RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2012,23:11   


All science so far at EN&V.
Not that there's anything wrong with suppressor tRNAs but are they likely to exist under the ID premise? In addition, suppressor tRNAs will not bind to mRNA without another tRNA upstream or downstream depending on which position of the ribosome it currently occupies. Or do these clowns think UGA serves as an initiation codon? However, I must admit that a nearly universal genetic code doesn't make much sense if you reject common descent.

ETA: They may claim that the mRNA's 5' end is on the right side of the strand.

Edited by sparc on Oct. 01 2012,01:00

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,10:03   

William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

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

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1803
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,16:27   

I fail to see how SETI eventually might provide a solution to the problem of salvation that ID so far has been unable to do.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,22:46   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998
Quote
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:
Quote
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg. However, according to UD the argument goes back to Michael Denton:
Quote
By contrast, predictions of functionality of junk DNA were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,23:38   

A couple of nitpicks:

Predicting functional junk DNA seems somewhat akin to attributing motives to the designer.

Having done that, perhaps they will go one step farther and illuminate the specific functions of this part of the genome.

I mean, if they knew it was functional they must know the function.

--------------
lets not make a joke of ourselves.

Pat Robertson

  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2012,23:33   

PZ points to an ineresting analysis on who is actually following DI tweets.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:


Edited by sparc on Oct. 03 2012,04:15

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2012,10:25   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2012,00:33)
PZ points to an ineresting analysis on who is actually following DI tweets.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:

Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2321
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2012,11:49   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2012,08:25)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2012,00:33)
PZ points to an ineresting analysis on who is actually following DI tweets.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:

Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.

In summary: The DI is being followed by Jesus Christ's Christian husband.  Good to know.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2012,13:53   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2012,16:27)
I fail to see how SETI eventually might provide a solution to the problem of salvation that ID so far has been unable to do.



--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youre taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2012,21:41   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2012,10:25)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2012,00:33)
PZ points to an ineresting analysis on who is actually following DI tweets.

ETA: Geoff summarized his analyis graphically:

Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.

Geoff released a case-insensitive update:


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1995
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,02:39   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2012,16:27)
I fail to see how SETI eventually might provide a solution to the problem of salvation that ID so far has been unable to do.

Divine intervention hasn't worked so far, so they're hoping for alien intervention?

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

   
Bebbo62



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,04:54   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2012,22:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998
 
Quote
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:  
Quote
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg. However, according to UD the argument goes back to Michael Denton:
Quote
By contrast, predictions of functionality of junk DNA were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

  
rossum



Posts: 186
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,07:04   

Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Correct. I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction': "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

That very often bumps up against the "God can do anything" meme which tends to cohabit with the ID meme.

The same question usually works with many proposed 'falsifications' of ID when the discussion goes that way.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Quack



Posts: 1803
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,07:45   

Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Bebbo62



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,07:56   

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 04 2012,07:04)
Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Correct. I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction': "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

I worked on some software many years ago which had redundant code in it that was never called or was unreachable. That may be rare rather than common in software, but logically there's no reason why a designer wouldn't create something with non-functional elements.

Of course, Dembski would never commit to a particular design hypothesis because that wouldn't leave him with wiggle room later on.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,09:28   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2012,07:45)
Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

As a recovering pantheist, I'd like to point out that an omniscient being, in the act of knowing everything, brings everything into existence. That would include all possible universes. A large number. Bigger than the KF Number.

--------------
lets not make a joke of ourselves.

Pat Robertson

  
Bebbo62



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,09:44   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2012,07:45)
Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

It seems that God was tired, and wanted to take a vacation. However, being everywhere at once, it was a little difficult for him to decide on where to go. So, he called the Archangel Gabriel in on the carpet...

GOD: Gabe, I've got a problem, and I was hoping you could help me out.

GABRIEL: I'll try lord.

GOD: Well, I need a vacation, and I can't decide where I should go, and I was hoping that you could give me some suggestions.

( Gabriel thinks intently for a few seconds,...)

GABRIEL: How about Mercury? That's a nice place.

GOD: Nope, too hot. It takes all night to get over the sun-burn you got during the day.

( Gabriel thinks a little longer.....)

GABRIEL: Hmmmm,.... Well, how about Mars?

GOD: Nope, Mars is too much of a party place. All that whooping and hollering, I never get any rest when I go there.

( Gabriel is starting to get a little desperate by this time....)

GABRIEL: Well, how about Earth?

GOD: NO!! No Way!! The last time I went there, I got this little Jewish girl pregnant, and I haven't heard the end of that yet!

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2163
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,09:48   

"Earth? Oh, right, that's where they come in to church every Sunday, begging and praying. Day off, my ass!" -- Carlin (RIP)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1016
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2012,17:40   

Just thought I'd mention... Hope to have the next bit up by this weekend.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2012,07:33   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 16 2012,15:40)
Just thought I'd mention... Hope to have the next bit up by this weekend.

Excellent material. Thanks.

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

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:48   

Quote
About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.


Defecting from Darwinian Naturalism: A Review of Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos William A. Dembski

That's sort of what separates intellectually honest people from, well, you, Dembski.

We'd think in terms of notable scientists coming up with evidence that changes things, not idiots like Nagel (oh honestly, the guy's been pathetic forever--what's it like to be a bat?) converting.

It's the difference between caring about science, and wanting religion to triumph. Clearly it's not the former that concerns Dembski.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,20:21   

Granville Sewell's broken record

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,15:20   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)
Quote
About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.


Defecting from Darwinian Naturalism: A Review of Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos William A. Dembski

That's sort of what separates intellectually honest people from, well, you, Dembski.

We'd think in terms of notable scientists coming up with evidence that changes things, not idiots like Nagel (oh honestly, the guy's been pathetic forever--what's it like to be a bat?) converting.

It's the difference between caring about science, and wanting religion to triumph. Clearly it's not the former that concerns Dembski.

Glen Davidson

I bought the Nagel book in e-format because I thought I might do a review of it. Complete mush, repetitive argument from incredulity. Nods to but ignores ID, cites Meyer, Behe, Berlinski... but not Dembski!! That's gotta hurt.

Basic argument - Science can't be all there is to explaining the universe, because I want to believe Mind is more than what the brain does. If I can state the question it must have value. Common sense must always be able to explain the universe.

He hasn't seem to have heard of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, Godel's Incompleteness Proof, etc. and what they say about 'common sense' explaining the universe. Another old philosopher afraid of dying and even more afraid of the irrelevancy of his life's work.

--------------
Im referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Im not an evolutionist, Im a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Henry J



Posts: 4114
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,22:32   

Common sense? Common sense is a set of guidelines developed from experience, about the things dealt with in day to day life. If things outside of day to day experience don't follow the same patterns, those guidelines can't be assumed to work there.

Henry

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,12:00   

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2012,21:21)
Granville Sewell's broken record

The only point to that whole rehearsal of his position was the last line, that a Spanish language version of his video was now available!

Most ID 'theorists' equate advances in research with 'Buy my new book!' Granville can't even reach that level and has to be satisfied with a remix of a YouTube video.

--------------
Im referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Im not an evolutionist, Im a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 899
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,17:19   

This is good. Casey Luskin friend's daughter has asked whether intelligent design is science or not. Casey's response: "It is, it is, it is! Look, here is a diagram:"

(Image from EN&V)
So all you scientists, you can go home now.

Edited by Ptaylor on Nov. 28 2012,10:20

--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,20:22   

That diagram needs to be immortalized!  Luskin really nails ID in one picture:  a made up dot that requires an arrow pointing to it on a made up chart with a made up dotted line running through it.

Fiction and turtles all the way down.  Way to go, Gerb, right up there with Behe's mousetrap and Dembski's filter!

As an enhancement, Gerb should have Meyers write his name in the box then he'd have a hat-trick with Signature in the Cell, and indisputable at that!

  
Henry J



Posts: 4114
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,21:37   

I guess the reason that dotted line zigzags so much is due to all the arm-waving that's going on?

  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2013,00:09   

To see is to believe. Indeed, but science is not about believing.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1995
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2013,05:13   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 24 2013,00:09)
To see is to believe. Indeed, but science is not about believing.

I think they've shown that youtube videos are intelligently designed.

Unlike the comments under them.

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

   
  627 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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