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,20:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2006,01:46)
"PicoFarad":

Quote

The NCSE and Smithsonian conspired to ruin the career of an editor of a peer reviewed journal who dared to allow an ID sympathetic article be published.


Office of Special Counsel (OSC) letter:

Quote

Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper in ID. They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied access for off-duty conduct. This was actually part of the strategy advocated by the NCSE.

(Source)


The NCSE, according to the OSC, advised not making a martyr of Sternberg. "PicoFarad" apparently doesn't mind telling whoppers.

From the same source:

"In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI."

What part of that don't you understand, Wesley?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,20:44   

"PicoFarad":

Quote

From the same source:

"In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI."

What part of that don't you understand, Wesley?


I understand that statement to be completely unsubstantiated, and in contradiction to the statement I previously quoted. I know that the statement I quoted, that NCSE advised against making a martyr of Sternberg, is correct. So thanks for pointing out that the OSC could not, itself, resist engaging in some whopper-telling of their own, undermined by their own report of NCSE's advice to the SI.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,20:50   

Quote
Just one point - there's no conflict between front-loaded evolution and descent with modification from a common ancestor.  Front-loading merely means the descent occured in a prescribed fashion.


tada!

I knew you would say that, Davey.  so did Jeannot.  

ah yes, Davison's PEH...you know, the "theory" that was voted the crankiest concept EVER in the evolution section of crank.net?  did you need me to reference that for you?  

Ever wonder what defines "crank", there, Davey?  

We know that your entire understanding of biology these days proceeds from your "discussions" with JAD; it's been quite amusing to watch that little love-hate fest unfold.

but just like we asked JAD when we let him spout his drivel over here for a while, the first question you should have asked was:

Why didn't JAD ever develop an actual testable hypothesis, and proceed to test it?  He had the resources, he was a professor, after all, and he had an OK, if not great, publication record (at least up until 1980 or so).  Anybody worth their salt would have been able to set up some experiments to test their ideas.

was he not as clever as Gould?  or was there something else going on... like it was ridiculous from the start, and there WAS no way to test it?

thanks for yet again, pointing out how you side with the documented crankiest old man out there.

..and after deciding his ideas had merit (??), prompty kicked him off UD (twice no less) for being exactly who he is...

a crank.

you should pay more attention to him, he is a glimpse into your future, after all.   A raving lunatic that even YOU booted out of a den of raving lunatics.

Soon, you will have to ban yourself, I guess.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,21:05   

Quote
"PicoFarad" apparently doesn't mind telling whoppers.


doesn't mind???

he positively enjoys it!

the only question really is why.

what IS Dave's motivation in all this?

he says he wants to support ID, because it's not religious, but it's nothing but thinly veiled religious apologetics.

he bans anybody who disagrees with anything he says from UD without a second thought, but says he needs all the supporters of ID he can get.

he moderates a website called "Uncommon descent", but says he "beleives" in common descent.

other that being terribly confused and simply enjoying confusing the #### out of everybody he comes in contact with with lies, distortions, etc., i really can't figure out what his motivation might be.

did some biologist steal your girlfriend in a past life or something, Dave?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,21:42   

Quote
I am skeptical of the claim that evolution was an unplanned, unguided process.

I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.


hmmm....let me help you out then

unplanned-it was unplanned in the sense that it is not a causal system.  There is no definite causal process.  It is not a system of A->B->C.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the theological side of the issue.  I know you think the term "unplanned" in some way refers to God, but it doesnt.

unguided->it was unguided in the sense that it was not severly restricted.  The options for the diversification of life were not limited to a very select few.  This is basically saying that there is no "intelligent design".  This term, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the theology behind creation.

Quit getting the phrase about "unplanned, unguided process" confused with some denial of God.  It is a denial of ID, and it only is used in the terms I described above.  I think it is wonderful that you are fully exploring theological debate Dave, but you really are lacking in your skill.

Sorry, but this little perv thinks your a little ignorant of science, math, and philosophy.  

Im sure that job as an "engineer" taught you a lot, but it obviously didnt expand your knowledge of the physical world.  Your experience with ID hasnt really taught you much about theology....

My God your stupid Mr. Springer.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,21:45   

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 25 2006,14:52)
Dover is one small battle in one tiny corner of the country. <yawn> Wake me up when SCOTUS makes a ruling.

Meanwhile:

Conservative executive office - check
Conservative majority in house of representatives - check
Conservative majority in senate - check
Conservative majority in supreme court - replacement of one 86 year-old liberal justice and... checkaroony!

I can happily live with failures like that.  Can you?

That just about sums up exactly how scientific ID is.

You are boasting about politico/legal afiliations. If ID was science, you would be parading evidence....woops!

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,23:20   

:00-->
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,02:00)
I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.

Well, you should know that answer, Pico. Heck, you master NeoDarwinism thoroughly enough to rule a weblog that teaches its "controversy".

EDIT, thanks PuckSR.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2006,23:46   

(Bugger, don't you just hate the time zone difference. A night out and lie-in and I miss Psycho Springer.)

PicoFarad

Our last conversation at UD was curtailed when you snitched on me to Isaac Dembki. I was pointing out to you that there is no plan or blueprint encapsulated in the oocyte genome, and you got rather upset about the phrase "there is no plan".

Dawkins has a good explanation about how embryological development is controlled by DNA in "The Ancestor's Tale", p 426

Quote
Embryonic development is controlled by genes, but there are two very different ways in which this might theoretically happen. The Mouse's Tale introduced them as blueprint and recipe. A builder makes a house by placing bricks in positions specified by a blueprint. A cook makes a cake not by placing crumbs and currants in specified positions but by putting ingredients through specified procedures, such as sieving, stirring, beating and heating.* Textbooks of biology are wrong when they describe DNA as a blueprint. Embryos do nothing remotely like following a blueprint. DNA is not a description, in any language, of what the finished body should look like. Maybe on some other planet living things develop by blueprint embryology, but I find it hard to imagine how it would work. It would have to be a very different kind of life. On this planet, embryos follow recipes. Or, to change to another equally un-blueprint-like analogy, which is in some ways more apt than the recipe: embryos construct themselves by following a sequence of origami folding instructions.


Dawkins goes on to describe the process of embryological development and the rôle of HOX genes in a lucid manner that you may be able to follow. I thoroughly recommend the book to you, if only to enable you to argue your "case"  a little more coherently

PS to JAD, there is a footnote which states:

This favourite analogy was first used by my friend Sir Patrick Bateson, a relative of Sir William, as it happens.

See also p425 for a favourable mention of William Bateson.

  
PicoFarad



Posts: 24
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,00:10   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2006,02:44)
"PicoFarad":

Quote

From the same source:

"In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI."

What part of that don't you understand, Wesley?


I understand that statement to be completely unsubstantiated, and in contradiction to the statement I previously quoted. I know that the statement I quoted, that NCSE advised against making a martyr of Sternberg, is correct. So thanks for pointing out that the OSC could not, itself, resist engaging in some whopper-telling of their own, undermined by their own report of NCSE's advice to the SI.

It's not contradictory.  The statement I quoted describes a conspiracy between SI and NCSE to investigate and discredit Sternberg within the SI i.e. dig up dirt and ruin his reputation among his peers.  The statement you quoted says the conspirators concluded they couldn't fire him outright and even if they could cause such direct harm it would only make a martyr out of him and be counter-productive.  Better to just make him look like a drooling creationist idiot that no one will want to work with or hire in the future and let him keep his job.

But I'm just spit balling here.  According to you the U.S. Federal Office of Special Prosecutor libeled you.  You should probably be very careful of accusing highly placed people of crimes.  In any case, how is a third party like me supposed to know the OSC lied?

You could easily clear your good name by making public all the email betweent NCSE and SI.

Why don't you?  Refusal just makes you look guilty.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,00:26   

Quote
The statement you quoted says the conspirators concluded they couldn't fire him


I think the main reason they didn't fire him was they didn't employ him in the first place.

  
PicoFarad



Posts: 24
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,00:26   

Fallan Ox

Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blueprint

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.

Next!

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,00:34   

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,06:26)
Fallan Ox

Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blueprint

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.

Next!

Good grief. Do you seriously believe you are winning an argument?

Astounding!     :D

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,00:37   

Hmmm...

So how would a housebuilder get on with a recipe book, and a cook with a blueprint. Methinks you are somewhat disingenuous, Psycho. The problem is that science is about finding useful things out, not obfuscating. IDers seem more skilled at twisting the meaning of words than at doing anything useful like producing or testing a hypothesis.

How's the carpal tunnel syndrome, by the way?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,01:12   

Quote
My God folks, people are still taking Sir Richard Dawkins seriously. It is not possible. It defies all reason that such a creature could still be given any credibility at all.

In the 1920's there was another charlatan like Dawkins only this one was a devout Lamarckian by the name of Paul Kammerer. He conned the entire world for some time into believing that the environment could alter the color patterns of salamanders and the breeding habits of the Midwife Toad. He was finally exposed as a charlatan largely through the efforts of Bateson and Noble, an American herpetologist. Once exposed do you know what he did? He killed himself. That is exactly what I have predicted will be the fate of Sir Richard as I can see no alternative for him. Egomaniacal unstable ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Paul Kammerer, Josef Goebbels and Adolf Hitler unravel very quickly when they are finally revealed as their self generated empires collapse around them. They have no ethical or moral fiber to sustain them. Actually they never did have any or they never would have placed themselves in such a position in the first place.

Now don't misunderstand me. I do not wish for Dawkins to do himself in. I want him to go right on writing more books, each more deranged than its predecessor, hopefully while tucked away securely in a rubber room somewhere so he can't hurt himself any more than he already has. He is already history and doesn't even realize it. Judging from the mindless ravings of our own precious Falan Ox, neither do the retards over at Elsberry's Berlin bunker.

The whole lot of you congenital, clonal catastrophes are doomed. Get out the machine pistols, the cyanide and the gasoline and be sure to leave instructions to have your surviving cronies do their level best to burn up the evidence that you ever existed. That is going to be the tough part.


Sorry SteveS I just couldn't resist! :p

  
PicoFarad



Posts: 24
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,01:34   

Fox and Stelliot

Dawkins
Quote
"DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the "blueprint" for an organism. I would rather call it a recipe or like a computer program.

The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe."


Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.

Next!

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,03:47   

Alan:

The quote you couldn't resist - it certainly has JAD written all over it. But where exactly does it come from? Is he back on UD, or are you going through the trash at JAD's own website?

I particularly love JAD going on about "rubber rooms"! The great thing about rubber rooms, I guess, is that they're not glass houses!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,03:52   

Quote
Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.


Sigh!

The point is there is no one-to-one mapping of genome information. DNA encodes proteins. There is no plan.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,03:52   

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,07:34)
This is too easy.

Next!

Next?

hmmm... Why don't you expose your ideas about front-loading?

Is it going to be as "easy" as arguing on terms, which of course, clearly demonstrate the validity of your theory?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10153
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,04:13   

Over on Uncommon Pissant, salvadum points us to an amusing quote from Bill Dembski:

Quote
The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth–that God acts in the world by dispersing information–also has scientific content.


No religion there.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,04:18   

Russell

Sorry, should have included a link. You'll find it here if you collapse quotes and scroll down to comment 562. I see the good professor has also noticed my omission.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1394
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,04:25   

Quote
For the record, there may have been a decay in the speed of light.

 Salvador is a gem.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4820
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,04:34   

It looks like "PicoFarad" is having difficulty with understanding what "completely unsubstantiated" means. It means that there is no evidence for the statement. It is at odds with what the OSC reported elsewhere, despite "PicoFarad"'s imagination in inventing stuff out of whole cloth to make them harmonize.

As for speaking truth about government flacks, I will continue to do that.

I see that "PicoFarad" rejects the part of US jurisprudence that holds that parties are considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm not surprised.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,06:23   

Quote
Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.


Hmmmm....i dont think you have ever seen a blueprint either.  A blueprint is a diagram.  The diagram may contain notes explaining what something is, and may specify specific dimensions.  It does not contain notes about "how to put things together" or "what order to do it".

"This is too easy"
It is so easy, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,07:16   

The mighty Culture Warrior DaveScot:

We don't have any research, we don't have a theory, we don't have peer-reviewed scientific literature, we can't agree on whether the earth is 6,000 or 5 billion years old, we can't predict anything, 99.99% of all biologists laugh at us, our supporters are all angry cranks and religious fanatics, we have to pretend to be victims of persecution and martyrdom to hide our lack of accomplishments, but just you wait til we sic the Supreme Court on you, then you'll be sorry you made fun of us!! :p

--------------
"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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,10:12   

jeannot asks PicoScot:
Quote
Why don't you expose your ideas about front-loading?

I can save Davey the trouble.  Here's an exchange we had on UD:
Quote
(Quoting someone else on the thread):
"In 2005, scientists decoded the genome of the chimpanzee to confirm that the chimp is our closest living relative..."

Excuse me, but to reach that conclusion don’t we have to decode the genome of everything else to make sure nothing else is closer?

“descended from a common ancestor.”

Or a common designer, of course.

Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2005 @ 2:59 am

Quote
DaveScot writes:
“Or a common designer, of course.”

I’m confused. I thought, based on your front-loaded panspermia idea, that you accepted common descent. Or are you agnostic on the issue?

By the way, I never saw a response to my post about some problems with the idea of front-loaded panspermia. Did you see it?

Comment by keiths — December 23, 2005 @ 2:53 pm

Here is the comment I was referring to:
Quote
DaveScot,

If I understand your front-loaded version of the panspermia hypothesis, you’re suggesting that a “seed” for all of life might have been planted on (or drifted to) Earth, and that all of the genetic information needed for the subsequent development of increasingly complex organisms was already present in the seed, just waiting to be “switched on”.

Is that a fair synopsis?

If so, I see some potential problems with the idea:

1. In the case of the seed drifting randomly to Earth, the designers wouldn’t have known in advance what kind of planet the seed would land on. The adaptations appropriate for one habitable planet wouldn’t necessarily be the same as for another with different atmospheric pressure or composition, different ocean salinity, a different length of day, etc. Front-loading in this case would have to cover all possible target planets.

2. Following up on #1, how would the organisms “know” how to select the appropriate genetic information for the planet they were developing on?

3. How would organisms know when to “switch on” various chunks of genetic information? For example, how would the genes for the human brain remain “off” for billions of years, then suddenly turn on when needed?

4. Unexpressed genetic material is subject to mutation. Selection can’t weed out the mutants, because it can only operate on genes that ARE expressed. Over millions or even billions of years, the unexpressed material would mutate so badly that it would be useless when it was finally switched on.

Comments?

Comment by keiths — December 18, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

Dave's response:
Quote
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

(from other thread)

1. In the case of the seed drifting randomly to Earth, the designers wouldn’t have known in advance what kind of planet the seed would land on. The adaptations appropriate for one habitable planet wouldn’t necessarily be the same as for another with different atmospheric pressure or composition, different ocean salinity, a different length of day, etc. Front-loading in this case would have to cover all possible target planets.

Either not random, or multiple seeds, or adaptive seed. There is no limit on the complexity of the first “seed”. It could be quite large, have onboard computer, etc. Call it a seed-ship.

2. Following up on #1, how would the organisms “know” how to select the appropriate genetic information for the planet they were developing on?

Computers constructed at the nanometer scale are tiny & incredibly powerful. Giving computational ability to something as large as a cell is trivial if you have the ability to engineer things one atom at a time. See Drexler’s “Engines of Creation” here: http://www.foresight.org/EOC/

Also, read about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraform

Earth appears to have been terraformed by living organisms. The job of the first cells was to add free oxygen to the atmosphere so that organisms with rapid metabolisms could thrive.

3. How would organisms know when to “switch on” various chunks of genetic information? For example, how would the genes for the human brain remain “off” for billions of years, then suddenly turn on when needed?

See computational capabilities above.

4. Unexpressed genetic material is subject to mutation. Selection can’t weed out the mutants, because it can only operate on genes that ARE expressed. Over millions or even billions of years, the unexpressed material would mutate so badly that it would be useless when it was finally switched on.

Error checking algorithms of sufficient reliability are not only possible they’ve been devised by human engineers in computer science. In a designed cell there’s no reason why that can’t be part of the design. Of all the species on the planet we’ve only discovered about 10% of them. An uber cell, a “library organism”, could be lurking in that other 90%. Moreover, of the 10% we have cataloged we have sequenced the genome of a VERY tiny fraction of those. Saying we’ve scratched the surface on cataloging and understanding all the genomes on all the earth is a vast overstatement. Perhaps an uber-cell is lurking out there. Or perhaps the library has fragmented and is now a distributed database scattered over millions of species.

Comment by DaveScot — December 24, 2005 @ 7:54 am

Dave banned me shortly thereafter, so I never got a chance to respond.

Note that Dave, who likes to criticize the concept of macroevolution because it hasn't been observed in the lab, is proposing the following:

1. An extraterrestrial designer.
2. A "seed-ship" created by the designer.
3. A "nanoscale" computer in the cell.
4. The deliberate terraforming of Earth.
5. An error-correcting mechanism in cells which is different from the one currently known to be operating, and sufficient to protect unexpressed genetic material for billions of years.
6. An uber-cell (aka "library organism").
7. A "distributed database" of genetic information scattered over millions of species.

Not one of these seven chimeras is confirmed by science.  I echo Sir Toejam's question about cognitive dissonance.  Perhaps PicoScot's brain is lacking a consistency detector.

It's also interesting to contrast his professed agnosticism in this thread regarding common descent vs. common design with his recent statement:

Quote
PicoFarad, Feb. 25 2006,16:13    

Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life.


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

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,10:40   

Guys, why are you even bothering with PF/DS?  If any of you tries to "debate" him on his board you get unceremoniously dumped in a nanosecond. This guy doesn't deserve the right to participate on this board--he has no interest in the debate, all he wants to do is fire off cheap shots at anyone within range

Time to bring an end to his interloping, then perhaps we can get on with something a little more enlightening.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,11:14   

Quote
Time to bring an end to his interloping, then perhaps we can get on with something a little more enlightening.
Of course, Tacitus is right - there's  no point in trying to have a serious "debate" with a headcase like ds. That being said, this thread isn't really about "enlightenment"; it's dedicated to extracting as much entertainment as possible from UD, and davey certainly is a big part of that.

While he likes to pretend that "this is too easy", I suspect he's noticed he doesn't come off too well in exchanges here. So, while I'm sure he'd rather vote Democrat than admit it, I take a certain amount of pleasure from the likelihood his cardiovascular health is damaged with each visit to AtBC.

And even if he's too head-over-heels in love with himself to notice how foolish he comes off, it's kind of fun to rub his nose in the messes he's made, if only for the amusement of fellow AtBCers.

Like the O2-carrying ABO antigen subunits of hemoglobin! You have to admit - that was a hoot and a half.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,12:01   

Quote
Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blueprint

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.

Next!



Quote
Compact Oxford English Dictionary


thesaurus

/thsawrss/

 • noun (pl. thesauri /thisawri/ or thesauruses) a book that lists words in groups of synonyms and related concepts.

 — ORIGIN Greek thesauros ‘storehouse, treasure’.


Davey - you obviously don't know the difference between a Thesaurus and a Dictionary ( the key words are 'related concepts' ).

Your inability to distinguish between things is a noticeable trait of course: 'Intelligent Design/Creationism ; Academic Martydom/making a fool of yourself; arse/elbow: being just a few examples.

As you say PicoDavey - too easy.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10153
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,12:06   

He is right in an abstract sense, though. Typing wholly incorrect things and then hitting the Add Reply button is too easy.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10153
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2006,12:13   

Now let's look at Slaveador Cordova's behavior at Uncommon Descent. He quotes a story about a rise in creationism in the UK. Here's Salvador's quote of the story:

Quote
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. …. Many …were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.


Now here's the article as it appeared in the UK Guardian:

Quote
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.


Some choice edits Salvador made, eh?

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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