RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: From "LUCA" thread, Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:28   

Quote
Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.

 This would be a relevant criticism except for the fact that the citation demonstrated the need for at least _5_ genes to support an analysis (some suggest 20 or even more!;), instead of relying on a single protein, however informative. While Theobald may have indeed utilized multiple lines of evidence to buttress his conclusions, the facts are that:
1) he chose a _single_ protein to demonstrate his hypothesis (see the reference for the consensus tree in point 17), and
2) the protein he chose has its own problems (see Ayala's Cytochrome C analysis, which postdates McLaughlin and Dayhoff's 1973 study and has humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, in addition to a multitude of other "mistakes").
  Why base a consensus tree on a single (flawed) protein, especially when your own sources counsel agin it? And if there _are_ multiple-gene studies that draw the same conclusions, why not quote them instead? I think this represents good prima facie evidence, but collapses under close scrutiny. The kind of scrutiny that's honed with diligent study of Dembski's monographs.
Quote
When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere.

 As opposed to chickens and fish? :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:24   

Paley:

You've entirely missed the point. The phylogenetic tree isn't only mapped out by genetic and protein analysis. Those two are only two of dozens of different techniques for deriving the same tree. Other, independent lines of evidence have nothing to do with analysis of one gene, or many genes. That's why they're called "independent." And guess what? They all converge on the same tree.

I think you need to read Theobald a little more closely.

How does Cytochrome c show humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, when humans and chimps share exactly the same cytochrome c? And why are you citing studies from 1973? And you talk about the difference between five genes and 20 genes as  if it were significant. How many genes do humans possess? 20,000?

You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect. Do we have zoologists out there contending that starfish are more closely related to humans than they are to sea urchins? Or monkeys that are more closely related to  birds than they are to goats?

If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:32   

First, I want to thank Mr. Murphy and Mr. Fox for quoting two relevant papers as rebuttals, even if they end up supporting Uncle Paley's point of view. It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers.
  Mr. Murphy:
  If you follow point 17 as I suggested, you will see that the 1973 paper was cited by Dr. Theobald, not me. So you should address this puzzler:
Quote
[W]hy are you citing studies from 1973?

to him.
 The Cytochrome C paper showing the erroneous relationships is Margoliash Finch 1967 I think, but it's cited by (Ayala 1977). There are some other strange results, such as the viper clustering with man (how biblical!;)), but I need to look it up.
 
Quote
You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect.

 Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....
Quote
If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.

 Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:46   

Mr The Ghost of Paley

Are you referring to this link, that I posted on another thread? Perhaps you can point out where there is any support for your "theory"?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,07:11   

No, Mr. Fox. I was planning on responding to your (most excellent) paper on the correct thread.  My previous post was trying to clear up Mr. Murphy's misunderstanding of my Friday post.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,07:44   

I look forward to it.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,12:37   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,10:32)
Quote
You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect.

 Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....
Quote
If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.

 Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein.....

Bill, Bill, Bill,

You're still failing to divine my meaning. You cannot construct an entire phylogenetic tree from the analysis of any one protein, and you probably can't do it from any group of a dozen proteins, either. Which actually argues for evolution more than ID, because the reason you run into problems with protein analysis all by itself is because of the random nature of genetic mutations. Humans, chimps, and guinea pigs all lack a functional gene for ascorbic acid. Does this means that humans are most closely related to chimps and guinea pigs? No. It means that by chance, guinea pigs have the same busted gene. I assure you, the guinea pig genotype differs from the human one by more than 1%.

You really need to read Dr. Theobald a little more closely. It's not hard to see why given a single protein, vipers might cluster with humans. But how closely do vipers cluster with humans when one looks at the fossil record? And by reference to morphology? Not very close, is how close. You need confirmatory evidence from many, many sources to work out a phylogenetic tree. Also, genes cluster differently from organisms, which adds further complications.

Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant picture of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely. Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one. Perhaps you'd like to give that particular page a re-read to see if you've missed anything else.

And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,14:29   

Quote
Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant picture of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely.

 I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald _very_ closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead.
Quote
And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see.

 Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein.
Quote
Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one.

You're both righter than you'll ever know. But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree.
  Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,18:09   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,19:29)
 I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald very closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead.


Hmm...I'm reading Part 4, "Criticisms," and you know, I just don't hear any slapping sound. As he states in the article, the chances that any two organisms have any similarity at all in their cytochrome c is mildly surprising, given that almost any ordering of amino acids at all would work. And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.

Quote
Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein.


What gives you the impression that Figure 1 is cobbled together from one single protein? Nowhere on that page does he indicate that the consensus tree pictured is based on any single protein, or indeed from protein analysis alone (or at all, for that matter). (Actually, if it were possible to construct Figure 1 by reference to a single protein, that would be nothing short of astounding, and a massive triumph for the field of comparative protein analysis.)

Theobald specifically states that the tree is derived from independent lines of research. This is exactly why there is very high confidence that the consensus tree is accurate.

Quote
But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree.


So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong? I think I know enough of taxonomy, based on my high school education (along with a lot of extracurricular reading), to know that tree is a reasonably accurate depiction of the interrelationships among the taxa included. Where do you think it's wrong? Do you think that humans are more closely related to, say, ferns than they are to other primates? Or that starfish are more closely related to mushrooms than they are to cows?

Quote
Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny.


In the meantime, did you trouble to read Theobald's explanation of just how unlikely it is that any two independently-derived trees would bear any resemblance to each other? Theobald specifically states that the tree is derived from independent lines of research. So even if it were true that protein analysis couldn't come up with even a close resemblance to trees derived from other evidence (which isn't even remotely true), the consensus tree is derived from enough other independent lines of research to indicate that, if anything, the problem is with the protein analysis methodology, not the tree itself.

After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?

Just out of curiosity, William...do you deny evolution in its entirety? Are you a believer in special creation?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,09:51   

If ever there was a misbegotten Intraweb flame-war thingie, well, here it is.
It's not actually D*mbski, can't be.

And if it's not the original spoofer (Cerutti, ya in there?), then the inheritor of the Paley-themed moniker certainly is playing up to the original, down to half-a$$-ed defense of the original "meat n' potatoes" theory which occasioned my (misplaced) ridicule.

So, really, people, I think we need to be aware that somebody's probably spoofing us again, cut n' pasting off of ARN or some such.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:07   

Wow, you guys really like to poison the well, dontcha? I assure you that my ideas are mine alone. No cribbing off ARN, kibitzing at I.D. conferences, or piloting black helicopters. Just a David armed with the slingshot of Truth, with a smattering of Dembski's sublime maths. As for my beliefs, I pretty much see it as the Bible calls it: geocentric special creation. None of that cheap Hollywood special effects for me - man on the moon my arse!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:20   

Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?
Been to Loch Ness lately? Got any ammo for that slingshot to shoot at the Satanic Holocaust Believers?

Sublime maths!!!

Thanks for the entertainment withered husk.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:28   

Quote
And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.

 Not interested in what the man says as much as what he demonstrates. Which ain't much, apparently.
Quote
So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong?

 Why yes, now that you mention it. Just one question: what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....
Quote
After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?

 It's totally bogus, dude, because the molecules were meant to provide objective characters for better tree-building. There is a reason, after all, for the palpable embarrassment that real scientists have felt for Darwinism historically. Genes were supposed to elevate just-so storytelling to the heights of a solid, if pedestrian, discipline. Now genes trees are just a "new, untested" method that everyone ignores unless it gets the correct results.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:38   

Payley,

I generally try not to debate creationists, but what the ####; I'm bored.

Far as I can tell, you don't believe that the phylogenetic tree exists at all. In other words, since every organism was specially created by His Majesty, everything is equally closely related. In other words, humans are just as closely related to chimps as they are to bacteria.

And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,11:00   

Quote
And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right?

 It seems that Mr. Murphy's ability to quote retroactively embarrassing papers is only matched by his imaginative, zen-like readings of my posts. When did I say that HGT had any function other than making scientists gnash teeth over their worthless papers? HGT gives false positives, is all. But with a theory on how this transpires, godly men can better guide the trembing Darwinian finger over the contours of its error. The true giants (Berlinski and the other guy) are otherwise occupied, so it falls to me. But I'll take a side order of falsification while the engine's running.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,11:34   

Let's play Rock Around the Clock with Bill Paley and the Creationists!

Anyway, if you're going to use Dave Berlinksi and WMD to instruct evolutionists in the error of their ways, you're mostly going to get dismissals, which is about what those guys are worth. It's so easy to poke holes in their mathematics and/or logic that even I can do it.

A quick example: Kolmogorov complexity is synonymous with probability, t or f.

Bill managed to get that one wrong. And he's supposedly the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory"?

Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:

Quote
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.


Way to go, Dave!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,12:54   

Quote
Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:

Quote  
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.


Way to go, Dave!

 Well, you finally did it, old chap. You made Uncle Paley out to be a liar. For the first time, I must defer to the Discovery Institute:
The Master Replies
 Nick Matzke, have you found that expert in optical theory yet? If you need an information theorist, there's this guy I know......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,13:09   

Bill,

Is that really supposed to be Berlinski's "response" to his critics? It seems his critics have replied to his "response" before he even wrote it. Assuming time travel is impossible, I can only assume Dave has a hard time processing criticisms of his own work.

And referring to your hero Berlinski as "The Master" leaves one to ponder what your definition of an "amateur" is.

I'm glad you didn't refer to Dembski as an Information Theory "expert," since that clearly would have been stretching the term beyond the breaking point...

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,13:56   

:(   How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?

 From memory:
 1) The Master graces the denizens of Commentary with one of his usual masterworks. Topic: The usual inanity of evos, with a special focus on the hijinks of Dawkins, Nilsson, and Pelger
 2) The authors of Dawkin's Folly managed to publish a shrill screed as a pathetic attempt at a reply
 3) Darwinists ooze out of various sewers, orifices, and dungeons in order to gang up on our hero
 4) The Master administers a sound thrashing to said minions, with a side portion of optical theory for the lurkers, and apparently, the preening experts who had extensive need for both
 5) Nick Matske pines for his departed heroes. The rest slime their way back to their familiar bogs, sadder but none the wiser, to continue their collective paean to moonstuck , taxpayer-wasting scribblings


  I hope this helps.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,14:03   

I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.

But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?

Now, don't say "one uses a computer" you cute little guy, 'cause that's not your style anyhow. No, what I mean is, what can one do that the other can't, in principle?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,14:19   

Quote
I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.

But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?


  Amazing. Simply Amazing. Mr. Murphy's ink has the power to cloud all minds, friend and foe alike. Does anyone have the ability to decipher a simple argument? The Master's argument went to the heart of the model itself, and was not a semantic quibble. Read the link.  Of course, just as a podiatrist finds the solution to all illness in the humble foot, so does the Darwinist in word play.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,14:29   

Since you argue exclusively by insinuation, you project the behavior onto those around you.

It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions.
And I read the link.

So, answer the question, lifeless wisp.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,14:46   

Quote
It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions.
And I read the link.

So, answer the question, lifeless wisp.

 
Quote
What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?


  Answer: Nothing substantial at all. If that was the extent of the Master's charges, I would agree with your argument (assuming we ever hear it, that is). But since you've read the link, will you please address the rest of his? As a great man once opined, he who does will be the first.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,15:28   

For those interested in the Master's argument, here is a slice:
Quote
Staking their all on Snyder’s model, Nilsson and Pelger must live with its consequences. “Having considered the physical limitations to resolving power,” Snyder wrote, “in addition to the absolute sensitivity of eyes, we now apply our concepts to real compound eyes.” This is something that Nilsson and Pelger never do. And no wonder. For Snyder then added the rather important caveat that bringing theory to bear on life “requires precise knowledge [of various optical parameters] in the various regions of the eye” (Snyder, p. 276, emphasis in the original).

Quote
When tested, Snyder’s model turns out to be false across a wide range of arthropods. As Warrant & McIntyre note glumly, “The model, on the whole, works best for those eyes for which it was originally formulated—apposition compound eyes functioning according to geometrical optics—but recent careful and sensitive measurements of angular sensitivity reveal that even in these types of eye, the model often performs poorly.” Readers may consult figure 34 (p. 441) of Warrant & McIntyre’s paper to see how poorly the Snyder model does. In studies of the locust Locustia, real and predicted angular-sensitivity functions do not even share the same qualitative shape.

Responding to my observation that no quantitative argument supports their quantitative conclusions—no argument at all, in fact—Mr. Nilsson has thus (1) offered a mathematically incoherent appeal to his only equation; (2) cited references that make no mention of any morphological or evolutionary process; (3) defended a theory intended to describe the evolution of vertebrate camera eyes by referring to a theory describing the theoretical optics of compound invertebrate eyes; (4) failed to explain why his own work has neglected to specify any relevant biological parameter precisely; and (5) championed his results by means of assumptions that his own sources indicate are false across a wide range of organisms.

 And here is the Darwinian rebuttal:

:0  :0  :0  :0  :0

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,19:30   

Bill,

I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.) It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed. And I wonder why I should, since the article has been around for almost 12 years and is still considered sound science by basically 100% of the people with the training and expertise to actually hold a supportable opinion about it.

When Einstein was at the IAS, he would get letters every week from various cranks showing in minute detail why general relativity was wrong. I don't think he lost too much sleep over it.

Anyway, I wonder what your theory is for why the entire scientific community is satisfied that neodarwinian evolution is a settled matter, while dilettantes like yourself are sure they're all wrong. Is it a matter of mass delusion?

Since you seem to think the earth is only a few thousand years old, let's just say I'm a little skeptical of your opinion on matters biological.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,06:48   

Quote
I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.)

 I don't remember that question being raised before, but I'll take your word for it. My answer would be: keep natural causes if you want. Just make sure they can parse the heavens. If they can't, open your mind to other explanations.
Quote
It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed.

 Then why bring the matter up? Well, I won't tease you for not responding to the big B. But shouldn't somebody here have the requisite knowledge? After all, the man did his legwork. Don't play the Lestrade to his Holmes when Moriarty is more fun...
 As the Peach would say: tick, tock, tick, tock..........Mr. O' Brien? Mr. Fox?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,07:37   

Bill,

I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong. Let me ask you this: any educated layman who's spent any time studying evolution knows the names Dawkins, Gould, Margoulis, Watson, Miller. What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?

Of course, the same criticism holds for Dembski, except with Dembski, his conversance with his own field (information theory) seems pretty shaky.

The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.

A supernatural explanation has never actually "explained" anything. Indeed, how could it? How is appeal to something that's physically impossible (isn't that pretty much what a supernatural phenomenon is?) going to explain anything?

There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:25   

Quote
I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong.

Where are these scientists? Communing in the Himalayas with the yeti?
Quote
The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.

 I know I'm accused of being absent-minded at times, but I don't remember this at all. Could you cite this?
Quote
There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know.

 Yes. But that doesn't absolve a hypothesis from its own responsibilities. So it is encumbent upon scientists to prove their case first. Yes, I know: the Nilsson - Pelger paper was a but a crumb in Mt. Improbable's buffet of evidence. So why did you guys drive us sick with it? Unless it's the best you have? Platonic truth is finally shining in your little grotto, and you can only make shadow puppets on the wall. Conspiracies only take you so far, you know......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,13:16   

Quote
What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?

 Just one more thing: Berlinski is a maths guy, so his opinion on Nilsson - Pelger is highly relevant. And I'm starting to add more detail to my model in another thread.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,21:31   

Ghost of Paley

I'm sorry to say you have become boring. I will wait until your forthcoming paper is universally acclaimed and read it. Until evidence demonstrates otherwise, I will file you under "cranks".

Best of luck
Alan.

  
  1058 replies since Aug. 31 2005,16:31 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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