RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1991
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,00:53   

Reasons you should add links...

Dembski says his new book "Evidence for God" is published by Baker.  I've no idea who they are, and google baker press.  This is the first hit

Hmmm....

I'm guessing WmAD meant the second hit, Baker Academic.  Publishers of theological works to the gentry.

--------------
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)

   
DiEb



Posts: 238
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,01:35   

Just a quick question: Waiting for an answer of kf, I've to read at the thread Uncommon Descent Contest Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program:

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1991
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,01:47   

Quote
Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?

No.  But you wouldn't want to moderate that morass of words, would you?  Perhaps either she or Clive have given up.  I'm not sure I blame them.

Of course, it might not be locked, just left on the latch.

--------------
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)

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,02:11   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36)
Dembski          
Quote
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here.

If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
         
Quote
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?


By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:

(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)

- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).

 Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Benny H



Posts: 34
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,03:21   

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 18 2009,01:35)
Just a quick question: Waiting for an answer of kf, I've to read at the thread Uncommon Descent Contest Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program:

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?

From casual observation it appears to me threads on UD automatically have comments and pings turned off after three weeks.

  
Benny H



Posts: 34
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,03:25   

Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 17 2009,19:20)
Dembski on why he publishes so many books:

Quote
[My books] sell well and they get read, especially in the Christian community.


Which is what matters to someone trying to make a difference and a lasting impact in science.

And legit scientists especially value having their work sold in Christian book stores, since Christians invented Science after all!

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,07:08   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,23:36)
Dembski  
Quote
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here.

If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
 
Quote
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?

Is that a rhetorical question?  ;-)

Has anysock asked him why he doesn't do the calculation himself in his response?  That would be a lot more credible as a refutation than his usual logorrhea.

Or does the brave DrDr bar the hoi polloi from commenting on his threads?

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,22:42   

No more comments all day?  Did I kill the board?

(Where's that emoticon for feeling sorry, yet powerful?)

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,22:48   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 17 2009,22:53)
Reasons you should add links...

Dembski says his new book "Evidence for God" is published by Baker.  I've no idea who they are, and google baker press.

I'm guessing WmAD meant the second hit, Baker Academic.  Publishers of theological works to the gentry.

Around 1984 I wrote a few pages for the Baker Dictionary of Psychology. I wrote something on superstition, and also on exorcism IIRC. I remember I did get paid. I had a similar piece in another book.

D'oh, here are the references

Hurd, G. S., E. M. Pattison
1984  "Manifestations of Possession in Novel Ecological Contexts,"  in Ecological Models in Clinical and Community Mental Health, W. A. O'Connor and B. Lubin (ed.s).  John Wiley & Sons: New York.

G. S. Hurd
1985    "Superstition."  In Baker's Encyclopedia of Psychology. David Brenner (ed.) Baker Book House, Grand Rapids.

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

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

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,02:09   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 18 2009,17:11)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36)
Dembski          
Quote
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here.

If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
         
Quote
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?


By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:

(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)

- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).

 Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.

Isn't his default position that everything is 500 bits until somebody proves that it isn't

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1991
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,03:13   

Now here's a name we haven't seen around UD for a bit.

--------------
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)

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,08:42   

The big cheese hisself, DrDr (we don't need no stinking details) Dembski, chimes in with this projection:
Quote
Joseph is right. Have you even read DARWIN’S BLACK BOX? Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is (sic) claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle. Yes, Darwinian (sic) imagine how IC systems might form and offer fabulous tales to that end. But that’s a far cry from detailed testable Darwinian pathways to such systems.

Judging from the typos, he must have drained that fabled bottle of single-malt.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1991
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,08:57   

What is the good Doctor Doctor's point?  Behe doesn't show that IC structures can't evolve but... ?  But that they provide an obstacle?

And we (evil) Darwinists show how IC structures might have evolve, but this doesn't mean we've shown a pathway for how they could have evolved?

Oh well. I think I'll get back to my Barber.

--------------
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)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,08:58   

Quote
Yes, Darwinian (sic) imagine how IC systems might form and offer fabulous tales to that end.

The funny thing is that even if that was all Darwinian had to offer that'd still be more then Intelligent Design can offer.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,10:05   

Quote
Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle.

God of the gaps is an obstacle?

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

Pat Robertson

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,10:22   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,10:05)
Quote
Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle.

God of the gaps is an obstacle?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
k.e..



Posts: 2997
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,10:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 19 2009,16:42)
The big cheese hisself, DrDr (we don't need no stinking details) Dembski, chimes in with this projection:
 
Quote
Joseph is right. Have you even read DARWIN’S BLACK BOX? Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is (sic) claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle. Yes, Darwinian (sic) imagine how IC systems might form and offer fabulous tales to that end. But that’s a far cry from detailed testable Darwinian pathways to such systems.

Judging from the typos, he must have drained that fabled bottle of single-malt.

THAT WAS MY FAULT SORRY, HOMO.

BILL CALLED ME OVER FROM THE MOBILE COMMAND CENTER AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO DRINK THAT BOTTLE OF SINGLE MALT.

IMAGINE MY EXCITEMENT?
WELL BY THE TIME I GOT THERE HE HAD FINISHED IT ALL BY HIMSELF.
I ASKED HIM IF THERE WAS ANY MORE AND HE JUST SAID NO.

SO I WENT HOME. d.t.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,11:10   

DrDr publishes second peer reviewed research paper.



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

Pat Robertson

  
socle



Posts: 284
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,11:40   

Here we go again:  The Original Weasel(s)

Quote
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.


It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,11:55   

Missing from Dembski's article is any claim that these are the originas as written by Dawkins.

I suppose that in a minor detail in Dembskiverse.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,11:55   

Quote
It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists,

Oh, they know that, but since they can't address the patterns of evidence that support evolution theory, attacking minor irrelevancies is all they've got.

Henry

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,11:59   

I never did Pascal but
Code Sample
Child:=Parent;
Child[Random(Length(Child))+1]:=RandChar;

They don't seem to "latch".
Code Sample
OFFSPRING := CURRENT;
OFFSPRING[ 1 + RANDOM(LENGTH(OFFSPRING)) ] := RANDOMLETTER;

Therefore is Dembski saying Gordon Mullings/Kairosfocus = Wrong?

This could be amusing.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:04   

I've never coded in Pascal, but it seems to follow recognisable syntax rules.

And I see nothing that would implement latching.

So assuming Dembski preemptively declares these to be the winner of someone else's contest, does he admit he's been a dumbass for the last decade?

Edit: The closer I look, the less sense it makes. Where's the mutation rate? I don't see any evidence that each letter of each child has some probability of changing.

Is this a hoax? I admit not knowing Pascal.

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

Pat Robertson

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:30   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2009,17:40)
Here we go again:  The Original Weasel(s)

     
Quote
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.


It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.

I guess these are quasi-originals rather than actual originals.

Both change exactly one letter of each child (possibly back to the original value) with no regard to whether it's already correct or not.

AFAICT they are trying to use the same algorithm, but #2 is displaying every child.

And I think no.1 gets stuck in an infinite loop inside the SameLetters function because it doesn't advance the loop count when the tested letter doesn't match the target. I expect Dawkins 1986 version is still running somewhere.

Neither keeps all of the correct letters while choosing new values for all of the incorrect ones as D&M did.

Maybe this is a close as Dembski is capable of getting to admitting that they got the algorithm wrong.

ETA: Oops misread the code. 'If' ... 'then' is followed by one statement (or several between "begin" and "end")

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:34   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-original-weasels/

Quote
...Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed...


Unless Dembski can show here conclusively he wasn't bumming Barry Arrington last month then he is a homosexual.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:35   

Quote (steve_h @ Sep. 19 2009,12:30)
Maybe this is a close as Dembski is capable of getting to admitting that they got the algorithm wrong.

Dembski:
   
Quote
These are by far the best candidates we have received to date.

On what criteria is he basing that I wonder? Best in what way? You could have a million line version and as long as the output was correct it would be just as "good" as any other.

Would the candidates not be measured against how he thinks Weasel operates? So has he now had an epiphany? Did he go read TBW for the first time or what?

Will he now update his recent paper I wonder?

EDIT: Not that either example represents Weasel, no mutation rate etc.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:38   

Quote
Both change exactly one letter of each child


That's what I concluded after trying to convert the code to BASIC. It makes no sense. It certainly isn't Dawkins' Weasel.

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

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:39   

Quote
On what criteria is he basing that I wonder? Best in what way? You could have a million line version and as long as the output was correct it would be just as "good" as any other.


I rather doubt the output would match that of Dawkins' Weasel.

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

Pat Robertson

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:48   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,12:39)
Quote
On what criteria is he basing that I wonder? Best in what way? You could have a million line version and as long as the output was correct it would be just as "good" as any other.


I rather doubt the output would match that of Dawkins' Weasel.

Well, a million lines of "Junk" (comments) perhaps...

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,12:55   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,12:38)
Quote
Both change exactly one letter of each child


That's what I concluded after trying to convert the code to BASIC. It makes no sense. It certainly isn't Dawkins' Weasel.

Yeah, see what you mean. No concept of a mutation rate, just one letter per string, every time.

oh dear.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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