Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: For the love of Avocationist started by Louis


Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2007,04:54

Dear All,

Many people, myself included, have delicately requested our reemergent contributor Avocationist to please discuss his/her ID ideas etc in a thread seperate from the LUCA/UD/etc threads.

To that noble end, I humbly invite Avocationist to educate we humble few in this dedicated thread.

Avocationist I thank you for your contributions in advance. Some cut and pasted remarks are included below. We can discuss the postive evidence that Avocationist has for ID, or the banning of Dave Springer, or indeed the religious foundations of ID (or not), or even fundamentalism at ATBC as we wish. Avocationist the flaw* floor is yours

Louis

*ADDED IN EDIT: Oops, Freud, you naughty boy!

All quotes from Avocationist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So on that note, I'm curious as to why Dave Scot got banned from here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who is supposed to have written the Wedge, and for whom?

I really can't know that the author meant by traditional doctrines of creation. That God created the world I think all Christians should believe. But that it might have been a long and natural process they can also believe. But not naturalistic in the sense often meant here, as in no intentional input. My guess is that they want the churches to stop wimping out and assess the situation a little better. It appears that a lot of nonfundie churches go along with Darwinist teachings without looking too hard. In school, kids are taught that there is no purpose to evolution. That really isn't compatible with theism. Even Miller believes the universe was designed by God, he just thinks that complex system could evolve by unguided processes. So in that sense, there is a divide between his understanding of evolution, and Dawkins'.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know, Lenny, I understand that this thread is generally lighthearted and dedicated for the abuse of of UD, so it's true that this ought to be moved, but you are proving yourself to be a bear of very little brain, and one dedicated to gratuitous belligerance as well.  
Obviously, to you, any religious person is a fundamentalist. Whereas, I fear fundamentalists, and I got news for you - you are one.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe you mistook my meaning. So I'll clear it up. I meant that I agreed there is a strong streak of fundamentalism at UD, but I also see it here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God. But generally, people have the idea that matter is something separate from God. So God set up a system, and it's running along on its own, or mostly on its own. Like you might wind up a top and let it go on the floor. But the evolution of life just doesn't look like something that could happen on its own. On the other hand, getting to the point where you have matter, a universe, organization into galaxies and planets, and various laws of nature such that there is a planet with weather, also does not look too probable. Your question is about like asking whether a mouse can scratch his ear without the assist of God.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I mean, your questions are just absolutely trite. Why bother to eat? Why not just pray for sustenance? And of course there are emotional/spiritual components to disease causation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aren't you ashamed to provide this level of discourse?

You've made a lot of ass-umptions. I'm barely tolerated at UD. Is your position really so weak that you have to paint everyone with the same brush? Some ID people are fundies, some are religious but nonfundies, and some are not categorizable.

Your refutation of the Wedge document disclaimer was filled with fear and paranoia. Some of the things they said and do say  I agree with. There is no humanity without a metaphysical worldview. Right now, the atheists have got the floor. I agree with the DI that the purposeless worldview being taught is depressing and disheartening to humanity. I also don't think it's true. I don't know whether it might backfire if the Christians got their way, but I don't see why it should. Our country was freer in the last century than it is now and Christianity was not particularly oppressive. What I see coming, a totalitarian regime, will be by the corporate elite, not the fundies, although they will use the fundies.
There are a lot of fundie elements in our society, and they absolutely should be kept in check. There are Christians who want to implement Old Testament Biblical law. But I really, really don't see that as happening.
When I see all the fear and loathing in your arguments, it makes me skeptical that you can evaluate for truth. Fear is a decreaser of consciousness and reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And so on and so forth.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 22 2007,05:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I know lots of people who believe this, in fact a Christian friend told me once that God makes the flowers grow. If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alright, I worded it sloppily. The common phrase and what young people are taught, is random, unguided, purposeless. I think you knew that, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically. You can use evolution to support atheism if you like, the same way people use the big bang and the cosmological constant to support the existence of God, but the idea that a evolution as a scientific theory disproves God by it's very nature is a misunderstanding of the nature of science.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 22 2007,07:23

I just want to know if Avocationists thinks supernatural witches exist, and if so, should they be killed.

I also want to know if she thinks demons and devils possess people, and if she agrees with Hovind and Ross that flying saucers come from the Devil.

I want to see just how nutty Avocationist really is . . . . . .
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 22 2007,08:04

Scientific argument for ID please.
(waits patiently) :)
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2007,08:46

Cedric,

Patience is a virtue......but don't hold your breath!

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 22 2007,09:02

Somewhere along the line I'd also like to hear how Judge Jones was made to 'look foolish'.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 22 2007,09:18

Avocationist is back!?

We get rid of the wacky funhouse world of afdave, only to re-acquire the pretzel-logic of avocationist?

There must be some kind of "conservation of loopiness" law operating here.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 22 2007,09:30

I really haven't been around that long, so I wasn't really aware of who "avocationist" was...now that I did a li'l searching...uh, yeah, you're right, Russ.
*sharpens his poking stick*
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2007,09:38

Shhhhhhh behave. It'll think we're fundamentalists. Oh wait. It already does.

{Breaks cover, sits down in rocking chair, picks up poking stick and whittlin' knife, starts whittlin'}

Corn's high this yeeeah.

{spits baccy}

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 22 2007,10:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Corn's high this yeeeah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Spits* Yup. Mighty high.  *polishes his shotgun*

Wheer's thet flat-headed banjo-playin' boy of your'n got to? We needs us some fancy musick.

Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,13:01

Hi Chris,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow...My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything. Now, this may not be technically true, and it might be an overstepping of bounds, but it has been done more than some of the time. I think that only just recently, as they are being called on it, they are removing the starker statements from the textbooks.

Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.' I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial. What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently. This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP. Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray.  

Lenny, I will not entertain your silly nonquestions. They are based on unfounded assumption and reading comprehension deficits.

Cedric,

I tried that, and it ended up eating all my free time, while I argued against 8 or 9, and got called a liar and evasionist by GCT who it seemed to me often twisted my words and referred back to things I had said pages earlier. I was told to do my homework but I was the only one who did so. I tried to go through some essays about the flagellum, but no one but me would read the texts. I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail. What I come away with is that people quite often (not always) read things with a jaundiced eye. We see a debate between Miller and Dembski. In my eyes, Dembski wins; in your eyes, Miller wins.

So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly. Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives.

If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group.

Arden,
I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word.

I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 22 2007,13:13

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Arden,
I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah.. Gotcha. You don't need to follow the event too closely if you think he might have ignored one side using your ESP powers or whatever. Perhaps you could make an 'intent' detector, they could use one in the ID camp.

You are one bad hand-waving Tard. No offense, like.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 22 2007,13:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let me get this straight: You didn't follow the trial, but you have reached your conclusion.  And now you're accusing Jones of only looking at the evidence from one side?

I personally did follow the trial.  I read the daily transcripts, not just the news bites.  I read the decision multiple times.  ID had a fair hearing, and that's all there is to it.  They brought the best they could offer (those that weren't too afraid that is) and got shut down.  Read the transcripts to find out why.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 22 2007,13:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On April 2, 2005, DaveScot made the < following > post at PT:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by DaveScot on April 2, 2005 9:30 PM (e)

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You will see this got disemvowelled. With the vowels put back in, this is:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey you fucking assholes. Apologize to Davison NOW before I get pissed off and start fucking with you. You don't want to make me mad. Trust me on this. Your security sucks big time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is Dave's < version > of events:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda's Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can judge for yourself whether Dave would tolerate this at UD.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plenty has been written about this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, but most of the anti-Jones polemics I've seen -- pretty much all of them actually -- are wildly disingenuous or outright dishonest and depend heavily on attacks on his character. I guess we were wondering if you had something a little more substantial than that.

But all I'm seeing is that you didn't like Judge Jones's decision, which all by itself proves Jones 'didn't listen to the evidence'. If Judge Jones had 'listened to the evidence', he certainly would have come to a pro-ID conclusion which somehow still eludes the vast majority of scientists -- and thereby avoided looking 'foolish'.
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 22 2007,15:05

Oh, dear. This looks as if it's going to be another car-crash. I should look away, but..... nah, can't resist.


Avocationist,

It would be great if you could bring something new to the table, but I suspect you are going to give us the same old canards we've all heard before.

PROVE ME WRONG!

In order to help you, I strongly suggest that before you post your comments, you consult this easy to navigate < list of creo/ID arguments >, and check that your's hasn't already been addressed. It will save everyone's time, and may help prevent you from making a complete fool of yourself.

As the great Mark Twain once said: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Bon chance!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 22 2007,15:05

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 22 2007,07:18)
We get rid of the wacky funhouse world of afdave, only to re-acquire the pretzel-logic of avocationist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh come on; I'm having a great time < murdering Dave's "Arguments." >

He never runs out of wacky things to say. His latest is his claim that physical cosmology, abiogenesis, and for all I know, number theory, are all part of the Theory of Evolution.

You can't write comedy like this!
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 22 2007,15:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was told to do my homework but I was the only one who did so. I tried to go through some essays about the flagellum, but no one but me would read the texts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK. Now you are lying.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Avo, meet afdave; dave, meet Avo. The two of you appear to have been separated at birth.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2007,16:08

avocationist. Let me give you a clue about behaviour here. If you make a claim that is disputed, you are expected to back your argument up with evidence, logic or something else that supports your statements. You will not get a free ride. On the other hand you will not be censored for a long time.

May I suggest that you pick one statement made by you that was quoted by Louis in the opening post and argue the case?

IF avocasionist does that, would everyone else agree to deal with one topic at a time? Otherwise this thread will be "all over the place".

My bid would be for positive evidence for ID (that should be the quickest to be got-done with).
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 22 2007,16:16

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01)
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I checked out some of the "< Darwinsim FAQs >" on Milton's (author of Shattering) website.  They're somewhat amusing if you haven't checked them out yet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, an old favourite that Darwinists often try to slip in by the back door is the idea that all the different breeds of dog are different species, when in fact all breeds of dog, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all members of a single species, Canis familiaris, and are capable of interbreeding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In precisely the same way, because of its infinitely elastic definition, natural selection can be made to explain opposed and even mutually contradictory individual adaptations. For example, Darwinists claim that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2007,16:24

I'm getting the distinct impression that because Avocationist has been asked to talk about his/her ID ideas on this thread, this is the very last thing he/she will do. So at least we have somewhere troll free!

Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious!

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 22 2007,16:35

Maybe trolls are territorial, or maybe they don't like to get in each other's way? :p
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 22 2007,17:14

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,16:24)
Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe you need to ask a knowledgeable person who runs the board to track some IPs  :D
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 22 2007,17:46

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Lenny, I will not entertain your silly nonquestions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't blame you.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 22 2007,17:53

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,16:24)
I'm getting the distinct impression that because Avocationist has been asked to talk about his/her ID ideas on this thread, this is the very last thing he/she will do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She seems interested only in discussing her religious opinions.  Apparently she's holier than everyone else, because of her aura, or something.  

Seems she's some sort of New Agey nutter.  They are every bit as tard-filled as the fundies.  

Remember what I said before about the finger pointing at the moon -- how some people never see the moon at all, but instead study the finger minutely, in every wrinkley detail?

Ding ding ding.

Back in my younger days, I was always excited to meet girls like this at Rainbow Gatherings.  It was always absurdly easy to get them in the sack.

Waddya say, Avocation?  Wanna help me find my Spiritual Harmonic Convergence?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 22 2007,18:25

A fisking "review" of Richard Milton's "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" can be found at < http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In summary, Milton falls woefully short of the title's claim. It would take a book longer than the one Milton wrote to fully debunk and analyze his errors. I have merely scratched the surface in this too-brief review. He is unfocused, unclear, and hypocritical. He offers no alternative theory, doesn't adequately do away with any aspect or aspects of neo-Darwinism, and his fact- gathering skills need work."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be glad to discuss Milton's claims about the "myths" of radiometric dating, uniformitarianism and natural selection, if you're up to that, Avocationist.

I assume you have his book. I won't mind dismantling it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you may not actually know much about these topics. I'll be visiting the bookstore tonight to read through Milton's work, so you won't be able to say that I really NEED to read it before criticizing the ideas it contains. In the meantime, perhaps you can tell me why I should not accept carbon dating and ...oh, say potassium-argon dating? Be clear, and use valid arguments, not just isolated examples where creationists and others have misapplied the methods. Radioactive decay is a statistically valid concept that can be used to measure the age of materials, Avocationist...Show me why it's specifically invalid in all cases.
Posted by: phonon on Jan. 22 2007,18:46

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I hate to just make this an even larger dogpile, but...

Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ay ay ay. Call Deepak Chopra. If you want to call Dark Matter and Dark Energy 'subtle energies' that's fine, but to think that they are somehow mystical or magical is silly and again, I've never seen a good scientific way in which to rule-in divine intervention or supernatural forces.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Uh, really?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, now that's starting to sound all sciency.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think ESP has been debunked by more traditional methods.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Um ok. But in science, traditionally, people don't assign these less perceivable realms to the supernatural. They assign them to the "I don't know" realm.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY? :(  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover. :O
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 22 2007,18:53

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01)
Cedric,

I tried that, and it ended up eating all my free time, while I argued against 8 or 9, and got called a liar and evasionist by GCT who it seemed to me often twisted my words and referred back to things I had said pages earlier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a lying sack.  I documented your words and mine in detail and showed how you did just what you are accusing me of.  You are pathetic.  Normally I wouldn't speak this way, but you have shown yourself to be dishonest, unworthy of respect, and completely contemptible.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You couldn't refute your way out of a paper sack.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And, I've already refuted that by pointing out those who believe in god/Christianity/etc. that also accept evolution.  Good job bring up old arguments that have already been shot to h*ll.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because none of those authors give an account of what ID is, except as a religious apologetic.  You are too blind to notice that (using your own verbage).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How precious.  "I haven't followed the case, but I know Jones is stupid because I just know that ID is right...but don't ask me how...oh, and all of you are blind and unwilling to see."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, he threatened to hack the site.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,23:44

Improvius,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.
Louis,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's called serendipity!

Midnight,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe you need to ask a knowledgeable person who runs the board to track some IPs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have been the same persona here before and at UD for quite a long time. I inherited my husband's old computer a few months ago, though. You guys are so full of it. Who else writes with my ideas and style?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Waddya say, Avocation?  Wanna help me find my Spiritual Harmonic Convergence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I told my husband that I find monogamy to be a mindless instinct controlling us via our selfish genes, but he said he is just not into sharing.

Deadman,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd be glad to discuss Milton's claims about the "myths" of radiometric dating, uniformitarianism and natural selection, if you're up to that, Avocationist. I assume you have his book. I won't mind dismantling it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you may not actually know much about these topics. I'll be visiting the bookstore tonight to read through Milton's work, so you won't be able to say that I really NEED to read it before criticizing the ideas it contains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Deadman, I think that is just great that you plan to go to so much trouble. But I don't see how standing and reading through it in a bookstore would help us go through the text. I think we should both have a text available. It doesn't need to be that book. And no, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the various dating methods. Why would you pick that one? I have always read thru that stuff and just kept it in mind without taking it too strongly. I definitely think we don't know for sure if our dating methods are accurate, and I certainly have read some good criticisms, for example, of getting wildly different readings on the same sample with several methods.

Yo Phonon, loved your documentary-


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me:Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything.

You: Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uh, really?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When I say nonmaterial, I am not referring to nonmaterial things such as a concept. I mean I doubt the so-called spiritual realm is nonmaterial. But I do suspect that we have not been able to explore the whole enchilada, and that we are confined within a narrow band, much like our ability to percieve within the electromagnetic spectrum. On the other hand, I am not quite sure where consciousness fits into materiality.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I do tend to be a little naive and give people the benefit of the doubt...Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose. It's just pure probability! Of course, a lot of ID folk have not evaluated it much because it's just easier for them to accept it as it fits with their views. I think the Dover school board used it without even caring what it was about.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I didnt say he had to be. I was simply showing that he was free to evaluate the ID book he read - Denton's - because he could go either way without much loss. What do you think Behe said that was dishonest? I read most of his testimony.

GCT,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are a lying sack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We can leave it at that. Of the six remarks you made, 4 showed misinterpretations of what I said. So it would just be a go-round to little purpose.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,00:11

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
It's called serendipity!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You called?

Suffice to say is there any evidence for Intelligent Design?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2007,04:10

Avocationist,

I wouldn't call it serendipity, I'd call it suspicious at worst or unfortunate at best. Some people, no names mentioned, no fingers pointed, use the internet as a sheild between themselves and the deep loathfulness of their behaviour. I have to confess I have no idea why anyone would do this, beyond the obvious pranking.

Louis

P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 23 2007,05:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah no.
On the UD thread I said                    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just want your version of a scientific argument for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please note the "your" part of that quote.
I'll admit I got a little lax on this thread and foolishly posted something less specific...                  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientific argument for ID please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I apologise for any confusion.

I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?
If you don't want to do it, then fine.
Please don't dredge or do anything only half-decent on my account! :O
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.  
For me, the ID movement is a slow-motion train wreck, graphically illustrating anti-science and abysmally bad critical thinking skills.
I don't know you except that you post on UD and that you seem to support ID.
Can you make a real argument that does not involve hand-waving or vague, useless definitions?
You complained that in previous arguments with GCT that he twisted your words and              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...referred back to things I had said pages earlier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.  After all, what's the point of writing something if you're not going to stand by it later?
Come on Advocationist, just share your personal understanding of ID with us. AFDave got dreadfully dull after a while, but judging from the Herculean length of his threads, nobody can say we didn't give him a fair chance to state his case.  In fact, we repeatedly begged him to.  Can you do better?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,07:06

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?  Or are you just confusing "atheism" with "science" (and are too dumb to tell the difference)?


Not to mention that teaching kids "there is no need to have a god" is, in the United States, against the law.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,07:11

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,07:46

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2007,04:10)
P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Louis.

I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.

Upon reading some of Avocationist's posts, suffice to say they are articulate and eloquent.. but how should one say.. their science "sucks". I was glad to see that they admitted that science and maths they were not. That was a welcomed snippet of honesty. Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.  I've had 9 years exposure to an assortment of these citizens. With a lack of intellectual integrity, and a lack of substantive evidence FOR their generalised paradigm of either a creator or intelligent designer, I dare say that for most parts (and speaking personally) they have become a clique. At most, an abomination to the world of Academia. So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.

Serendipity.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2007,08:14

Serendipity,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]

Mmmm psychology, a new pleasure!

[/Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2*]

I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nothing to commend, I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously. Take Wesley or Lenny or Dr GH as just a light selection of examples.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.

I am with Lenny on finding the "I don't know shit about this but I's an indypendent thinkerer and so I ain't gonna believe nuthin you say Mr Man" attitude of Avocationist amusing. I'm also pretty sure I'm not alone in finding a good portion of that natural scepticism healthy. I wonder what we'll have next.

Louis
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 23 2007,08:17

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,00:44)
Improvius,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The DI was founded in 1990.  And besides that, many of its present fellows were publishing books before then.  So, care to list the bibliography names for us?

And if this is such a "strange argument", then why did you bring it up in the first place?  You were the one who originally claimed Milton to be a "secular" source.  That's the point I'm challenging you on.  In any case, it isn't that creationists are "bad people" (though I'm sure some of them are), but rather that their opinions on science are, by their own admission, heavily biased.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2007,08:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is based at least partly on a false equivocation. Creationists are not bad people per se, but the ideas they hold are (note seperation of idea and person. Quite important). Creationist/IDCist ideas have been regularly, routinely and rampantly refuted for over a century and a half now. It isn't a poor assumption (based on evidence) to think that anyone espousing creationist boilerplate (esp. well refuted boilerplate) is either:

1) Very silly (no bad thing, we can all be very silly)
2) Ignorant of the relevant science (still no bad thing, we aren't born knowing everything)
3) Mistaken (still not a bad thing, we all make mistakes)
4) Misled (still not a bad thing, we all are sometimes lead astray by less than scrupulous persons)
5) Dishonest (bad thing)

Most creationists I have met fall into the first 4 categories. A small but vocal minority fall into the last one.

How can I say this terrible thing? Well, simply put, whilst all people are equally valid and wonderful, not all opinions or ideas are equally valid and wonderful. Some ideas are more supported by the available evidence than other ideas. Creationist/IDCist ideas are very poorly supported by any evidence, in fact they have no evidence whatsoever in their favour (and yes I am aware you don't get this part because I have read your posts). Thus they are not the equal of scientific ideas in terms of their support by the available evidence. It is on this criterion alone that they are judged.

The difficulty I face, as a scientist interested in the accurate public communication of science, is when I encounter someone like you who espouses IDCist ideas is deciding which category above you fit into and thus how much of my time I am going to waste on you. Or indeed if that time is a waste at all. If you're in categories 1 to 4, then the chances are that any conversation with you will be illuminating and entertaining for me, and hopefully useful for you too. If it's category 5, then I'm sad to say we have nothing to talk about. There's not much point is having a dialogue with anyone who is willing to lie to avoid admitting when they are wrong about something.

Louis
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 23 2007,08:43

The Discovery Institute does predate by several years the founding of the DI Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1996.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 23 2007,08:52

Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 23 2007,08:46)
Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179 >

Mike PSS
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2007,08:57

Wesley, for the record, what exactly did Dave Scot do to get banned from ATBC?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 23 2007,09:23

Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.
Posted by: stephenWells on Jan. 23 2007,11:08

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 23 2007,09:23)
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In case Avocationist feels that it's too much of a challenge to concisely state the Theory of ID, let's note that Mr. Darwin managed to summarise his ideas about evolution in one paragraph:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."


ID version, please?
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,12:31

The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 23 2007,12:39

I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before. There's a thread < about that here >, even.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 23 2007,12:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. Yes. Or, conversely if you merely point out errors in reasoning and raise valid points in contradiction to their alleged "theories" and "facts," then you get banned.
2. What challenges did you make? When I offered to take up specific aspects of a book that you claimed to find essential to your layman's understanding...you didn't want to do so. If you have an actual challenge to make, do so.
3. All you were asked to do was to lay out, in your own words, a personal vision of what you believed ID to be. If you feel that you have been insulted, perhaps you might want to look at your own posts and see if you have not been insulting, or perhaps you might want to develop a slightly thicker skin or you might even want to portray yourself further as a martyr by storming off in a huff and not coming back. Oh, so many choices when you seek to avoid a direct line of questioning, eh?
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 23 2007,12:47

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,08:11)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny, DI = Disco(very) Institute.  Even so, Avo is still incorrect.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 23 2007,12:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue. Some high-profile names have been tolerated for a while...McNeil comes to mind...and you'll say he was not subjected to multiple questions? Pfft.

Post Script: Just for your enlightenment, Avocationist, you can read the story of "Febble" a female poster at UD who was banned for having the temerity to expose the vacuous nature of ID :   < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/the_sad_state_o.html >
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 23 2007,12:53

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 23 2007,09:23)
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure. Kind of stifles thinking if you know what I mean.

By all means, whatever floats your boat. I don't even care if you write about how your faith has made you so much happier and better looking. But I do care that someone might go out and claim that there is ANY science left to whatever flavored god you prostrate yourself before.

ID is not currently science. It can't be studied yet. So, if you want to argue that evolution, which is falsifiable (easily), doesn't best explain what we see then you'd better have a lot of info at your fingertips. I read Darwin's Black Box and my 30 year old science education was enough to shred it for logical inconsistencies, projection, flat innaccuracies and sheer stupidity. And Behe isn't a dumb guy nor is he ignorant. So, have a go. But don't be surprised if folks here ask you for specifics because, frankly, no one has yet made a single argument refuting ToE.

But, you may be the first.
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 23 2007,12:54

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,13:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I guess you must get all huffy and bent out of shape whenever someone disagrees with you in person, too.  Wow, you must be loads of fun to hang out with.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2007,13:01

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,12:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. Some high-profile names have been tolerated for a while...McNeil comes to mind...and you'll say he was not subjected to multiple questions? Pfft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, < what happened > to Elizabeth Liddle AKA Febble at UD earlier this month was extremely instructive. Act totally civilized, totally polite, don't get angry, explain things patiently, contradict Dave Scot, you're banned.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 23 2007,13:04

Hah, yeah, I added that in a post script, too, Arden. We were both thinking along the same lines. And, avocationist, that was within just the last 10 days.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2007,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right?
Posted by: heddle on Jan. 23 2007,13:11

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 23 2007,12:39)
I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before. There's a thread < about that here >, even.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley,

There are many instances on that thread of IDers using the Taliban analogy. In fairness, maybe you should add those cases in which people like PT contributor < Gary Hurd > and compulsive commenter < Lenny Flank > return the favor.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 23 2007,13:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I agree that this can be a problem, but ID proponents that make this statement all the time if not more than atheists do. After all if this was their only problem it could be solved quite easily and then the only people who would be complaining would be biblical literalists and Richard Dawkins.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Except that most of them think that evolution=atheism so they have quite a lot too lose. Ill grant that there are exceptions but Im pretty sure that most biologists have nothing to loose. Mostly because I know a couple that don't believe in evolution don't have tenure and their careers are getting on pretty fine because they do good work. Im also not very sypmathetic to these types of claims becuase all the DI needs to do is come up with an ID theory and do some research to show it's a legitimate scientific field.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 23 2007,13:41

Heddle,

I never asserted that only ID advocates used invidious comparisons. I even noted < an instance > of Michael Shermer engaging in such in that original thread. As I noted there, the thread's purpose was to demonstrate definitively that the ID advocacy complement was not above using the rhetorical lowball that they get so exercised about when they are on the receiving end. I have been told on numerous occasions, for instance, the utter falsehood that William Dembski's demeanor is exchanges is wholly of an admirable character.

I certainly have no misconception that everyone arguing for good science education has behaved themselves and not indulged in unseemly rhetoric. I've probably been guilty of such in particular instances, though I do try to keep to a higher level. For others, we could argue cases. That, though, is not the point.

There are also numerous instances of ID advocates decrying bad uses of rhetoric utilized against them. The combination of the fact of invidious comparison use by ID advocates and the fact of their complaints against bad rhetoric leads to a particularly unsavory conclusion.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2007,13:43

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,13:04)
Hah, yeah, I added that in a post script, too, Arden. We were both thinking along the same lines. And, avocationist, that was within just the last 10 days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great minds, etc.

There are a thousand stories of people being banned at UD for no good reason, but I mentioned Febble because her case was so egregious. There was absolutely no excuse for banning her save protecting Dave Scot & Dembski's fragile little egos. (But that's all UD has ever consisted of.)

Even Dave tacitly admitted this when the best he was able to do in the aftermath of banning her was to slime her statements (made elsewhere) on the honestly of US elections:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

DaveScot wrote: “…if you google her a bit you’ll find she’s a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So essentially Dave's admitting he had no excusable reason for banning her, but he's reassuring the 'base' that since she's a 'leftist', that alone justifies her banning.

Honestly, we could not ask for better, more self-destructive advocates of Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,14:06

Hello, Louis.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A man interested in my diatribe  :O  This could be promising... or it could be serendipity *chortles*

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We all at some stage adopt a persona. Yes *all* of us. According to Labelling Theory we adopt these persona's to perform a specific role. Often these roles are positive, sometimes negative, sometimes psychiatric - that being that physiologically/psychiatrically we have a disposition towards persona's.. such as MP or Schizophrenia. Cybernetics is actually no different except more people have a tendency towards experimentation of a varity of persona's that they can adopt. In a sense this complies with Jungian persona's. This is also, all connected with communication. I suppose I could give a description relating to this thread.

A creationist begins communicating - often articulately and placidly. They will structurally present why they feel they are right in their given paradigm. Then that paradigm is challenged. The creationist will then adopt a martyr persona - the sadly misunderstood. Of course its due to people not being able to grasp what they are saying. They then become the "teachers". When then requested to support their claims with evidence, they are suddenly the "warrior".. steadfastly pushing ahead, secure in the knowledge that their teaching will miraculously convince people of their stance. When again requested to support their statements and supply evidence, they are suddenly the "persecuted" lost in a world of "blind people".. those blind to their vision. When still asked to support their claims, they become the "aggressive bull". Refusing to budge, reasserting their positions.

A variety of persona's are adopted during that description.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I used to come here months ago, and like Sir Toejam, just changed my name. My anger is towards the misinformation that creationists spread (yes, often lies) in relation to science. Science however, can withstand the barrage, my concern is those individuals and groups who are naive enough to adopt that misinformation and at a later stage when being hammered by those learned in sciences, when they are corrected - the original people/s that fed them this misinformation are often long gone and take no accountability. It annoys me.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Diogenes is fading into the distance.. however sarcasm is often a result of cynicism.. Diogenes as a slave once told the King to stand before him, when the King asked why, Diogenes said it was to block out the sun which was blinding him.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder what we'll have next.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another persona, more than likely *smirks*

Serendipity.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,14:30

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,08:52)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Mike PSS.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nicely written, factual and correct. I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).

Serendipity.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,15:22

Cedric,

Yours was probably the most thoughtful and constructive post, therefore, I'll have to put it off to deal with the mayhem, which never seems to stop.

Lenny,

No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.

Hello Louis,

Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.

I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.

People who subvert science are those who try to stop debate and open inquiry. Understand?

Improvius,

I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.

Back to Louis,

You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!!

Arden,

Yes, I am interested to know what DS did here. I did read the PT thread, and agree that he should be banned for life for threatening to hack the site, and that his behavior (wording in his post) was hypocritical.

Occam and Stephen, your post on back burner along with Cedric

Wesley,

I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE.

I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!

But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing.

Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it.

Deadman,

People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. I don't approve of his style. But it is one assumption, one comment in one thread. When one of you go over there, you don't suddenly find yourself with your own thread and half the board throwing insults and challenges that are almost impossible to meet, sneering and mocking all the while, telling you to go back to your black sabbath and so forth.

I didn't say Milton's book was essential, I just named it as one of several. Personally, I like Denton's maybe best.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Although I find some boards too tolerant of nut cases that can't be reasoned with or who are broken records, generally I despise censorship, and that very thing is why I posted at the uncommonly dense thread. My post got lost in cyberspace, and I couldn't even imagine why, but I was on moderation for criticizing DS for the very treatment you speak of. I understand it is a fast moving blog and they might need tighter control on mayhem than here, but I think the moderation style makes them appear weak.
Yes, I saw Febble post there, but I didn't witness the part that led up to her banning. I have read your link. Obviously she is very intelligent, but I did not agree with her on a couple of points. Frankly, her remarks really deserved an in-depth response.
Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time.

That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems.
Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend.

BWE,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Really? I wonder who said this:

Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.


Arden,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am sure that if guys like Dembski and Behe and many, many others who are far more capable than I cannot do so, in fact have not brought out one good argument for ID, then I also cannot. But, more to the point that you responded to, as a group most of the people here are showing themselves unreasonable and irrational, and unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.

Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2007,15:30

[/QUOTE]Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.[QUOTE]

Gosh have I called you loathsome and a liar and a subverter of science?

Remind me where I did that.

Louis
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 23 2007,15:33

Hi, avocationist.

Why don't you provide your scientific theory of ID as many asked you to? Alternatively you could admit that you don't have any, or that you are not interested in fulfilling their requests.
It would save them some time.
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 23 2007,15:36

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Improvius,

I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is that Milton isn't a source.  He's a journalist.  And he's relying primarily on creationist sources for his book.  So citing his book as a secular source is misleading.  It is in fact a compilation of creationist sources.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 23 2007,15:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cedric, Yours was probably the most thoughtful and constructive post, therefore, I'll have to put it off to deal with the mayhem, which never seems to stop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh...this "mayhem" is ...typing. Pixels on a screen that you can turn off anytime...thus it "stops."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. I don't approve of his style... When one of you go over there, you don't suddenly find yourself with your own thread and half the board throwing insults and challenges that are almost impossible to meet, sneering and mocking all the while
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Dave Scot attacks people for multiple reasons, not just one. Reasons he's banned people can include being right, pointing out his errors, or Dembski's -- or asking that he back his claims. Dave Scot is not the only moderator there, either, and all of them have engaged in similar behavior, including Dembski. And yeah, I don't think you really have read through the threads there.
Oh, and finally, exactly what were you challenged on that you find impossible to meet? You were asked to describe your interpretation of ID, that's all. Is that "impossible?"

Finally...
Louis = LEADER OF THE PACK!! (vroom, vroom)


Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,15:54

Hi Avocationist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Often when one comes under scrutiny or challenges made, it is perceived as hostility. After-all, no one likes being wrong, no one likes a direct challenge if they're not expecting it. However, your visualisation skills are very umm.. visual.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That can be easily done and I remember being asked to do such a thing in both chat and in class.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hello Avocation. I actually lack the time, and am doing this from work and during a coffee break.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think "rage" is the improper terminology. Try skepticism. In my case, cynicism.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would love to claim that "Serendipity" is a cacographical neologism which I am responsible for, but alas, I am probably sauntering over plagiarism even trying. Actually I was responding to Louis concerning persona - cybernetic psychology and in particular the various faces of individuals online has been a project I have been working on for a number of years. The only person I know on this list which I can say anything about persona or otherwise is the man that I have met face to face, even shared a bed with. To much information sure, but accurate enough.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2007,16:31

Leader of the pack? I forgot to mention that.

Let me be the first to say: bollocks.

I feel that's all that needs saying.

Louis
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 23 2007,16:38

Avocationist,

I imagine that the flaming you're getting does seem a little harsh, but you must understand that the AtBC regulars have had their patience pushed to the limit by people who come along making claims they cannot support (see AFDave's thread). We don't ask for much; we just ask that you tell us what your theory of I.D. is.

You see, if you claim that I.D. is a real scientific theory, but then can't tell us what you think the theory is, it doesn't reflect very well on you, does it?

So please, tell us what you think the theory of I.D. is.

:)

BTW, to avoid any unintended offence, do we refer to you as he or she? If you've already said, I apologise for asking again.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2007,16:51

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,16:45)
No, Dave Scot attacks people for multiple reasons, not just one. Reasons he's banned people can include being right, pointing out his errors, or Dembski's -- or asking that he back his claims. Dave Scot is not the only moderator there, either, and all of them have engaged in similar behavior, including Dembski. And yeah, I don't think you really have read through the threads there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was once banned for posting a quote of Dembski's. I don't mean, posting a quote and then editorializing, I don't mean, posting a quote with some nefarious ellipses, I mean, my whole post was

"(blah blah blah some paragraph of Dembski's)

-William Dembski"

They banned me and deleted the quote when I hadn't said a single thing myself. The ban was because the quoted paragraph, from a few years ago, stood in utter contradiction to the words in Dembski's post I was commenting on.

I don't remember what the exact topic was. I think I documented it several hundred pages ago on this thread.

edit: not on this thread. on the UD thread.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2007,17:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was once banned for posting a quote of Dembski's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Steve, how many times have you been banned at UD?

And do you know the story of DS's banning from ATBC? Since the subject's come up, and all?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 23 2007,17:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ban was because the quoted paragraph, from a few years ago, stood in utter contradiction to the words in Dembski's post I was commenting on.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well certainly - really, how dare ya use the guy's own words that way! :p
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,18:11

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,00:44)
GCT,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are a lying sack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We can leave it at that. Of the six remarks you made, 4 showed misinterpretations of what I said. So it would just be a go-round to little purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad that you can admit that at least 2 of those instances were lies....of course you aren't really doing that, you're just being your normal evasive, liar self.

Where's that evidence for ID?

Oh yeah, I forgot, your evidence is, "God exists, so ID exists...duh."
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,18:18

I cleared clients to be able to sit down and enjoy my lunch and read this dialogue (and probably play a game or two on Yahoo).

What is the supportive evidence for Intelligent Design?
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,18:29

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,13:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is not uncalled for to call a liar a liar.  I have documented your lies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because dissenting opinion is weeded out and dissenters are banned.  Even then, the rhetoric of DaveTard ("Kill the Muslims", "PTers are all a bunch of church burners") and a few others surely wouldn't go unnoticed by such a free-thinker as yourself.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Numerous people have suggested taking topics one at a time, you ignore that because you can't defend a single thing you've said and find it would be easier to just act like it's our fault that you can't.  That way you think you can duck out with some face, but no one here buys it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right, because you already know all the answers without having to do any of the work.  You don't know about the trial, but you know Jones was wrong.  You don't know about evolution, you just know it is wrong.  Etc.  You should be embarrassed.

Oh, and the pent up rage thing is ridiculous as well.  Yes, I dislike you for your lies, but what you are doing is appealing to a canard that is all too common among people like you.  "Oh, the atheists are all full of rage."  Yeah, right.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,18:42

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[emphasis mine]

Oh the irony.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,18:59

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,15:22)
No I can't cite an example of a textbook.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No kidding.

That's because, uh, there ain't any.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,19:11

Well, so far it seems that Avocation:

(1) doesn't understand what the ID movement is, or what it's all about  (which is why she doesn't understand why they hate her)
(2) doesn't understand Taoism, Sufism, Buddhism or any other -ism that I can see
(3) can't tell the difference between "science" and "atheism"
(4) doesn't know anything scientific, even remotely

and

(5) isn't interested in doing any research on any of the above.


She is here to (1) show everyone how "spiritual" she is, (2) feel good about how much better she is than all of us dolts, and (3) feed her massive martyr complex.

I find nothing she says either interesting or informative.

She could perhaps change that, by telling us all about ESP, ley lines, crystal healing, and the Celestine Prophecy.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,19:15

Quote (heddle @ Jan. 23 2007,13:11)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Jan. 23 2007,12:39]I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before.  In fairness, maybe you should add those cases in which people like PT contributor < Gary Hurd > and compulsive commenter < Lenny Flank > return the favor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not an analogy.  It's a direct comparison.  The fundies ARE Taliban-wanna-be's.  Just read their Wedge Document.


(BTW, Heddle, thank you, sincerely, for shutting up --- if only for one post -- about your religious opinions.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,19:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Avocationist:  I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.


Me:  I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?


Avocationist:  No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Um, leaving aside for the moment the simple fact that you are too pig-ignorant and uninformed to know the difference between Miller's textbook, and the proposed Kansas state science standards  (that word "unguided" was, uh, ADDED BY THE CREATIONISTS, and was TAKEN OUT BY VOTE OF THE NEWLY ELECTED EVOLUTIONIST MAJORITY) . . . .

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly . . . .

Your cited example of a textbook that says, quote, "there is no need to have a god to explain things any more", is a textbook that was written by Ken Miller, who is, um, a Roman Catholic Christian?

A Christian.

A theistic Christian.

A theistic, God-believing, Christian.

Is THAT what you're telling me?  In your view, the Christian Roman Catholic biologist, Ken Miller, was actually trying to use his textbook to teach kids that "there is no need for god" . . . . ?

Is THAT what you are trying to tell me?

Really?

Really and honestly?



Wow.  

No WONDER everyone thinks you have the brains of a  bowl of fruit.  


(snicker)  (giggle)  BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,19:33

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,12:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.


Heat.  Kitchen.  Bye.

Go whine to the UDers how mean we all were to you.  Maybe they'll like you then.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,19:42

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,20:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Avocationist:  I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.


Me:  I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?


Avocationist:  No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Um, leaving aside for the moment the simple fact that you are too pig-ignorant and uninformed to know the difference between Miller's textbook, and the proposed Kansas state science standards  (that word "unguided" was, uh, ADDED BY THE CREATIONISTS, and was TAKEN OUT BY VOTE OF THE NEWLY ELECTED EVOLUTIONIST MAJORITY) . . . .

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly . . . .

Your cited example of a textbook that says, quote, "there is no need to have a god to explain things any more", is a textbook that was written by Ken Miller, who is, um, a Roman Catholic Christian?

A Christian.

A theistic Christian.

A theistic, God-believing, Christian.

Is THAT what you're telling me?  In your view, the Christian Roman Catholic biologist, Ken Miller, was actually trying to use his textbook to teach kids that "there is no need for god" . . . . ?

Is THAT what you are trying to tell me?

Really?

Really and honestly?



Wow.  

No WONDER everyone thinks you have the brains of a  bowl of fruit.  


(snicker)  (giggle)  BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Lenny, it's even better than that.

See, Avo insists that Miller is a confused IDist, because he has to be since he believes in god.

If you point out to her that evolution has nothing to do with god and the two are not mutually exclusive, she will argue with you on that.  Then, a couple pages later, she will find some reason to assert that you are saying that evolution is atheistic and that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and how can you be so stupid as to think they are.

Then, when you point out that you already said that and that she claimed the opposite, she will claim that you are lying, twisting words, etc.  Then, later she will explain to you how others on the board convinced her that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive and if you just listen to her, you can understand that too.

When you get fed up with that and call her a liar, she will act like she doesn't understand why.  Meanwhile, she will go back to saying that Miller is a confused IDist because no one can believe in god and evolution since they are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,19:50

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 23 2007,19:42)
See, Avo insists that Miller is a confused IDist, because he has to be since he believes in god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, she reminds me of some Hindu nutter (whose name unfortunately escapes me right now) who ran an email list that argued pretty much the same thing --- "Hindus have gods, ID requires a god, therefore Hindus must be IDers".

Indeed, this particular nutter was so insistent that everyone hear his Holy Words, that he would grab email addresses from several places (including t.o., where he apparently got me) and add them to his email list (without their permission or knowledge) so they'd have to listen to it, "for their own good".  When I unsubbed from his stupid-ass list, he added me again, and then, for some reason that I never figured out, actually made me a **co-moderator** of his list ("to encourage you to stay", he told me).

I promptly put his entire list on "moderated" status so no one could post, and deleted his entire archives.

After that, he never tried to sub me again.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,19:58

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,20:11)
She is here to (1) show everyone how "spiritual" she is, (2) feel good about how much better she is than all of us dolts, and (3) feed her massive martyr complex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo.

She once told me that she has a keener sense of reality because she has done lots of studying about god and is now tuned to god, whereas I obviously have not done much study of god or thought much about it, and am obviously not as fulfilled or good as her.

She's just like any other fundy.  She's immune to facts, she's p*ss ignorant yet she thinks she knows all, she thinks she is better than all us "fundy" atheists, she can't answer a straight-forward question, she has a martyr complex, she lies, she rambles on and on never really making a point, she proselytizes...yep, she's a fundy (just not a born-again kind....maybe)
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,20:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cedric said
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.  
Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.

Occam said
Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

Stephen quotes Darwin-
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




1. I think GCT may have a personality disorder. Of course bringing up previous words is fine, but it was an endless morass. It gets hard to keep up the sense of the back and forth remarks when the conversation takes place with 9 people simultaneously, and everything gets misinterpreted again and again. And always petty stuff.

2. The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

3. My model? Why would I have my own model? My own prediction, is that as we learn more about evo-devo and epigenetic factors, we will learn exactly why a species cannot go beyond certain bounds. People constantly say ID needs to do its own research and blah blah, but the results of the world's research are public domain, and I certainly note the frequency with which UD finds new little aspects of some article that seem promising toward an ID perspective. The main difference between ID and NDE isn't the research, but how the research is interpreted. However, it is no doubt true that from an ID perspective junk DNA would not have been as easily dismissed, and I remember thinking years ago when I heard about it, "that can't be right." If more researchers had an ID mindset, it would from time to time cause them to interpret or react differently.

4. I certainly refuse to agree to omit any references to the inadequacies of nde. That just won't fly. If a theory is inadequate, then it's inadequate. Whether or not you happen to have a well-thought out alternative is just irrelevant. When you notice a problem in your theorems, you go to work trying to fix it. Nor will I apologize for my incredulity.

5. Yes, I update and discard ideas all the time and plan to continue. It wouldn't bother me in the least if random processes were capable of generating life forms. I just don't think they are.  Now, how much would it bother you to discard NDE? Honestly now.

The bolded part of Darwin's paragraph are quite Lamarkian! But that's not to criticize. Lamarkian ideas seem quite intuitive to me, and after all he was working with what he had.

Now, I have read probably 8 or 10 books and found their arguments persuasive. You people should be well aware of them. Not to mention articles on the net. I have especially enjoyed the refutations and answers by the authors of works, since I get to see their works attacked and defended. It doesn't matter much, though, because as someone here said, they didn't find Darwin's Black Box impressive, and I did. I think Demski won the flagellum debate hands down. I think Berlinski won the fish eyes papers debate as well. I just don't find the NDE arguments persuasive. I find them shallow. I read Mike Gene's 5-part essay on the flagellum, including its assembly, and I plead incredulity. No way that could arise by random processes. The arguments against RM+NS are just too good.

Also, I am quite sure that evolution proceeds by a saltational route.

Someone mentioned dating methods. Isn't that mostly for YECers? I think the human race is far, far older than 100,000 years. I have no idea how old. I don't know how old the universe is, or whether some sort of memory pattern from prior universes could be impressed upon it. I don't see how, but I'd like to think so. Now that would be evolution!

I deeply believe and hope in evolution. I like to think of the universe as on a trajectory of becoming, with many planets full of life forms. What I take issue with, the rock bottom that I am certain of, is that NDE is on an absurdly wrong path, in supposing that the mechanism of evo is mutations of the genome. Mutations of the genome is not a positive. Nor is it adequate. Yeah, yeah, I know about transpositions and duplications and deletions and cooption.

I don't know how life evolved, nor does anyone. It stumps me. It may not even have evolved here on our planet, which means we wouldn't even have accurate clues. But let's not think about that.

I consider the mind of God responsible for it ultimately, but not necessarily in a personal God kind of way. Maybe DNA itself is an immortal or semi-immortal life-spirit that works from within. Think about it. From the first DNA to now, no such thing as death. It just goes on and on. Maybe there are platonic patterns that forms get kind of 'pulled' into conformity with.

What the theory of evolution needs is a mechanism. That's the problem. No mechanism to account for what we see. But there is progress. People are looking at emergent properties, and self-organizing properties. I don't think that's enough, but it's a big help.

You guys really ought to read Denton. He is looking hard at understanding evolution from a whole cosmic point of view, and he believes that life forms evolve as a result of intrinsic properties of matter and physics, at least in part. Very teleological but very naturalistic and nonDarwinian. There is nothing in his views that ought to be repugnant to any but the most hard boiled atheist or Biblical literalist. (Even Dawkins really only dislikes the stupidities of religions and what gets done in its name.)

One thing Denton has explained that goes along with my own approach is how all-of-a-piece this whole universe is. While there is a qualitative gap between animate and inanimate objects, nonetheless, living things are quite firmly nestled in the physical laws that surround them. The universe, its laws, and its elements are the supporting structure for life forms. I don't know if there is a better synopsis of the amazing level of fine tuning that exists than Nature's Destiny. The first few chapters are a little dry, but powerfully important.

If there is anyone on this whole playing field who can be a mediator and facilitator of salvaging evolution theory it is Denton. I want him knighted. You guys cling to random mutation because it's all you've got but it's less than nothing.

Here's a Denton quote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A fascinating aspect of the folds, which we first pointed out in our papers, is the way adaptations are in every case the secondary modification of a primary natural form. I am now quite sure that the discovery that the protein folds are natural forms is only the beginning of what may turn out to be a major Platonic revision of biology, and an eventual relocation of biological order away from genes and mechanism and back into nature- where it resided before the Darwinian revolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I find the information arguments compelling, and here is a little snip from scordova:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I don’t think we have even touched the tip of the iceberg. One simple example. At first we observed the translation of DNA into a protein, kind of a nice sequential, start-to-finish read and write. Apparently no big deal. Then we saw that in some cases that the same strand of DNA could be tranlated backward into yet another meaningful protein. Then we saw the same process with frame shifting!!!

The level and compactness of information is astounding. Even today we know there exists not just one layer of coding but layers and layers and layers. I seem to recall Sanford saying it appears that not just one level of coding exists for DNA but maybe 12 have been so far discovered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What I'd like to see is some good refutations of Denton's book. Unfortunately, what the promoters of the book being shown at the top of this forum page had to say made me roll my eyes, and the one negative review was idiotic as well.

By the way, Febble did a bangup job of stating why she thinks natural selection is capable of generating IC systems. I just did not think her arguments were compelling enough.

Alright here's another prediction: You can have your evolution, but you gotta change the package. A lot. I mean, look at it this way. The knowledge of the cell and of genetics in Darwin's day was nil, and shortly thereafter we had Mendel. Soon as the evo's got over that shock, they incorporated it, and it was the only game in town and they've been running with it ever since. RANDOM MUTATION HAS GOT TO GO. I'M BEING YOUR FRIEND HERE!
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,20:02

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,20:50)
When I unsubbed from his stupid-ass list, he added me again, and then, for some reason that I never figured out, actually made me a **co-moderator** of his list ("to encourage you to stay", he told me).

I promptly put his entire list on "moderated" status so no one could post, and deleted his entire archives.

After that, he never tried to sub me again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That guy sounds as tardalicious as DaveTard.  And I would know, I've got the avatard to prove it.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,20:17

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,21:02)
1. I think GCT may have a personality disorder. Of course bringing up previous words is fine, but it was an endless morass. It gets hard to keep up the sense of the back and forth remarks when the conversation takes place with 9 people simultaneously, and everything gets misinterpreted again and again. And always petty stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry that you find intellectual honest to be "petty stuff."  It does explain a lot, however.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's not a scientific theory.  Try again.  Oh wait, I think we've already had this dance.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. I certainly refuse to agree to omit any references to the inadequacies of nde. That just won't fly. If a theory is inadequate, then it's inadequate. Whether or not you happen to have a well-thought out alternative is just irrelevant. When you notice a problem in your theorems, you go to work trying to fix it. Nor will I apologize for my incredulity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you are still too stupid to realize that any problems with NDE do not represent support for ID.  But, that's already been pointed out to you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5. Yes, I update and discard ideas all the time and plan to continue. It wouldn't bother me in the least if random processes were capable of generating life forms. I just don't think they are.  Now, how much would it bother you to discard NDE? Honestly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First, what a laugher.  Second, it would bother me greatly to discard NDE for "goddidit".  If the science were to go away from NDE, so be it, but I will not abandon something that has literally mountains of evidence on your say-so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think Demski won the flagellum debate hands down. I think Berlinski won the fish eyes papers debate as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just don't find the NDE arguments persuasive. I find them shallow. I read Mike Gene's 5-part essay on the flagellum, including its assembly, and I plead incredulity. No way that could arise by random processes. The arguments against RM+NS are just too good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....Yeah, that's some great evidence for ID you got there.  "Um, I don't believe in evolution, so ID is right."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I take issue with, the rock bottom that I am certain of, is that NDE is on an absurdly wrong path, in supposing that the mechanism of evo is mutations of the genome. Mutations of the genome is not a positive. Nor is it adequate. Yeah, yeah, I know about transpositions and duplications and deletions and cooption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't let things like facts and actual scientific research get in your way.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know how life evolved, nor does anyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.  There's quite a large volume of literature on how evolution works, and we know quite a bit more than you think.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alright here's another prediction: You can have your evolution, but you gotta change the package. A lot. I mean, look at it this way. The knowledge of the cell and of genetics in Darwin's day was nil, and shortly thereafter we had Mendel. Soon as the evo's got over that shock, they incorporated it, and it was the only game in town and they've been running with it ever since. RANDOM MUTATION HAS GOT TO GO. I'M BEING YOUR FRIEND HERE!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again, don't let facts get in your way.  You're right, because you have that personal connection with god and all us atheist plebes should be kissing your feet and learning from your anti-intellectual, anti-scholastic, incredulous ways.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 23 2007,20:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh that's it, is it?  I thought you just wrote a bunch of prejudiced nonsense that you picked up from a bunch of lying perverts, and were unable to back up any of your claims.  Come to think of it, I still do, useless lying moron.

There is some anger at the endless lies and utter lack of evidence evinced by a gutless ignoramus such as yourself.  But you're too much a person of ressentiment to recognize that you appall us much more than you anger us, and we quite deliberately call you a mindless liar because that is all that the evidence coming from your posts soundly indicates.  You deserve every bit of contempt that you receive, for you want simply to win some "moral victory" through name-calling and "shock" at the response to your pathetic display of cluelessness mixed with a profound ignorance, and you wish to be relieved from all responsibility for your "factual statements".

Glen D
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2007,20:30

For the record, here's the old thread that Avo had:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....tionist >

There are a lot of posts, and many are lengthy, but it's a good look at the evasions and lies of Avo, as documented by a few people.

Edit:  Here's a good, juicy quote from the first page.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail. It's all about Reality with a capital R and reality is all about detail.  What's more, I see no possibility of a universe without God. None at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anything more need be said?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 23 2007,20:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what is properly called an evidence-free prejudice.  You simply avoid all normal predictions respecting "design" because you, or at least your idiot leaders, know that none of the predictions of design are borne out by the evidence.

As usual, the rest of your post only shows that you have no regard for the proper use of evidence, and no indication that you have ever learned any science, rules of evidence, or how to decide a perceptual matter competently.  

Yet we're supposed to respect your ignorance and treat you like your fellow clueless dolts do.  Sorry, that would be as intellectually dishonest on our part as your claims are intellectually dishonest anywhere near any empirical affairs.

Glen D
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 23 2007,20:59

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avocationist,
I didn't mean for you to refute SLoT.  :(

I did ask a couple questions though.
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179 >

You started this with a statement about Entropy...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I simply can't keep from musing philosophically. It ties everything together for me. Perhaps you should explain about those other laws around it, in what way am I ignoring them. I do think of entropy as a disorganizing force, basically things break down into their simpler and simpler components. Is that wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I answered your question to show you where I thought you went wrong...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can muse on disorganizing (and/or organizing) forces all you want, but when you invoke Entropy as one of these forces I'm calling foul.
...
If you want to use Entropy to describe your disorganizing force then I'll have to ask you for the transposition formulaes your using for ALL the balance equations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now your saying there was nothing to refute in my message?
You agree with me fully?
Are you going to reframe your statements so that Entropy, or SLoT is never used in your statements about disorganizing and organizing forces?
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 23 2007,22:23

Your theory is that some things are best explained by your theory?  Um...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,22:37

> Avocation writes:
> I simply can't keep from musing philosophically.


Which, I suppose, just goes to prove that Marx was correct when he wrote:

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual intercourse."


Certainly I've never seen a more prolific mental masturbator than Avo.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,22:40

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,20:02)
I just did not think her arguments were compelling enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, uh, we should give a flying #### what you think because . . . . ?
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 23 2007,23:41

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,20:59)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Avocationist.

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Entropy, dear - a state variable of thermodynamics. There is nothing to refute - that is why I said "as should be". What Mike wrote in the other thread was accurate. It was not a misrepresentation nor a restating of what entropy *could be*. So of course you had NOTHING to refute. That was the point of my statement. You would actually have to have MORE than a few hours knowledge of thermodynamics.

Serendipity.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,23:48

My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 24 2007,00:36

By the common view of the SLOT, I assume you mean the general:
"Things don't go from disorder to order"

The second law in general is:
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax (each subsystem will approach the average internal energy) and will occupy the most probable state."

Entropy itself is a function of the internal energy of the system, the volume the system occupies, and the number of particles in the system. It's a dimensionless number, it has no units (like meters, or degrees Celsius).

Let's say system A has 6 possible states, system B has 10, possible states, then there are 60 (6x10) possible states for the two together, AB, easy enough.

The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make.

The second law says that the number of states in A will increase and the number of states in B will decrease until they come to an equal quanitity (6->8  10->8). The total number of states then becomes (8x8) = 64, thus the total entropy will then go from ln( 60 ) to ln ( 64 ). Notice that the entropy of B actually decreases in the process, from ln(10) ->ln(8), which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal.

edit - added phase volume info

edit - removed old tag
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 24 2007,00:37

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)
My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Without understanding the scientific method, explosive logic, or having completed (and demonstrated an understanding) a formal course in one of the science disciplines that uses entropy as a physical measure or by observing and confirming that quantity, you may as well compete in the 'Tour de France' by correspondence.....using a dictionary instead of a bike.



I'm sorry, but most if not all of the creationists I have come across have such a poor understanding of the difference between cold hard facts and fiction that simplest tests for either  go in one ear and out the other. Language for them is just a means for propaganda not a method to communicate an understanding of objective reality.

Many scientists simply do not grasp that creationists are completely unaware of the process or the simplest rules for doing actual science. And make the mistake that creationists, due to their pathological inability to distinguish between a logical truth and untruth as a result of living in a magical reality where fiction IS fact, could benefit from a logical explanation of how scientific conclusions are made. Creationists don't even know the first move in a game they don't understand the rules of.

The one thing creationists all have in common is the ability to sound very convincing at making fiction facts or what belongs to Caesar, God's and vice versa.

Avo. I suggest you devise an experiment to test for g$d then sit back and wait, when you get the results and you don't like them ......wait some more.

Just for the excercise how would you test for g$d?

I can give you plenty of examples if you want.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 24 2007,00:44

Thank you, Creekybelly,

Your post was informative, and I had a couple of questions, but I will not discuss it here.

Does this mean I am banned from Paley's thread?
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 24 2007,01:01

Oh what a shame. (snicker)

So that means you are not going to convince a bunch of heathens here the error of our wicked wicked ways and get a free ticket into heaven?

Oh yeah of little faith.


Here Avo. try the Oliver Sacks g$d test.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Boarding school cured Oliver of religious belief. As a test of God's power, he planted two rows of radishes, and prayed for God to blast one and make the other flourish. When they grew up identically, he was confirmed in his unbelief and abandonment. School, he says, affected his capacity for bonding, belief and belonging. "On the other hand, there can be too much belonging and belief - look at present-day America, with its religious fanaticism."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from here:-
< Seeing double >
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 24 2007,01:07

Personally, I think the SLOT discussion would be better suited on this thread, but I don't think you're forced to post only here. The LUCA thread seems to have deteriorated into GoP and his counterparts bumping it every once in a while, and I think it helps focus the discussion if we're all on the same page, literally. Mike probably has more information on the chemical aspects of Entropy, and I believe there was an abiogenesis thread discussing chemical potentials.
Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2007,02:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wesley,

I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE.

I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!

But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing.

Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What example had anything to do with Darwin's ideas being misused?

< This one > had Hartwig comparing the tactics of "Darwinists" to Nazi occupiers.

< Meyer's fake German accent > wasn't a disquisition on analogies of ideas.

< Wells on Soviet collapse > wasn't discussing the ideas, but rather invoking the rapidity of the Soviet collapse.

< Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev >. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?

< Dembski compares "Darwinism" to the Soviet empire >. No discussion of the ideas again. The bit about "hegemony" doesn't provide an excuse for Dembski's bad rhetorical behavior here.

< Johnson compares "methodological naturalism" to the Soviet collapse >. MN doesn't even have the purported link to bad systems of government as asserted for "Darwinism".

< Johnson compares "Darwinism" to apparent impregnability of the Soviet empire >. No discussion of the ideas.

< Calvert, "naturalism", Nazis, and KCFS >. While Calvert does invoke the "historical link" idea, that isn't what his invidious comparison of KCFS and Nazis is about; that is about tactics.

< Dembski compares ID critics to Napoleon >. Surely you aren't suggesting that Napoleon was motivated by "Darwinism"?

< Dembski compares ID critics to McCarthyites >. McCarthyism is not seriously attributed to the influence of "Darwinism" by anyone.

< Dembski calls Forrest a "leftist" >. This was about an asserted propensity to "diatribe", not about the history of ideas.

< Johnson compares "Darwinists" to Napoleon's Army >. Once again, the historical link angle is unavailable as a dodge.

< Calvert compares "Naturalists" to Nazi and Soviet regimes >, but on tactics, not the historical link assertion.

OK, I've run out of steam to individually characterize every item in the thread, but the point is that the claimed excuse of discussing "Darwinism"'s purported cultural link to various bad forms of government simply is not the issue in the listed examples. Even in the one item that did include some mention of a historical link, the actual invidious comparison was actually based on supposed similarities of tactics. So I am going to consider Avocationist's claim to be unsubstantiated unless and until a specific example is identified and shown to actually meet the circumstances of the excuse.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2007,03:48

Hi Avocationist,

A while back you said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hello Louis,

Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I hate to trouble you with so petty a thing as reality, but if you would be so kind could you please point to where I have actually said that you are a liar, loathsome and a subverter of science. Links, quotes, permalinks will do. Just provide the actual evidence that I actually said this please.

Thanks very much

Louis
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 24 2007,03:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best. The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'.

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions, and by predictions I mean the outcome of future investigations, not what will happen in evolution in the future. These also can't be incredibly vague, ('layers of information';), something we already know, or something that was predicted years ago based on evolution (the whole silent mutations can affect protein function thing, IC).
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 24 2007,05:05

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)
My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.  the Earth is not a closed system, it has the sun pumping in loads of energy 24hours a day, and hence the properties of entropy in a closed system don't apply...
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,05:26

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you know the significant difference between mechanical, chemical, statistical, quantum, informational entropy (ect)? Entropy is defined by its equation. It is a quantitative measure of a system based on the probability of a set of results <insert equations here>. Entropy IS a mathematical variable, often misused based on semantical definitions (usually metaphorical) to serve purposes it was never designed to serve. It's not rocket science - though rocket science employs it.

Serendipity.
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 24 2007,05:41

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,20:02)
What the theory of evolution needs is a mechanism. That's the problem. No mechanism to account for what we see. But there is progress. People are looking at emergent properties, and self-organizing properties. I don't think that's enough, but it's a big help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look, Avocationist, I don't know if you realise it, but this statement alone just goes to show how ignorant you are about evolution as a theory.  You need to learn a bit about it before you try to criticise it - seriously!

To help you on your way,  here's a little primer on the mechanisms involved in evolution:

1) Random mutation: Check!  Random mutation has been observed both in the lab, and in the wild.  It happens, it's a fact.  Also note that in sexual species, the sexual recombination of genes from parents to offspring can bring in a far wider range of gene combinations far faster than just random mutation alone (hence life's apparent preference for sexual reproduction - but I digress)

2) Inheritence of traits: Check!  Since the discovery of DNA, we now understand how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next.  No mystery there.

3) Natural Selection: Check! That less fit organisms have less success in reproducing is a widely observed phenomenon.

This is all that's needed for evolution to work, and each of these mechanisms has been observed, both in the lab, and in the wild.

Now, you are probably about to object that that doesn't explain how useful new traits can arise out of random mutation, as if by magic.  Again, there's no secret - if you try enough combinations, you're going to hit on the solution to the problem.  Genetic algorithms, such as evolution, are just an optimisation algorithm.  You can read up on the theory of optimisation algorithms in any good computer science textbook.  Again, it's all proven stuff.

If you're still not convinced, we can show that all of this stuff actually works in the real world, by watching bacteria develop resistence to drugs.  We see the bacteria develop new traits that protect them from the drugs, with no detectable outside interference.

So anyway, back to the point.  Your claim that there is no mechanism for evolution is just plain false.  You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,05:42

Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,00:36)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Belleh!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or V[P]= -logbP measuring the values of two probable space.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.

Serendipity.

PS: Say hi to Harps for me ;)
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 24 2007,05:46

I said...                        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Advocationist gave me in reply was...                        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Advocationist, I'm not sure that we understand each other.  Allow me to rephrase my request.
I am not interested in the "theory" of ID as it is described in some book somewhere.  If I wanted to know what " The theory of ID states..." then I could just look it up on the Internet and deal with the competing versions out there.
I am interested in your scientific argument for ID.
Your argument.
Your understanding of ID.
Yours.
Advocationist's personal (in her own words and thought processes) understanding of a scientific argument for ID.
Just yours!!
Yours!!!
If you want to borrow definitions and terms from other sources to help you phrase your thoughts, by all means go ahead.  If you want to hitch your wagon to some classic argument for ID, then by all means do so.  But attach yourself to such an argument because you FULLY UNDERSTAND it and LIKE it and AGREE with it.
Be prepared to defend it.  No wriggling around.
No abandoning ship if and when people point out potential flaws in your version (adopted or otherwise) of a scientific argument for ID.
Oh, and when I asked you to pretend you were at a party and making an argument for ID, I was (foolishly?) hoping for a little substance in your opening statement.
Instead I get a brusque one-liner that could fit on a fortune cookie. :(  
Something of a letdown.
How about fleshing out your argument a little?
Perhaps a brief mention on the mechanics of the ID theory?
Maybe you could show how ID could be falsified?
Or a layman's example of how ID works in the real world?
Just suggestions, of course.
It's your argument, so you get to decide how to present it.
Yet if anybody was going to make a scientific argument about any Theory at all (Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, etc) then they would probably start there.
Just a couple of paragraphs written in clear, easy-to-follow terms that you would perhaps use at a party somewhere.
Your scientific argument for ID, please.
(waits patiently) :)
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 24 2007,07:06

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

......

come on Avo, keep me interested and I might buy you a drink !;)
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2007,07:19

Judging by current behaviour I reckon that I can confidently say that I will buy everyone at ATBC a drink* if we get a coherent expression of Avocationist's ideas anout ID.

Louis

*Subject to availablity ;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,07:28

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2007,07:19)
Judging by current behaviour I reckon that I can confidently say that I will buy everyone at ATBC a drink* if we get a coherent expression of Avocationist's ideas anout ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alas, Avo has no idea, literally not a clue, what ID is or what it is all about.  She seems to think it somehow has something to do with her idiotic New Age touchy-feelie "look at my aura" crapola.

That's why the IDers think she is just as nutty as we do.  (shrug)
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,08:31

The Intelligent Design Movement is based largely upon its promoters who use their abilities to construct an argument which appears to be full-proof and simplistic that it gives those who adopt it the misconception that it must be factual.

However, the argument is based upon the world-view of the promoter with the assumption that others will share that world-view. However that world-view does not correspond with naturalism that applies science. Alas, this does not stop ID'ers from adopting a naturalistic approach to try and support a supernatural proposition.

Dembski's bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Applying his specified complexity equation of a=10^-150; .. X is complex if P(X)<a [ Dembski, W. (2001). No Free Lunch. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. pp. 18-22. ] Dembski argues this stochastic formalism (nondeterminism) equation where X is complex based on naturalistic probability cannot logically comply with Darwinism mechanisms. However he's assuming that all naturalistic processes are accounted for. I could logically apply Godel to his system of axioms rendering it null and void but then thats just too easy. ID never meant for this to be easy - to look easy, sure - but to be easy, not. Which leads to my point: applying an equation based on perceived complexity (negating that he redefines complexity itself) Dembski is able to offer what appears to be a valid argument that complex systems appear not to be accounted for using standard mechanisms. However, what he is doing is changing the structure of those standard mechanisms to fit his equation.

What this inevitably does is woo the less prudent and less skeptical into believing that the argument is valid (lest I again refer to Godel). What this inevitably does is create the AFDave's and Avocationists into supporting half cocked ideas because "it looked good in print". It supported their paradigm therefore its worthy of being accepted - yet unworthy of being fully scrutinised.

Now before I am accused of being a bully and allowing for others to feel victimised, I will state this for ID.

If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process. Therefore if a logical argument can be given for intelligent design then in all likelihood it will be accepted. But until then, I am subjected to mediocre philosophers with a simpletons grasp of science attempting to posit rigmorale to a person who has studied indepth - and I find that insulting.

Serendipity.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2007,10:17

Louis,

Perhaps < this post > contributed in some way to Avocationist's notions about you?
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 24 2007,10:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your theory is that some things are best explained by your theory?  Um...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

heh heh.

It reminds me of Avo's previous run here at AtBC. When asked for predictions that ID could make, her response was (paraphrasing here; I don't have time to look up the original):

"I predict that future experiments will validate ID"

Don't quit your day job, Avo. I don't think this science thing is going to work out for you.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 24 2007,10:27

Louis,

Shhhhhhh behave. It'll think we're fundamentalists. Oh wait. It already does. Corn's high this yeeeah.

{spits baccy}
Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels.

Some people, no names mentioned, no fingers pointed, use the internet as a sheild between themselves and the deep loathfulness of their behaviour.

All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit.

Nothing to commend, I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science.


Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD, which I think I have made pretty clear I dislike. I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document. I'll explain Lenny, when you personally account for the eugenics movement as it abuse Darwin's theory in the 1930s - 1950s in this country and Europe, OK?

I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 24 2007,10:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pathetic.  How about,            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of gravity states that the tendency of objects to be attracted toward one another is best explained as being the result of gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There.  I've explained nothing, I've claimed nothing, and no matter what experimental result you get, I can always say, "well, that's gravity at work."  

Or maybe
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of evolution states that certain features of biological organisms are best explained as being the result of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it must be true, because we've proven Lamarckianism to be incorrect!  Nothing wrong with assuming there are only two possible choices, is there?

If that was all evolutionists had to offer we'd be laughed out of the universities.  Perhaps you should consider why your ideas are so poorly received by virtually everyone who knows anything about biology.  It's not them, it's you.

Go back to church; you obviously have nothing to offer to science or discussions of science, or any intention of doing so.  That you cannot resist manufacturing bogus sciencey support for your superstitious beliefs isn't science's problem; it's yours.
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 24 2007,10:54

Sheesh, I only asked you to expand your theory a bit because I was interested in hearing more.

Why can't you tell me which "features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design", and why?

That is what you state your theory of I.D. to be, isn't it?

What would you think of someone who said they believed in the veracity of a scientific theory, but then couldn't tell you anything more about it?
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 24 2007,11:00

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27)
4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2007,11:04

Avo/Wes

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.

1) The "Someone no names mentioned" etc is GoP, not Avocationist. This is easily understandable from something we grown ups call "the context". It's also why I seriously dislike separating one post (or quote or whatever) from the context if that context forms part of an ongoing conversation. I trust GoP as far as I could spit a solid metric tonne of baccy, and certainly don't think it beyond him to fake multiple posting personalities for the purpose of trolling. He's not only already done it but already ADMITTED it. Forgive me for being the only one to think this loathsome. Tchoh, the standards of the youth of today ;)

If Avocationist is not a troll, and instead a sincere and interested conversationalist then I 100% totally retract my description of him/her/it as a troll and apologise unreservedly. In this instance I was wrong, obviously dependant on the above being the case. Do I need to explain the use of the conditional in the above?

2) The thing I was describing as loathsome was the behaviour of people who do such trolling, not Avocationist. A relatively simple reading of the sentence reveals that. Nowhere was a phrase that could in any reasonable sense be parsed as "Avocationist is loathsome".

3) Let's see what I actually wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding mine. Future tense people, future tense. Not "Avocationist is a liar", not "Avocationist is a subverter of science". This is a prediction based on current behaviour, NOT an accustation. Colour me amazed that, uncharitable though it is, intelligent people can't tell the difference.

Amazingly enough although I am all for outreach, education, promoting science (I actually do this moderately successfully in my spare time as it happens) I am not a massive fan of calling shit shinola or vice versa. Do you advocate hypocrisy in the face of unreason? I know I don't.

Oh and of course, my open and upfront admission that I am willing to be proven wrong on the basis of the evidence makes me the intolerant one, right? Told you that Avocationist wouldn't get it didn't I.

4) The "spits baccy" comment was about Avocationist's direct and unjustified leap for his/her/its high horse on being challenged or indeed spoken to in any way shape or form. It was a joke about the attitude of IDCists and their ilk to skeptics, the joke being that they accuse us of fundamentalism. Projection on their part, not denial on ours. The funny bit being that the "fundy persecution complex" emerges BEFORE the persecution, not after it. Anything that can then be interpreted as persecution (whether it is or not) is used as evidence. A point I think, Wesley, you've made yourself.

The second part of the joke regarding the poking stick was again, a joke about US, as it were. We the body skeptic/rationalist looking for a victim to poke. Not that a) we are so desirous, or b) we actually do this. It's a parody, a pastiche. Geddit?

5) The comment about commendation. Note Avo's snip from context. ####, note all lines snipped from ALL context. Context you will note that proves that the Wes/Avo interpretation is not the correct one. That comment is a reply to Serendipity commending my arguing with creationists for 14/15 years. I said that it doesn't deserve commendation of any kind (it doesn't) and commented that my motivation for doing this was because I don't like liars and people who are lying deliberately to subvert science.

This is the closest thing I can think of that Avo could take as directed at him/her/it. It isn't directed at him/her/it, but hey, what's a small matter of reality between friends? It is directed at the Hams, Hovinds etc of this world, people PROVEN to be dishonestly attempting to subvert science and shoehorn it into their own false beliefs. Sorry, should I equivocate about this to spare your blushes? Pardon me if I don;t think I should.

As can be told from following the CONTEXT of the conversation (yes I know all that tiresome reading, sorry) the comment is a general one. Part of a series of comments I have already openly expressed that I hope I am wrong about. PROVE ME WRONG, don't whine about it.

If this is the best "evidence" you can come up with, colour sincerely unimpressed.

Tell you what, if you aren't so quick on your leap for your high horse, I'll be less quick about my pessimism regarding your ability to hold a rational conversation. Sound fair?

Louis
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,11:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You want them before or after you answer what has been asked of you since this thread began?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So far your persona has been the "victim" the "informed teacher" the "ordinary guy" now the "lawyer". Before you ask, this is what I have to deduce from clients everyday.

Motives: To get you to elaborate on Intelligent Design - why this thread was originally started.

Character: Totally emotive requirement - merely the topic is what is needed. Discussions can get lost in "how could you say that about me? What kind of beast are you?" diatribe. So it's actually NOT important unless it ADDS to the ORIGINAL discussion.

Sanity: A legal terminology which has no meaning to a discussion board.

So... moving right along.. what evidence is there for Intelligent Design?

Serendipity.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 24 2007,11:11

Avocationist, I'd like to thank you for reducing the ID position to its essence.  If we strip away the obfuscation, wishful thinking and wilful attempts to mislead used by the likes of Behe, Dembski et al, it's always been driven by appeals to personal incredulity.  "But it just doesn't make sense!  Isn't it obvious that this couldn't have arisen without supernatural assistance?"

The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.  What's more, we know that many of its workings are completely contrary to common sense (relativity and quantum mechanics, for example).

If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it?
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 24 2007,11:14

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,15:22)
Lenny,

No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

your pathetic level of detail?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Back to Louis,

You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes you can and yes it would. Would you care to deconstruct this comment with me?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did you ever think that ... no, never mind.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I saw Febble post there, ...
Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time.

That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems.
Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What meaning could he possibly have which isn't crystal clear? It's one of the two words in his "theory". You'd think hi definition would be pretty unambiguous. This is a weak reply.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BWE,
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Really? I wonder who said this:

Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Boy, so do I. It doesn't google well. What the Heck does it have to do with my statement? You are aware that if you hadn't recieved xian ideas from OTHER PEOPLE, you wouldn't have recieved them at all?
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 24 2007,11:22

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 24 2007,11:00)
 
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27)
4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahh yes, falsification.

Avo, if (like Dembski) you don't understand this term, then you might be interested in reading < this thread > at richarddawkins.net, in which AFDave has the concept of falsifiability explained to him in several dozen ways. He still doesn't get it of course, but I'm sure you will, because you are brighter than him, right?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2007,11:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD, which I think I have made pretty clear I dislike. I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document. I'll explain Lenny, when you personally account for the eugenics movement as it abuse Darwin's theory in the 1930s - 1950s in this country and Europe, OK?

I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now THIS I like!

Ok then, I'll kick off with the easy one:

Eugenics. This falls foul of the "Is/Ought" fallacy (at least). Just because it is possible to envisage a scenario in which we could "improve" the human genome by weeding out "undesirables" doesn't we should do so. One should note the words "improve" and "undesirable" are in the case of eugenics carefully undefined, or at least defined in such a way to be consonant with preexisting prejudices. Even if they are rigourously defined then this still doesn't work. I can envisage a sceanrio in which pushing people out of windows is a good thing, this doesn't mean I should do so, nor does it reflect on the accuracy of gravitational physics at the time I have the idea!. Something being real does not equate to it being moral or a fortiori supportive of a moral action.

Ok so now what's left? Mike Gene, Dembski, Denton, and Berlinski. In one sentence: all arguments from personal incredulity wrapped up in the trappings of actual work. All logically fallacious, standard, creationist boilerplate in nice new shiny packages and as such ignorable. If you want the more detailed critique, you'll have to wait beyond this evening. Question my everything to your heart's content, after all I'm not the one who thinks that handwaving by self-confessedly biased individuals promoting a religious agenda (for the most part) constitutes a) positive evidence for anything, or b) a decent reason to abandon all science and replace it with the religious book of choice. Sorry if YOU don't like that.

Oh and btw, nobody has asked you to defend all of IDC at all times anywhere, well maybe Lenny has! What most people have asked you for is YOUR understanding of ID inorder to have a conversation. I know that being asked questions is horribly hostile to the near terminally insecure but if you could try to realise that the "hostility" you "experience" (for I question the validity of both those terms) is due precisely to frustration at your evasiveness, vacuity, and general assumption that the whole world is against you, I for one would be overwhelmingly grateful.

Louis

P.S. Oh and btw give me just one good reason that anyone should take the comments of Dembski et all seriously when the entirety of working scientists in the relevant fields of science to those comments don't take them at all seriosuly and have openly refuted them? Could it be that a) the evidence is not evenly distrubuted, and b) the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the IDCists, not the other way around?

Louis
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 24 2007,11:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2007,11:54

Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2007,12:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right back at you. I did not endorse Avocationist's notions; I was pointing out where they may have come from.

You can certainly take it from there, though I think that if you insist on speaking in code that the force of the "context" argument is much reduced, and the point about prediction rather than description is far too subtle for readers like Avocationist to appreciate on first misreading.

For someone who believes their words should be studied in the sort of loving detail required of the scholastics, you certainly didn't render that same attention to mine.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2007,12:10

Re "I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy."

Like in recharging a battery.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,12:19

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 24 2007,11:11)
The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well said and couldn't of been said more precisely.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,12:23

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 24 2007,11:54)
Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Henry,

Thats why I was particular in the selection of the words I used. Its not in the designers best interest, but in humanities.

Serendipty goes to work.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 24 2007,12:40

Wesley,

I am not susre where I said Darwin's ideas were misused. Maybe in relation to eugenics?

I am not excusing negative  and insulting rhetoric, I simply made the point that in some of those cases, they are comparing similar behaviors in certain situations, not actually calling the people nazi's, for example.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It isn't the same sort of comparison as I have seen made, for example, when IDists have compared academic establishment behaviors to a priesthood. That is a direct comparison, but if they compare a situation in which a regime is under challenge to a similar one involving the soviets or Gorbachev, it is not a direct comparison, i.e., they are not calling them communists. He is saying that Gould finds himself in a similar predicament.

Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.

Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

General information about how things work, and specifically about how other laws might be in an interactive system with it.

Chris,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, it's probably a hypothesis. That's alright with me.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Those are ALL important questions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.

Demallion,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?

Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.

Cedric,

If you'll note, I made a general response to 3 posters together. One of them said he wished that just once an IDer would state what the theory of ID is. Now, that's pretty absurd since it is clearly and often stated at the various sites. As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster. Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def?

What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms.

The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown, and tell them that if they are truly interested and they probably are not, that I can loan them a book. I'd tell them that things are not alwasy as they appear and they may have heard one side.

I think I said quite a few interesting things in my post. the one liner wasn't even for you.

Don-


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Serendipity,

That last paragraph, in italics, is it from you? The conclusion that an intelligent designer gives us hope for immortality doesn't really follow.

If it is from you, then it means you find the arguments of Denton, Dembski, Behe, Meyer insultingly simplistic.

In that case, I'd like you to answer the following and clear it up for me,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   If selection could, in principle, accomplish “anything,” then all the order in organisms might reflect selection alone. But, in fact, there are limits to selection. Such limits begin to demand a shift in our thinking in the biological sciences and beyond. We have already encountered a first powerful limitation on selection. Darwin’s view of the gradual accumulations of useful variations, we saw, required gradualism. Mutations must cause slight alterations in phenotypes, But we have now seen two alternative model “worlds” in which such gradualism fails. The first concerns maximally compressed programs. Because these are random, almost certainly any change randomizes the performance of the program. Finding one of the few useful minimal programs requires searching the entire space ­requiring unthinkably long times compared with the history of the universe even for modestly large programs … But the matter is even worse on such random landscapes. If an adapting population evolves by mutation and selection alone, it will remain frozen in an infinitesimal region of the total space, trapped forever in whatever region it started in. It will be unable to search long distances across space for higher peaks. Yet if the population dares try recombination, it will be harmed on average, not helped. There is a second limitation on selection. It is not only on random landscapes that evolution fails. Even on smooth landscapes, in the heartland of gradualism, just where Darwin’s assumptions hold, selection can again fail and fail utterly. Selection runs headlong into an “error catastrophe” where all accumulated useful traits melt away…. Thus there appears to be a limit on the complexity of a genome that can be assembled by mutation and selection!

   Stuart Kaffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 183-184.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 24 2007,12:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's so sad.  Avo thinks he/she can easily demonstrate the unfairness of our demands to actually cite ID theory and evidence by turning the questioning around and demanding the same pathetic level of detail we all know we'll never get from him/her or from ID.  Of course, it will impact Avo's thinking not one bit that the people he/she's arguing with can immediately begin to thoroughly answer her questions, and he/she will never own up to the real meaning of the contrast between this and his/her/ID's own total inability and obstinate refusal to forthrightly answer ours.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 24 2007,13:07

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
In that case, I'd like you to answer the following and clear it up for me,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   If selection could, in principle, accomplish “anything,” then all the order in organisms might reflect selection alone. But, in fact, there are limits to selection. Such limits begin to demand a shift in our thinking in the biological sciences and beyond. We have already encountered a first powerful limitation on selection. Darwin’s view of the gradual accumulations of useful variations, we saw, required gradualism. Mutations must cause slight alterations in phenotypes, But we have now seen two alternative model “worlds” in which such gradualism fails. The first concerns maximally compressed programs. Because these are random, almost certainly any change randomizes the performance of the program. Finding one of the few useful minimal programs requires searching the entire space ­requiring unthinkably long times compared with the history of the universe even for modestly large programs … But the matter is even worse on such random landscapes. If an adapting population evolves by mutation and selection alone, it will remain frozen in an infinitesimal region of the total space, trapped forever in whatever region it started in. It will be unable to search long distances across space for higher peaks. Yet if the population dares try recombination, it will be harmed on average, not helped. There is a second limitation on selection. It is not only on random landscapes that evolution fails. Even on smooth landscapes, in the heartland of gradualism, just where Darwin’s assumptions hold, selection can again fail and fail utterly. Selection runs headlong into an “error catastrophe” where all accumulated useful traits melt away…. Thus there appears to be a limit on the complexity of a genome that can be assembled by mutation and selection!

   Stuart Kaffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 183-184.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Talk about ships at night. Try looking into "genetically isolated populations". Then, if I may be so hopeful, read Gould. Seriously.
<
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory >.

That book is where he outlines his problems with evolution. You might be surprised to find that, although large, it is quite readable. I am often reminded of < this thread > when I read comments like yours.

Do you think you are open-minded?
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 24 2007,13:11

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I see.  You are confused about what we mean by "predictions".  It is not meant in the sense that you take it - that we will somehow find evidence in the future.  Think of it as more of an if-then statement.  IF humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, THEN we should have relatively similar DNA to modern-day apes.  ELSE humans and apes do not share a recent common ancestor.

Predictions are tied to the concept of falsifiability.  Your predictions are scientifically useless because (as far as I can tell), a negative result will not falsify your theory.

So far you still seem to be stuck with "Someday there will be evidence for ID, though I am not sure what that specific evidence will be."
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2007,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am not excusing negative  and insulting rhetoric, I simply made the point that in some of those cases, they are comparing similar behaviors in certain situations, not actually calling the people nazi's, for example.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It isn't the same sort of comparison as I have seen made, for example, when IDists have compared academic establishment behaviors to a priesthood. That is a direct comparison, but if they compare a situation in which a regime is under challenge to a similar one involving the soviets or Gorbachev, it is not a direct comparison, i.e., they are not calling them communists. He is saying that Gould finds himself in a similar predicament.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't say that Johnson was calling Gould a communist. I said that he was making an invidious comparison of Gould to Gorbachev. Which he did. This is not a hair-splitting moment.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 24 2007,13:21

Hi Avo,

I can't answer your whole question, but I can clear up this bit until CB comes by:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ln (that's a lowercase L, not an I), is the natural logarithm function. Creeky has not "switched" anything, but rather has expressed the function differently. The natural logarithm of X times Y ALWAYS equals the natural logarithm of X plus the natural logarithm of Y.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2007,13:40

Re "Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too."

Besides which, disliking a conclusion and thinking it to be wrong, are two different things. For all I know, some evolutionary biologists might personally dislike some of conclusions of the ToE, but that doesn't mean they think they're wrong.

Henry
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2007,14:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2007,18:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right back at you. I did not endorse Avocationist's notions; I was pointing out where they may have come from.

You can certainly take it from there, though I think that if you insist on speaking in code that the force of the "context" argument is much reduced, and the point about prediction rather than description is far too subtle for readers like Avocationist to appreciate on first misreading.

For someone who believes their words should be studied in the sort of loving detail required of the scholastics, you certainly didn't render that same attention to mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Touche et pointe!

Now THIS is why arguing with someone with a brain is a true joy.

I was wrong Wesley, and being slightly naughty. My apologies and thanks.

Louis
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 24 2007,14:23

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

Avo: Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Me: I've never heard of it before, but you seem to think it explains natural phenomena well. I was just wondering which features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

[throw me a frickin' bone here!]
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 24 2007,14:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In high school my friend and I spent a whole summer making short, stupidly comedic movies, and it took so much of our time we ended up missing meals; thus our bellies creaked.  It became the nickname of our production company, and just kinda stuck with me.

Quote
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can do work on certain subsystems to decrease entropy, but the work you do will always result in the entropy of the whole system (including you) remaining constant or increasing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you multiply the states because you can have the following:

State A (1-6)   State B (1-10)
1                     1
...                    ...
1                     10
2                     1
....                   ....
6                     10

therefore there are 6x10=60 total states.
Entropy uses a logarithm, which allows us to add the quantities since it has the property that:

logarithm(6x10) = logarithm(6)+logarithm(10)

There are different logarithm bases to choose from, and the simplest is base 10, so that:

log(10) = 1

therefore:

log(1000) = log(10x10x10) = log(10)+log(10)+log(10) = 3

There's what we call the natural logarithm, as well, in a base which is called 'e', and is abbreviated 'ln'

ln(e) = ln(2.7181) = 1

It has the same additive properties as the other base 10, but the actual values will be different.

In this setup A is allowed to interact with B, but is otherwise isolated.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 24 2007,14:27

Hmm. Well, Avocationist, I find myself somewhat torn here.
I recognize that you're merely attempting to turn the evidentiary table -- asking that people here dismantle ID claims before you have produced any evidence of it --

I think it's somewhat useful to point out that IF you had indeed an INFORMED opinion on the subject at hand, you'd have actually read all reasonably available material from the opposing camp.

At any rate, in the interest of actually getting you to produce what you believe to be evidence FOR ID (rather than merely against Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory), I'll point you to a few well-known examples of what you asked for:

On the flagellum:    
< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html > Be sure to read the linked paper(s) cited there and in the comments.

Critiques of Denton can be found at:  
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html >  
< http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml >
< http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/denton.html >

A discussion of Haldane's dilemma can be found at :  < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-154697 > Posted by caligula on January 11, 2007 4:53 PM. Note particularly the discussion of intra-species competition. All members of a given species compete for resources. In a finite landscape...members of a species will compete not merely against other species, but also amongst themselves. ReMine ( as he abuses Haldane)  seems unable to deal with this, and has not addressed it at all to my knowledge.

In regards to the Kaufmann quote: Kaufmann is doing two things there:
One, pointing out that selection is falsifiable and limited (contrary to the claims of ID-ers, who say silly things about "Evilushunists claim selection can do anything!!")

Two, he is pointing out that the real world of evolution is neither one great unbounded, utterly random search nor is it a great smooth plane. We only have a sample of ONE planet where life exists and on this planet constraints exist that preclude PURE randomness and that life does not proceed by ONLY mutation and selection. There are other means known by which variation occurs.

Now, would it be possible for you to lay out your evidentiary support FOR ID?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 24 2007,14:36

Avocationist: I'd also like to politely ask that if you have specific disagreements with what I posted, that you'd at least hold off a bit on those and instead focus on PRECISELY what evidence from ID you find so compelling?
I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive than arguments from incredulity and "because I said so." Arguments that actually have a bit of science in them are preferred in science, I should think. Thanks.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 24 2007,15:02

From page 188 of Kaufmann's "At Home in the Universe" ( the end of the chapter you cited):
" ..we return to a tantalyzing possibility: that self-organization is a prerequisite for evolvability, that it generates the kinds of structures that can benefit from natural selection. It generates structures that can evolve gradually, that are robust, for there is an inevitable relationship among spontaneous order, robustness, redundancy, gradualism and correlated landscapes."

I should have added this to the post I made above -- Kaufmann is specifically arguing for that self-organizing principles work hand-in-hand with variation and selection in a rugged landscape to produce order that is stable, even at the "chaotic edge" of a non-linear framework. ( but this doesn't mean "infinitely stable")
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 24 2007,15:12

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm just curious - do you think that our planet is or has ever been in or near a state of equilibrium?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 24 2007,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those are ALL important questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which all need to be addressed before you can claim there is a theory of design, which needs to be done before you can claim positive evidence for design. The alternative would be strectching incredulity to breaking point, but this would involve something like producing the designer, discovering a centaur or a unicorn,or decoding a stretch of DNA that reads 'designed circa 4004 BC'.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2007,16:04

Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 24 2007,16:31

Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 24 2007,01:37)
Avo. I suggest you devise an experiment to test for g$d then sit back and wait, when you get the results and you don't like them ......wait some more.

Just for the excercise how would you test for g$d?

I can give you plenty of examples if you want.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've asked that same thing of her several times.  Good luck getting an answer.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 24 2007,16:32

Avocationist:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These aren't bad topics..... I've been looking for an answer to 3 for a looooooong time. But keep in mind that some of these arguments are much broader in scope than others. For example, Berlinski's criticism of N-P, even if valid, only touches on one paper. 2, on the other hand, is a broadside on common descent itself. Maybe we should focus on Denton for now. One problem is that Denton himself has repudiated much of the arguments in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. There are other problems with the book which I'll get to tonight. Deadman's links are certainly worth a look.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,17:57

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . . . ?

Or will you just page through it briefly and find it boring, like you did Mayr . . . .

I see no need in attempting to teach someone who simply doesn't want to hear it.

Paticularly when that person can answer all of her own questions with ten minutes of Google.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,18:04

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, Avo, didja know that Denton repudiated that book in his very next book, declared that ID is full of crap, and left the Discovery Institute?

Didja know that Berlinski also thinks ID is full of crap?

Silly me --- of COURSE you don't know that --- you're utterly and totally pig-ignorant of the entire topic.  Just like you were when you declared that the Roman Catholic Christian Ken Miller's science textbook taught students that there is no need for God, and when you stupidly declared that the word "unguided" was dropped from his textbook, when in fact that word was added to the Kansas science standards --- and it was added BY THE CREATIONISTS.

And you wonder why everyone here thinks you're an uninformed buffoon?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,18:08

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Avo, did it ever occur to you to wonder why the IDers think you're just as nutty as everyone here does . . . . .?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 24 2007,18:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier, in fact is is considerably less likely than it was a decade ago. Secondly the way you prove frontloading is to first hypothesize mechanisms and then make predicitons. I don't see how you can 'discover frontloading' and the work out the mechanism. Im pretty sure that it would be a lot easier to disprove evolution by proving that there is some kind of frontloading mechanism than just coming up with negative arguments. This is what the ID people should be doing, and if they are right this whole debate will be over much quicker. Unfortunately they seem to have no wish to do this at all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your right, I think sometimes I read so much ID stuff that even I start to think evidence against evolution = evidence for ID. Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall a few times.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,18:13

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I apologize for hearing the same old hoofbeats and assuming it was yet another horse, instead of assuming it must be a zebra.

Of course, if you walk into a room full of duck hunters, flap your arms, and yell "QUACK QUACK QUACK !!!!", you shouldn't act all surprised and hurt when you get an ass full of buckshot.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,18:18

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, Avo, there seem to be an awful lot of instances where you say things like "I don't understand this . . ."  and "I don't know anything about that . . . " and "I never read this . . . . "

Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, you should, uh, shut the #### up and stop yammering stupidly about things that you don't understand and don't know anything about?

Does that sound like it might, just MIGHT, be a pretty good idea for you?


Geez.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,18:25

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo, I've got twenty bucks in my pocket right now that says you can't even tell us, in your own words, what "the Haldane's dilemma (sic)"  ********IS***********, much less be able to tell when and if anyone has "resolved" it.

See, Avo, I think you're utterly totally absolutely completely pig-ignorant of every single topc that you are presuming to discuss here.  Indeed, My assertion is that you're doing nothing but brainlessly regurgitating big words that you've heard in ID religious tracts (which my five year old nephew can do just as well as you), and that you yourself don't actually have the foggiest goddamn idea, none at all whatsoever, not even the remotest clue, what any of those big words actually MEAN.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Avo, right in front of the whole world.

What is "the Haldane's dilemma (sic)"?

Please be as detailed as possible, use your own words, and take as many screens as you need.

Demonstrate to me that you actually have the slightest grasp of what you are yammering about.

Or otherwise.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 24 2007,18:28

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,18:57)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . . . ?

Or will you just page through it briefly and find it boring, like you did Mayr . . . .

I see no need in attempting to teach someone who simply doesn't want to hear it.

Paticularly when that person can answer all of her own questions with ten minutes of Google.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worse than that, she'll never be convinced with what any of us says, since she already KNOWS the Truth.  It's like Creationists and missing links.  Find as many missing links as you want, but they are never enough, because they can always say that you have to find the links between the missing links.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 24 2007,18:34

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,19:13)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I apologize for hearing the same old hoofbeats and assuming it was yet another horse, instead of assuming it must be a zebra.

Of course, if you walk into a room full of duck hunters, flap your arms, and yell "QUACK QUACK QUACK !!!!", you shouldn't act all surprised and hurt when you get an ass full of buckshot.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Screw that.  Avo says ID is science, and that the DI is right.  Well, then Avo should explain to us why the wedge document is all about pushing religion through ID and why it pretty explicitly says ID is religious.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 24 2007,18:43

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2007,18:34)
Screw that.  Avo says ID is science, and that the DI is right.  Well, then Avo should explain to us why the wedge document is all about pushing religion through ID and why it pretty explicitly says ID is religious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's never read it, remember?

She's never read ANYTHING.

That's why she hasn't a goddamn clue what she's blithering about.  (shrug)
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2007,18:48



Hey everybody, and welcome to the Feud!



"Are you ready? Are you ready to play? Okay. The category is, 'Extremely tired-assed old arguments found on the Index to Creationist Claims'. Avocationist family, what's your answer?"

"Uh...uh....ooo...I know...Haldane's Dilemma?"

"Show me 'Haldane's Dilemma'!"



DING!

"Fantastic. And don't forget to take this copy of the home edition."


Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 24 2007,18:51

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,18:43)
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2007,18:34)
Screw that.  Avo says ID is science, and that the DI is right.  Well, then Avo should explain to us why the wedge document is all about pushing religion through ID and why it pretty explicitly says ID is religious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's never read it, remember?

She's never read ANYTHING.

That's why she hasn't a goddamn clue what she's blithering about.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AND PROUD OF IT!!!!

I'll have you know a 'Vocationist' in my world means doing nothing.

I looked it up on dictionary dot com and it said 'have a vacation...to do nothing'.

It's easy...just look....

Lenny you are a duck ...look it up and explain it to everyone..I'll be back later when your done.

If there are any questions .....I'm right and you are wrong ...next question.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 24 2007,19:40

First, here's a < summary of Denton's position by someone sympathetic to Intelligent Design: >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Attempts to dismiss the argument that DNA sequence comparisons imply common descent have been published by critics of Evolution. The most popular one is explained by Denton in Ref. 13 and was used in the popular creation textbook Ref. 14. Denton presents Table 7 of 21 different organism which shows the percent of the number of AA which are different amongst all of the AA sites in the Cytochrome C molecule for each of these 21 organisms. Table 3 shows that of the 110 AA sites in the Cytochrome C, 10 AA sites are different so Denton’s table would report a 100/110=91% value for the human to mouse comparison. The 21 organisms in Denton’s table essentially cover the whole range from humans to bacteria. Denton’s orders the organisms in his table according to the time from the proposed divergence from a common ancestor with the most recent ones on the top of the table and the most ancient divergence at the bottom. Thus, moving up the table means that according to evolution the species are expected to be more closely related and developed from a common ancestor more recently according to evolution. Since the relatively simple bacteria are considered some of the first organisms to evolve and the more complicated humans are some of the most recent, Denton’s table provides an opportunity to investigate the trend through time for the proposed sequences of development of organisms through evolution.
[see table 7 -- Paley]

Denton acknowledges his table does indicate that the percent differences get smaller the more closer the organisms are related. Denton's points out that the general pattern from the sequences indicate the same standard hiearchial topological categories that biologist Linnaeus came up with before Darwin proposed the theory of evolution. For example, within jawed vertebrates the group of terrestrial (land) organisms, amphibia, reptiles and mammals are more closely related than non-terrestrial organisms (fish). Within these groups such as mammals, there are groups of mammals such as rodents or hoofed animals that are consistently more closely related to each other than other groups of mammals. Denton and evolutionist would agree that the DNA sequences imply a pattern which is consistent with the standard hiearchial topological categories. The disagreement comes from Denton's claim that the pattern implies no transitional forms; therefore, the pattern does not indicate evolution.

Denton makes the case for no transitional forms being implied by pointing out that no sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. "of the remaining Eukaryotic cytochromes, … all exhibit a sequence divergence between 64 and 67 percent." Since all the sequences have about the same difference in this comparisons Denton correctly points out that this indicate that none of them stands out as a transitional form, " … It means that no Eukaryotic cytochromes is intermediate between the bacterial cytochrome and the other Eukaryotic cytochromes" Denton goes on to say that this implies there is no transitional form; thus, the "missing links" are truly missing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But as the author proceeds to note:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that the sequence comparisons made in Denton’s table are from modern organisms not extinct ancient ones. The DNA sequences are taken from organisms that are alive today. Evolution proposes the common ancestor of the modern bacterial cytochrome and the other Eukaryotic cytochromes lived hundreds of millions of years ago. This would be some ancient bacteria which diverged from the path that led to the modern bacteria and started the path that led to the other Eukaryotic cytochromes. If this ancient bacteria could be compared to the other bacteria it diverged from then their sequence would be quite similar as Denton expects. The problem is Denton was expecting the modern organisms to have similar sequences which is not appropriate for this case because evolution proposes that the divergence from the bacteria occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. Because of the redundancy in the Cyctochrome C AA sequence there is no constraint to keep the sequences from changing. Naturally, the Cyctochrome C AA sequences have been continuing to change between all the different species since the time they diverged. Thus, there is no reason to expect any of the modern species compared to the modern bacteria to have an AA sequence that matches more closely to the modern bacteria. Therefore, the reason why Denton did not find the missing link in his table is because his table only has modern organisms. The transitional Cyctochrome C AA sequences if it did exist most likely became extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.

Denton is aware that it is the ancient organisms that are expected to have the most similar sequences, but claims that there is no evidence that this assumption is correct. There is good reason to expect that the more ancient organisms are expected to have more similar sequences. Based on the reasonable assumption that organism have always developed mutations, it is expected that organisms collected more and more variation over time even if their morphology remained the same over time because of the high level of redundancy in the DNA and AA sequences. Since it is very difficult if not impossible to get the sequences for these ancient organisms because they died out a long time ago, it is not appropriate to expect to study these ancient sequences directly. However, they can be implied. Even though no common ancestor or transitional organism is found in the table, Denton’s Table does imply a common ancestor because going up the table the sequences consistently become more similar. Evolution predicts this trend because going up the tables means the proposed common ancestor is more recent. Some creationist would object to this by arguing that this is also expected from fundamental creation because the more similar the organisms the more similar the sequences should be. While this may be true when comparing all the DNA of the different organism; however, there is no biological reason for this to be true when comparing just the DNA sequence for the Cytochrome C protein. As previously pointed out in section 5, many different cytochrome C AA sequence produce the same function; thus, there appears to be no requirement for the designer to specifically make the cytochrome C AA sequence similar. In fact only 14% of the sites are required to be the same according to Table 3.

Denton goes onto to point out that evolution could explain his table of data if there is a sequence change or mutation rate that is constant over time. The theory that mutation rates are fairly constant over time; thus, sequences difference can be used to measure time from divergence has been labeled "molecular clock". Denton points out that the mutation rate is not expected to be constant for the organisms in his table because they involve species with a very large variation of reproduction rates. Denton expects that mutation rates would be related to the number of generations which means that those species which regenerate quickly such as flies will develop mutations in the population in a much shorter amount of time then humans would. Since Denton’s table indicates that the mutation rate was constant with time rather then related to the number of generations, he concludes that the data in his table cannot be successfully explained by evolution. It appears to me that evolutionist have not yet figured out the molecular clock. Determining what caused mutations when they occurred and how often is very complicated problem; thus, it is not surprising that evolutionist have not yet developed a mature understanding of how the differences in the sequences came about. However, the determination of common ancestors does not require having this issue be resolved. As explained in section 5 it is possible to infer common ancestors from the similarities in the sequences.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All bolding mine. < (Incidentally, one of Deadman's sources supports this idea with purty pictures. Admittedly, the author of this piece is an idiot, but ya gotta work with what ya gots. :D :D ) >

Scientists have made progress in quantifying the degree to which metabolism and body size affects the molecular clock. But before discussing this, < here are a few observations: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The generation time argument is a bit bogus for several reasons. First, mutation rates are based on changes per cell division (replication) and not generation time. Thus, in mammals such a mouse, there are about 50 cell divisions between zygote and gamete and the organism reproduces in about 100 days. Thus, there is, on average, one mutation-causing replication event every two days. This is no more than the average "generation time" of single-celled organisms such as yeast or bacteria. (Bacteria divide once every few days, at most, contrary to what most people believe.)

The second reason for skepticism is that for most of the history of life the "generation time" of different organisms isn't that much different. Large terrestrial mammals, for example, have only been around for about 15% of the time since single-celled life began.

Molecular biologists and population geneticists have thought about these things. They conclude that the evidence favors the idea that phylogenetic trees are due to fixation of nearly neutral alleles by random genetic drift. This explains the molecular clock.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now here's an attempt to model the effects of < body size and metabolism > on the molecular clock:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here, we present a model of nucleotide substitution that combines theory on metabolic rate with the now-classic neutral theory of molecular evolution. The model quantitatively predicts rate heterogeneity and may reconcile differences in molecular- and fossil-estimated dates of evolutionary events. Model predictions are supported by extensive data from mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. By accounting for the effects of body size and temperature on metabolic rate, this model explains heterogeneity in rates of nucleotide substitution in different genes, taxa, and thermal environments. This model also suggests that there is indeed a single molecular clock, as originally proposed by Zuckerkandl and Pauling [Zuckerkandl, E. & Pauling, L. (1965) in Evolving Genes and Proteins, eds. Bryson, V. & Vogel, H. J. (Academic, New York), pp. 97–166], but that it "ticks" at a constant substitution rate per unit of mass-specific metabolic energy rather than per unit of time. This model therefore links energy flux and genetic change. More generally, the model suggests that body size and temperature combine to control the overall rate of evolution through their effects on metabolism.
[...]
Here, we propose a model that predicts heterogeneity in rates of molecular evolution by combining principles of allometry and biochemical kinetics with Kimura's neutral theory of evolution. The model quantifies the relationship between rates of energy flux and genetic change based explicitly on the effects of body size and temperature on metabolic rate. Although the model does not distinguish between the metabolic rate and generation time hypotheses, it accounts for much of the observed rate heterogeneity across a wide range of taxa in diverse environments. Recalibrating the molecular clocks by using metabolic rate reconciles some fossil- and molecular-based estimates of divergence.
[...]
Building on previous work showing correlations of substitution rate to body size (6), these results show that all animals cluster around a single line that is predicted by our model. Note that the model quantifies the combined effects of body size and temperature. Analyses that consider these variables separately, like much of the previous literature, explain much less of the observed variation in substitution rates (Table 2).
[...]
These results also may have broader implications for understanding the factors controlling the overall rate of evolution. The central role of metabolic rate in controlling biological rate processes implies that metabolic processes also govern evolutionary rates at higher levels of biological organization where the neutral molecular theory does not apply. So, for example, the rate and direction of phenotypic evolution ultimately depends on the somewhat unpredictable action of natural selection. However, the overall rate of evolution ultimately is constrained by the turnover rate of individuals in populations, as reflected in generation time, and the genomic variation among individuals, as reflected in mutation rate (16, 24). Both of these rates are proportional to metabolic rate, so Eq. 1 also may predict the effects of body size and temperature on overall rates of genotypic and phenotypic change. Such predictions would be consistent with general macroevolutionary patterns showing that most higher taxonomic groups originate in the tropics where temperatures are high (25), speciation rates decrease with decreasing temperature from the equator to the poles (26, 27), biodiversity is highest in the tropics (28), and smaller organisms evolve faster and are more diverse than larger organisms (29).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Here's an older article on generation times > and a little < background. >

Even worse, however, is the fact that Denton's hypothesis has no way to account for phylogenies based on < unitary pseudogenes, > < retroviral insertions, > < SINEs >, and < LINES. > Worst of all, Denton's hypothesis doesn't address the < stunning congruence between different phylogenetic trees. >

In summary, the molecular evidence provides overwhelming support for evolution, and little help for creationism.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 24 2007,20:14

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A standard technique with creationists (you're very welcome to come and view that very technique in chat, live - Yahoo: Religion and Beliefs: Religion 1 Chat) is to start answering questions with questions. So you actually push the onus off being accountable, onto others - which you have done - rather successfully. I critiqued Dembski's mathematical formula (please go back and reread). In the process of doing that, you now wish to be educated? Something else I find insulting.

To use YOUR technique: if you can't answer "what is the proof for intelligent design" then how about being honest and giving UP?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 24 2007,22:35

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Demallion,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Avocationist,
It's good your asking questions about Thermodynamics.  I hope you continue if for no other reason than to understand the subject more yourself.  I can answer your question here.

Entropy, like all the other Thermodynamic energies described, can be established within biologic systems by utilizing the balance equations and state properties within the Thermodynamics properties/Laws/rules/etc.  There are a lot of variables and there is certainly no true equilibrium reached with the surrounding environment.
When a biological organism dies then the environment within and around the organism changes its equilibrium values because the organism no longer has "active" interaction with the surrounding environment.

Let's do a quick checklist on this word "active".  By this I mean;
*The organism no longer converts inputs (light, food, water) to outputs (energy, internal structure, wastes).  This could include symbiotic or parasitic relationships.
*The organism to longer moves/grows to attain more light/food/water.
*The organism no longer reproduces to form additional organisms.
Each of these processes can be individually parsed to a detailed description of the functions involved.

So do you wish to go into finer detail on this Entropy question?

Mike PSS
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2007,22:39

Index. Creationist. Claims.

#  (see also CE400: Cosmology)
# CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory

   * (see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
   * (see also CE441: Big Bang doesn't produce information.)
   * CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
         o CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
         o CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
         o CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
         o CF001.4. The second law is about organized complexity, not entropy.
         o CF001.5. Evolution needs an energy conversion mechanism to utilize energy.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html >

Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 24 2007,23:04

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A-a-a-a-n-n-n-d... the bullshit flag comes out again.  It's very easy to SAY something doesn't work but let's look at this another way.  I don't want you to "disprove" evolution to me.  What I would like is some of your criticism applied to a real situation.

The dreaded nylon eating bacteria is quoted and cited often.  Here's an experimental write-up and result.
< Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Experimental Proposal
In this study, we investigated the possibility of creating a new metabolic activity that would degrade the Ahx oligomer in a strain that is not inherently capable of such degradation.
...
Some Experimental Results
After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation.
...
Experimental Conclusion
In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now comes the hard part.  I think you said that you disagree with the evolutionary mechanisms that the experimenters used in deriving their conclusions in this study.  However the study has measurements and data that I think both you and I (and the board) can agree are accurate.  Things like growth rate, controls, chemical balances, etc.

Please quickly parse the paper (only 2 pages long) and tell me;
1) Which mechanism cited you disagree with.
2) What mechanism you think is occurring to explain the data presented.


Now comes the HARDER part (which I'm not asking at present but which is still a valid point).  Apply your mechanism to all the other studies that assert a similar phenomena and see if your mechanism has explanatory power over ALL these cases.

Your assertions about mutations can only be valid if your explanations have descriptive power over ALL the evidence.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2007,23:14

Re "[...] a species barrier [...]"
Re "Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier,"

Plus, doesn't the alleged barrier imply a sudden jump, in contrast to the expected accumulation of small changes over many generations. The barrier between species is between species that separated a long time ago, and have been accumulating separate changes for all that time.

Henry
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 24 2007,23:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree. It's a very interesting consequence of thermal physics, but like any physical theory, it makes a strong statement when it's applicable. If what you observe differs from what you predict, either the theory is wrong, or your assumptions are wrong. In the case of SLOT, you can bet on the latter.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2007,00:41

Sorry, not trying to derail this thread but I have a couple of easy questions for you Avo:

1. Are you religious? and if so:
2. What doctrines of your religion are you defending with your anti-scienceish stance?
3. What might make me accept your particular flavor of whatever it is you do with your religion?  last one was hard to write and encompass all the possible replies. an example would be:
"The xian god is real because my dad read their book to me when I was little. Therefore I am certain of the book's accuracy."
Or something along those lines. I would hope for something more substantial. I'm wondering because I have lots of ideas about god but I couldn't use those ideas to get enough strength to go tilting at your particular winmills. It seems to me like you'd make a better case if you gave me good reason to think you might be on to something on a different track. I like to think of us as mushrooms popping up out of the universal mycelium-but with eyes, opposable thumbs and an emotive capacity to experience myself.

That idea is a sort of a simplification of course. It's for those of you who aren't ready for the whole truth. That truth needs to be revealed in stages. Like an onion. An onion. Layers.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,00:47

Don,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't you tell me which "features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design", and why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

One reason is that the barrage comes too thick and fast. I go to work and find more than two pages. Even if I answer just the more pressing nonsense, it'll take hours. I am not sure why my giving an overview of what sorts of articles and books have influenced me is so illegitimate. I think there are many IC systems. Blood clotting is a good one, the flagellum, the cell itself, perhaps DNA/RNA. I don't have "my" theory of ID.

Improvius,

I seem to remember reading that bit you quoted from, but the bit wasn't long enough for me to evaluate his point. Yes, I've seen the claim that NDE isn't falsifiable. Tell me why it is. You want my hypothetical tests for ID. I don't thin I am qualified to come up with that. But it is odd that the folks here spend so much time perusing UD and seem to get so little out of it. Because from time to time I have certainly seen ideas on how to falsify, and some possible experiments, and some predictions. I never intended to be a one person encyclopedia of knowledge about ID. There are others far better than me. Right now there is a promising discussion started by Sal Cordova with Caligula over Haldane's and some related issues that looks very promising. Some interesting papers are cited, and I do want to make some time to follow it. Oddly, Salvador mentions that when he goes to PT, he tends to get barraged with vitriol. Now Salvador just happens to be one of the more refined, and one of the more intelligent people you'll come across. What's going on that someone of his calibre gets barraged with vitriol? And despite everyone claiming that I've got a thin skin, I disagree. I've been on boards for Buddhism, Christianity, philosophy, enlightenment, even politics/Islam, and I've never seen the prejudice and hyena-like behavior that goes on here.

Why the intense emotion? It's all good my friends. Take a deep breath. Science will do very well, knowledge will increase, and no one's life is in danger.

Louis,

Oh, it is true that the terms you used were for GoP but the implication was that they were for me as well. Also, I was annoyed you were calling me a troll when I had just arrived. It didn't occur to me that you actually thought I might be him or some other troll in disguise. And I admit I was squinting when I read your posts. One does that when a lot of mud is flinging about.
I thought the spitting baccy meant I was a redneck. I'm not, but I am an aspiring hillbilly. The citing of fundamentalism is not projection, and I do not retract it. One can be of any persuasion and be a fundamentalist. Even a liberal.
Oh, and you can dispense with the him/her/it. I really am a normal female, not a hermaphrodite or anything.

In short, your gracious explanations are as graciously accepted.

Serendipity,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'll have to reread it. You know I don't do math and I can't remember if yours was over my head. I have read a few of Dembski's papers and liked them, but I shy away from his books because of the math arguments.

JohnW

It isn't so that I don't like the theory of evolution. I don't think it is true, and I find the whole drama fascinating. Some sort of unfoldment of life IS true.

BWE,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you care to deconstruct this comment with me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What I meant by my comment (science would not progress if Louis got his way) is that there is this human group tendency, what Nietzche called the herd instinct, to stifle those in disagreement with the currently held paradigm, whatever it might be;  it has happened in science often enough; while new discoveries are often made by mavericks. If the paradigm defenders got their way, we'd have the sun going around the earth.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's one of the two words in his "theory". You'd think hi definition would be pretty unambiguous. This is a weak reply.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, in fact in the longest post by Febble she even brings up what he really means by intelligence. Without seeing both in context, we can't know where the wording went wrong. It's possible Dembski goofed, and wrote something unclear, but it seemed pointless to me to argue that Dembski meant something we all know he didn't mean. However, as a stepping off point for her counterarguments, it served well enough.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Boy, so do I. It doesn't google well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Silly BWE, it was me of course. That was the point. It's on the LUCA thread.
I don't know what you meant by this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are aware that if you hadn't recieved xian ideas from OTHER PEOPLE, you wouldn't have recieved them at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you think you are open-minded?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, BWE.

Don, I don't think we should get sidetracked into falsification. hafta at least make some attempt to focus.

Oh, Louis, I never meant that eugenics was a part of Darwinism, I considered it a opportunistic misuse. My point was that Lenny expects me to answer for the likes of Johnson. Let him answer for some bad evolutionists.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and btw give me just one good reason that anyone should take the comments of Dembski et all seriously when the entirety of working scientists in the relevant fields of science to those comments don't take them at all seriously and have openly refuted them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think the problems in evo theory are growing rather than diminishing, I think that some evo's are as biased in their way as the Christians in theirs, and I don't think that the criticisms of the ID works have really hit the nail on the head. And I am somewhat, but not terribly, impressed by majority opinions.

The burden of proof rests equally.

Occam and Deadman,

My motive in making the assignments was to distribute the work load a little. Since it's ten against one here, I can't do all the homework.

The last time I was here I tried to focus just on the flagellum. I urged people to read Mike Gene's essay because it is inspiring and far more detailed than the chapter in Behe's book. No one seemed to want to. I find the part describing the assembly particularly good. I even cut and paste parts of it in for people. I also reread and printed up The Flagellum Unspun, and Still Spinning Just Fine, plus a follow up to that last. I spend hours and hours on it! I marked those pages up and cut and paste some more. Now Russell says I'm a liar for saying no one read that stuff, maybe he did and if so I apologize.

Hey Occam, you accuse me of trying to convince other people to dislike TOE, but I got challenged. I didn't start it.

Oh, this is getting long. I'll just post it.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2007,01:39

Nuts. I haven't read the Luca thread. I kind of avoided the old GoP threads. To nutty for me.

What is a  little surprising to me is that you actually said that. Just because I'm amazed, I'll quote it again:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But there are other explanations. Better ones in fact.  That is why I asked you the last questions in my post above.

My quote that you quoted and then quoted your own quote as a quoted response was:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, that's an ok answer except that it isn't. You are claiming that there is no way of knowing anything (even through science I suppose) but then saying that that makes you think "there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation". Which seems like knowing something that you claimed you couldn't know despite knowing that you don't know. Or was that simply supposing that you don't know? Anyway, that is less salient given the rest of your sentence which reads:
"although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture."

And I am asking: is conjecture different from knowing? Because, if it is, then it seems to me like you are merely pointing out that to know you know a thing is unknowable, so we can only suppose we don't know because we can't know that we don't know but in our conjecture of not knowing we can't make any claims, scientific or otherwise which of course ought to include religion. Am I making myself clear?

That brings me right round again to my questions in the aforementioned recent post of mine which I will restate again here:

1. Are you religious? and if so:
2. What doctrines of your religion are you defending with your anti-scienceish stance?
3. What might make me accept your particular flavor of whatever it is you do with your religion?  last one was hard to write and encompass all the possible replies. an example would be:
"The xian god is real because my dad read their book to me when I was little. Therefore I am certain of the book's accuracy."
Or something along those lines. I would hope for something more substantial. I'm wondering because I have lots of ideas about god but I couldn't use those ideas to get enough strength to go tilting at your particular winmills. It seems to me like you'd make a better case if you gave me good reason to think you might be on to something on a different track. I like to think of us as mushrooms popping up out of the universal mycelium-but with eyes, opposable thumbs and an emotive capacity to experience myself.

That idea is a sort of a simplification of course. It's for those of you who aren't ready for the whole truth. That truth needs to be revealed in stages. Like an onion. An onion. Layers.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,01:53

Improvius,

You want a prediction in the form of an if-then statement. This is interesting, but I will have to think about it. Remember, I'm not a scientist and not in the habit of setting up experiments, writing articles, or applying for grants.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm just curious - do you think that our planet is or has ever been in or near a state of equilibrium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I wouldn't think so. Before it was a planet maybe.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
log(1000) = log(10x10x10) = log(10)+log(10)+log(10) = 3
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, dear, things are just getting worse.

Now Deadman, I can go through and focus on certain arguments for ID or against evo, but what was wrong with citing several works and saying the arguments within convinced me? It seems to me there are about 10 or 20 of them.
When I read Berlinski's critique of the Nelson-Pilger paper, I actually first ran across on the net the criticisms of his paper, [having never heard of any of it] which I think was by 5 people, and their criticisms seemed quite good, so that whoever this Berlinski character was, I decided not to bother with him at all, and move on. However, somehow I did get started with his answer to their criticisms, and he blew them out of the water.
Of course, that isn't really evidence for ID, that just has been my experience that when I actually see the big guns arguing, I find the ID side much more compelling.

Yeah, Kaufmann is interesting, and after all he isn't an IDist. So like I said yesterday, things are very interesting, and getting more so. Things are heating up!

Oh, and Deadman, ain't nothin wrong with my incredulity button, I find it a right handy tool I wouldn't be without. 'Course, it doesn't help a lot with faith.

Ghost,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One problem is that Denton himself has repudiated much of the arguments in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. There are other problems with the book which I'll get to tonight. Deadman's links are certainly worth a look.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, they are and I hope to find the time. I don't quite see that he repudiated it.  I have both books, and last night I reread a 2002 essay of his called An anti-Darwinian Intelletual Journey: Biological Order as an Inherent Property of Matter.
In light of the data you present, why do you suggest focusing on Denton's book?

Lenny,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . .  ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I mostly skip over your jabs, but yes, I have already read them.
Oh! He said ID was full of crap and left DI? Where's the scoop on that?
Do you also realize that he considers the entire cosmos teleological, with human beings the inevitable and intended ultimate end point?

I think the Kansas thing and the Miller textbook thing are both true and are just different data.

Mike,
I do like learning most anything. I think my main question is can we not see the law(s) of entropy at work in every day situations. The very fact that when the organism dies, the forces that work against it cease, allowing entropy to increase, seems to validate my point.
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 25 2007,02:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a relief.... I'm glad you have decided that.(giggle)

I hope you can do a better job than Dembski and Sal 'Sancho Panzo' Cordova on the info theory. If you thought Entropy was easy ....'info theory' should be a slam dunk for you.

Any formulae?
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 25 2007,02:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Temperature.  From thermo, the change in internal energy divided by the change in entropy is exactly the temperature (at constant volume and particle number). There's lots of info on thermodynamic potentials available to elucidate this more. Remember that these are all statistical quantities, you're assuming that there's some underlying distribution which is characterized generally by internal energy, entropy, pressure, volume, particle number, and chemical potential. Changing some of these quantities causes heat(energy) to flow in or out of the system, and we can draw conclusions about the energy transfer.
I apologize if my logarithm discussion didn't make much sense. The main point was that when you tack on another system, the entropy increases additively rather than by multiplication ( S_total = S_A+S_B rather than S_total = S_A x S_B ).
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2007,02:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the problems in evo theory are growing rather than diminishing, I think that some evo's are as biased in their way as the Christians in theirs, and I don't think that the criticisms of the ID works have really hit the nail on the head. And I am somewhat, but not terribly, impressed by majority opinions.

The burden of proof rests equally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We know you think this Avo. One thing we know that you don't (appear to) know is that the burden of proof doesn't rest equally NOW. It might have done about 2 or 3 centuries before the present (it didn't even then, but for the sake of argument let's say it did) but it really doesn't now.

If (note conditional tense) IDC and evolutionary biology were equally supported scientific theories both developed recently then the burden of proof would be (at least roughly) equal. This is simply not the case. Evolutionary ideas in biology predate Charlie Darwin (all the way back to the Ancient Greeks at least), old Chuckie just got a lot of it right.  ("Just", one of the foremost intellectual acheivements of our species is "just" getting it right!;) Every, and I do mean EVERY experiment done and accurate observation made has supported evolutionary biology. Sure the theories that comprise evolutionary biology have been modified over the years, this is what we call progress in science. We change things on the basis of the evidence. The whinings of Dembski et al are really nothing more than a restatement of ideas already tried and already failed.

This is why people get a bit moody with creationists. In one sense there is an awesome amount of arrogance from people like yourselves: I don't know much science but I know it's all wrong about topic X. This is not a sense I necessarily think is the case, all I am saying is SOME people see your comments this way. I'm not one of them btw.  In another sense we who actually DO science try pretty bloody hard to know what we're talking about BEFORE we talk about it, we're not perfect and not always successful but we do try. The comments of Dembski and chums are not new news to scientists. They are very very old w(h)ine in new bottles. We've heard them and refuted them before, stamping your feet and claiming it's all very significant when a) you don't really know what you're talking about (self admittedly) and b) those people who DO know what they're talking about have pointed out the problems with these ideas already. This part is merely an explanation of possibly why some people might get irritated, nothing more. Please be aware that things like "blood clotting is IC" and "DNA/RNA are IC" are claims we've heard before many times and claims that a) aren't true to start with and b) have been demonstrated so many times. I really suggest the T.O.Index to creationist claims as a good reading point for a lot of the old hat we encounter.

One thing about you Avo really amuses me. It's actually not something just about you personally, you just exhibit it, but lots more people do it. This is not an insult btw, more a compliment. You have an excellent and very healthy scepticism. This is something I think is great, I'm a massively sceptical person too. Science as a process can be thought of the practice of not automatically trusting the words of experts or authorities. In the words of the motto of the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society, "On the words of no one" (Latin: "Nullius in verbia"). You REALLY don't have to trust the words of evolutionary biologists, in fact I absolutely insist you don't. What I DO insist you do is go out and find out about evolutionary biology for yourself. You can go to university, do the work, pass the exams, go and do a PhD and actually perform original research. YOU, Avocationist, can prove evolutionary biology wrong. A bit of advice though, the Dembski/Behe/Johnson/Gene/Denton/Berlinski route is a non-starter, it's an already wrong dead end. Evolutionary biology MIGHT be wrong but please have the humility to familiarise yourself with the subject beyond creationist tracts before you claim this. Please try to be aware that for evolutionary biology to be wrong in the way you think it is, a really rather large number of things that you would find uncontroversial would also be wrong. That alone should give you pause.

Louis
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,02:27

BWE,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. Are you religious? and if so:
2. What doctrines of your religion are you defending with your anti-scienceish stance?
3. What might make me accept your particular flavor of whatever it is you do with your religion?  last one was hard to write and encompass all the possible replies. an example would be:
"The xian god is real because my dad read their book to me when I was little. Therefore I am certain of the book's accuracy."
Or something along those lines. I would hope for something more substantial. I'm wondering because I have lots of ideas about god but I couldn't use those ideas to get enough strength to go tilting at your particular windmills. It seems to me like you'd make a better case if you gave me good reason to think you might be on to something on a different track. I like to think of us as mushrooms popping up out of the universal mycelium-but with eyes, opposable thumbs and an emotive capacity to experience myself.

That idea is a sort of a simplification of course. It's for those of you who aren't ready for the whole truth. That truth needs to be revealed in stages. Like an onion. An onion. Layers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not religious. I am not antiscience. Even when I was very young, I used to say, 'astronomy is like theology for me.' I guess you forgot, but when I was here I held out the most optimistic expectations for what science will discover, which is to say I think it will penetrate to at least some extent into spiritual realms that most people now consider to be off limits to science. Science is the study of reality, and reality is God. All I care about is what's true.

I don't know that I have any doctrines, unless they be my own conclusions, some more tentative than others. I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything. I came to this conclusion myself, but years later found out it is also Hindu. So I am a monist, but it was years before I heard the term. The interesting question for me is, since what we call matter and ourselves are natural unfurlings of God, does that mean that matter always manifests or is it a choice or a periodicity?

I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with.
Especially since I am in love with God! When I don't have things figured out, I just patiently wait for resolution and deeper understanding.
I do have one inkling about how the mind of God could be. Since God is the totality of everything, that everything could have an overarching mind. The way many religions describe God, it's as if he is a separte person who is essentially, here but not there. There but not here.

My religion is a religion of one. I contemplate. I search for truth and deeper wisdom. I think in terms of consciousness. People are, for the most part, in a state of partial unconsciousness. I seek to increase my consciousness. This is nondifferent from knowing God. Our individuality within this unity is a mystery, it keeps me fascinated and fulfilled; that is why I think we can know and have a relationship with God; it is the bridal chamber Jesus spoke of.

I love the beauty and truth in all religions, and deplore the negativity which keep people stuck. I have no need for any particular religion because I am free. I have no intermediates, not faith, not dogma.

There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism. I have an attraction-repulsion with Buddhism, a very strange relationship with Buddhism. Buddhism is deceptive in its simplicity. It bothers me because I find it cold and it amazes me because of its purity. I learn from it. It has been called the most atheistic of religions and yet it may take you closest. Because concepts separate you from God, and Buddhism is a relentless stripping.

I don't practice meditation, but I do read some of the writings.

Perhaps I haven't been fair to Christianity. It was Christianity that set me free. I am terribly critical and ever grateful.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 25 2007,03:21

Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,11:46)
I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These same systems could experience reverse isocaloric/adiabatics - making an isentropic process. Which of course causes no change in entropy.

Sorry its taken so long to reply to this: I was reading back over the thread and picked it up.

Serendipity.
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 25 2007,03:23

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
Demallion,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?

Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, I really do think that you don't know about what I "posted about the mechanisms of evolution".  You see, in my post, I hammered the fact, repeatedly, that each and every mechanism is observed in the lab, and in the wild, and that we can even say the same about all of the mechanisms working together.

You say that much has been written to refute "that".  Oh yeah?  I'm fascinated by the idea that someone's opinion can "refute" reality.  In case you missed it, I'll say it again: each and every mechanism involved in evolution has been confirmed by experiments.  They are real, and no amount of handwaving can refute that.  You need to stop and think about the implications of this.

You say that random mutation isn't adequate.  I refer you again to the part where I discussed bacteria developing resistance to drugs.  How do you think that they develop this resistance?  I'll give you a hint: it starts with 'random', and ends in 'mutation'.  Again, verified in the lab.  The fact that you assert that it isn't adequate in no way refutes the observed reality that it IS adequate.  

You are apparently unaware of all of this, to judge by your posts (either that or you think that fine words trump reality).  That is why I decided to "throw in my two cents" - it was an (apparently vain) attempt to help you correct your ignorance on the topic.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 25 2007,03:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it is from you, then it means you find the arguments of Denton, Dembski, Behe, Meyer insultingly simplistic.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I find having to continuously educate creationists because they refuse to substantiate their positions and reverse the proceedings to have others do their homework for them - insulting.

Serendipity.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 25 2007,03:31

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 24 2007,14:36)
Avocationist: I'd also like to politely ask that if you have specific disagreements with what I posted, that you'd at least hold off a bit on those and instead focus on PRECISELY what evidence from ID you find so compelling?
I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive than arguments from incredulity and "because I said so." Arguments that actually have a bit of science in them are preferred in science, I should think. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science would help a lot in this discussion. The cynic in me however asks "what's the chances of that happening?"

Serendipity.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 25 2007,03:36

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2007,22:39)
Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All biological processes apply thermodynamics. I'll perhaps repeat that.. in bold.. all biological processes apply thermodynamics. Changes to organisms - the measure of its state: first law. The changes within that state: second law. The human body ingesting food and converting it to energy: first and second law. So I totally agree with your statement.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 25 2007,03:54

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,00:47)
Serendipity,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'll have to reread it. You know I don't do math and I can't remember if yours was over my head. I have read a few of Dembski's papers and liked them, but I shy away from his books because of the math arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thank you very much for that comment. No, I actually didn't know you don't do maths well. So I will try and formulate it into something non mathematical (if possible: remembering Dembski is a mathematician) while having a cup of coffee.

Serendipity
~musing over a cup~
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2007,04:05

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,02:27)
Science is the study of reality, and reality is God. All I care about is what's true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thus begins an interesting journey. You begin by defining god as "what is". Next you claim to care only about what is true. I assume you mean true as in the platonic ideal.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm with you so far except that word "believe". It seems like you are making a leap of faith. With your definition of god, I don't see what belief has to do with it. The word "belief" smacks of intellectual laziness.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The interesting question for me is, since what we call matter and ourselves are natural unfurlings of God, does that mean that matter always manifests or is it a choice or a periodicity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And here, looking back to your first statement, I assume science therefore can study god?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does this struggle influence what is true? Does that muddy the ideal?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Especially since I am in love with God!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

She is quite a looker isn't she?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do have one inkling about how the mind of God could be. Since God is the totality of everything, that everything could have an overarching mind. The way many religions describe God, it's as if he is a separte person who is essentially, here but not there. There but not here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is this inkling based on any evidence?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My religion is a religion of one. I contemplate. I search for truth and deeper wisdom. I think in terms of consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Contemplation does seem to lead to a different set of truths. Maybe on an internal dimension rather than an external dimension?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People are, for the most part, in a state of partial unconsciousness. I seek to increase my consciousness. This is nondifferent from knowing God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, is god only knowable through contemplation?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our individuality within this unity is a mystery, it keeps me fascinated and fulfilled; that is why I think we can know and have a relationship with God; it is the bridal chamber Jesus spoke of.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Little bit confused now. So, in this case, there is no such thing as a false idol, right? Because god is everything so if I hump a goat, I'm getting it on with god?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love the beauty and truth in all religions, and deplore the negativity which keep people stuck. I have no need for any particular religion because I am free. I have no intermediates, not faith, not dogma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Free of religion? Do you think jesus rose from the dead? Really and physically?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism. I have an attraction-repulsion with Buddhism, a very strange relationship with Buddhism. Buddhism is deceptive in its simplicity. It bothers me because I find it cold and it amazes me because of its purity. I learn from it. It has been called the most atheistic of religions and yet it may take you closest. Because concepts separate you from God, and Buddhism is a relentless stripping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A relentless stripping of false idols until you are left with none.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't practice meditation, but I do read some of the writings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Buddhist writing? Is it possible to use thought and words and symbols and ideas to strip away samsara?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps I haven't been fair to Christianity. It was Christianity that set me free. I am terribly critical and ever grateful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well well. What did you get free of? Are you critical now? Critical of what?

Do you think I should be a xian? Is there any reason I should?

Now, why do you dislike the idea of common descent? If god is simply what is, then why name her at all? Why is understanding god always a prerequisite for not believing in evolution? Do you think it is bad science?

You really should read Gould.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 25 2007,04:07

Advocationist said...

                                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, your own words are a "silly time waster"?  Gosh, you seem to have a very blunt self-assessment of yourself. ???
                             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avocationist, I'm not asking you to re-invent the wheel.  I'm not asking you to become a scientist and bury yourself in a lab for twenty years. I'm asking you to explain to me how YOU understand the "the scientific 'theory' of ID".
Once upon a time you presumeably didn't know about ID. Right?
But then you found out about ID? Yeah?
So you investigated the scientific theory of ID.
You perhaps read a book or two on the subject and checked out a couple of ID friendly web-sites.
After serious, level-headed research and reflection you found ID richly satisfying in a scientific sort of way (because as we all know ID is a scientific theory and DEFINITELY NOT a religious apologetics club full of people who don't know what they are talking about).
All correct so far?
Well, thats great.  You now subscribe to the Theory of ID, bully for you.
(Insert image of Dempski and DaveScot giving the "thumbs up"  as a sign of support in the background)
                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You gave me your thoughts and ideas? ...Ummm, OK...(?!?)
(To tell you the truth I'm kinda busy with my own thoughts and ideas.  How about I don't burden you with my thoughts and ideas and you extend me the same courtesy?)
You told me where you're coming from? ....Gee, umm (??) Ok, thanks..I guess. ???
Little game?
Advocationist, seriously, are you paranoid?
I'm trying to extend you every courtesy to hear what you have to say.  I gave you the scenario of the party because I thought it might help you state your case.
You are somebody who 'gets' ID.  You find it intellectually satisfying in a way that others here cannot understand.  I'm asking you to explain how it all works for you.  This being a science web-site and ID being a 'scientific theory' (insert queasy feeling in pit of stomach) I don't understand your coyness about you rattling off a few sentences on how you think the "theory of ID" works.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, please, please, please bother. :p  Just for me!
Look, let me get you a fresh drink and one of those cheesy thing on a cracker!  Ah, here's a nice comfy chair for you to sit in and get comfortable.  Do sit down.  There, how's that?  So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!!
Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't have "my" theory of ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I know you didn't "invent" ID theory.  It's not like I saw you across the room and said to myself "Wow, there's the whole gang of the Discovery Institute stuffed awkwardly in the body of a woman at a party like some third-rate sci-fi movie".
But you do understand ID theory, right? After all, thats why you support it and contribute to ID blogs, yeah?
Ok, let's get started....
Oh no. That's OK.  You can tell me about your sources and reference books at some other party.  No need to give me a bibliography.  In your own words and at you own pace will be fine.  Feel free to use any scientific argument for ID that you choose.
Vague rundown, eh? Oh, I'm sure you're just being modest.  Go ahead, I'm all ears....
(waits patiently) :)
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 25 2007,04:43

I'm not going to address any of the scientific issues here - others are more qualified than I am to do that!  But what you have to say about your religious sentiments interests me.  I'm picking out two or three passages (not in their original order):

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything. I came to this conclusion myself, but years later found out it is also Hindu. So I am a monist, but it was years before I heard the term.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are a couple of reasons why this interests me.  First, when I do think about God, or the possibility of God, it's in the terms you describe in the first two quotes.  For me, God is either absolutely everything (and inseparable from everything), or nothing at all.  For many reasons (which I won't go into here - I'm sure you've been led to the same thoughts) the notion of a personal, "separable" God is absurd to me.  That is why I prefer to call myself a non-theist, rather than an atheist.  I'm not certain that the word "divine" has no reference, and I find Taoism, some Gnostic writings etc. to be very moving - to hit some truth which ordinary discourse doesn't reach. But I'm quite certain that there isn't a God after the Christian model.  I've found some food for thought in the past at the < Scientific Pantheism > website.


That is why I can understand the "struggle" you describe in the third quotation.  It is a real struggle, because the two ideas you are trying to hold in your head are incompatible.  Behe/Dembski type ID - which you seem to want to defend, irreducible complexity and all - absolutely requires an intelligence separate from the objects of design.  Yes, it might be a space alien, but it's still working as an intelligent agent utterly distinct from that which is being designed.

Whether you think of the Behe/Dembski designer as an alien or as something supernatural, all of the ID "theorists" are committed to dualism and division: something inert, lifeless, passive, being given form and life by something utterly different from it.  There is just no way to reconcile that with the monism that you've come to by other routes.   As I've said, I can empathize with your philosophical/religious position, and even share it to some extent.  It is an exhilirating view of the cosmos and the unity of all things.  Behe/Dembski ID, on the other hand, is a mean, unimaginative world-view.  They are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2007,06:37

Wow Altabin. That is one of the best posts i've seen. Seriously. The provincial sky-daddy is what I like to call that viewpoint. Eloquently stated.
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 25 2007,07:57

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

Avo: Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Me: I've never heard of it before, but you seem to think it explains natural phenomena well. I was just wondering which features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

Avo:  I am not sure why my giving an overview of what sorts of articles and books have influenced me is so illegitimate.

Me: I'm wasn't asking you for a reading list, just for some examples.

Avo: I think there are many IC systems. Blood clotting is a good one, the flagellum, the cell itself, perhaps DNA/RNA.

Me: Okay, lets take blood clotting, as you seem to think it's a "good one". Why is blood clotting best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

[Cedric comes along with a Martini and some nibbles and shows Avo to a comfy sofa]

Me: Hey! What the...?

[Don follows them]

Cedric: So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!! Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears.

========

Well then Avo, you now have some cheesy snacks (don't tell DaveScot!;)), a comfortable chair and the complete attention of two guys. Take it away!

Edit: damned emoticons!
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 25 2007,08:47

Avocationist.

Dembski's proposition was concerning bacterial flagellum - escherichia coli (the genome e coli dna of 4.6-4.7 million base pairs representated of 400 genes). Dembski states in his book (No Free Lunch) that applying Darwinian mechanism then the bacterium flagellum evolved through Darwinian selection through a bacterium consisting of 0 flagellum, and for this to have occurred, they would have to be assembled and directed as opposed to chance modification. So utilising Behe's irreducible complexity that specific condtions rendered specific actions within the flagellum, then it would have to be specified. In order for such a complex mechanism to have such specification, then it ought to have been intelligently designed. (That's as simple as I can make his argument). The rotary mechanism of the flagellum is specified (Dembski's overall argument of design).

What about (using Behe's irreducible complexity) other functions of the flagellum? Such as the e coli genome and base pairs? Is the flagellum's specification merely reliant upon the rotary itself? Well umm NO. If we take the blueprint o a flagellum (e coli genome/dna molecular function) can it be stripped from the flagellum (referring to the other subsystems of the flagellum)? It can't. So is using Behe's irreducibly complex systemisation to create his specified complex system, valid in this argument? No. Because it is applying variables where there are none.

In a nutshell: Dembski takes into consideration the rotary of the bacterium, disjointly and rather casually ignoring its subsystems to create a system based on redefinition of scientific terminology to make things "fit".

Serendipity.
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 25 2007,09:12

Avo said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don, I don't think we should get sidetracked into falsification. hafta at least make some attempt to focus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The point you should bear in mind is that a scientific theory/hypothesis has to be falsifiable. I.D. isn't, therefore it's not science. AFDave has had this explained to him over the course of almost 500 comments at richarddawkins.net's forum. He still doesn't get it. He probably never will. I just hope that you're a little bit brighter that him, I really do.
Posted by: heddle on Jan. 25 2007,09:18

Atlabin,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They [Behe and Dembski]are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Regardless of the truth of Behe/Dembski ID (and Dembski’s, based on faulty mathematics, is trivially false), you have not made any case that ID per se is incompatible with the “Christian” god.

Nothing at all precludes the “Christian” god, even with all his omni-attributes, from getting involved with minutiae, should he choose to do so. And describing God as personal and involved in the little details (such as one of my favorite stories, when Gideon is speaking with God and says “wait here while I get a present for you” and God replies “OK, I’ll wait.”) does not detract from those times when God acts in all his majesty.

I agree that ID is less compatible with new age Gnostic type ideas. But in the Christian model, we see time and time again that God is indeed a “tinkerer in matter.” So ID, in principle, does not belittle God.

On the other hand, the methods of the ID community and its leadership are absolutely incompatible with Christian living.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2007,09:22

Avocationist:

The reason I'd like to focus on Denton is because he attempted a critique of the entire body of evolutionary theory, so his work cuts to the heart of the matter. But thermodynamics is cool too -- hey, maybe someone will even answer my questions about the thermodynamics of abiogenesis. Then again, maybe not.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2007,09:33

Oh - I almost forgot. I really want to emphasise the importance of reading < Max's essay. > If Denton's typology theory is correct, then how does he explain shared errors that link species as disparate as deer and whales, or mice and men?
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 25 2007,09:49

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,01:47)
Improvius,

I seem to remember reading that bit you quoted from, but the bit wasn't long enough for me to evaluate his point. Yes, I've seen the claim that NDE isn't falsifiable. Tell me why it is. You want my hypothetical tests for ID. I don't thin I am qualified to come up with that. But it is odd that the folks here spend so much time perusing UD and seem to get so little out of it. Because from time to time I have certainly seen ideas on how to falsify, and some possible experiments, and some predictions. I never intended to be a one person encyclopedia of knowledge about ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see.  So you aren't aware of any specific hypothetical tests for ID.  Which means you don't really know if ID is scientific at all.  Fair enough, I'll let it go at that.  But if you ever actually want to discuss ID as science, just let us know.
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 25 2007,10:09

Quote (heddle @ Jan. 25 2007,16:18)
Atlabin,

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They [Behe and Dembski]are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Regardless of the truth of Behe/Dembski ID (and Dembski’s, based on faulty mathematics, is trivially false), you have not made any case that ID per se is incompatible with the “Christian” god.

Nothing at all precludes the “Christian” god, even with all his omni-attributes, from getting involved with minutiae, should he choose to do so. And describing God as personal and involved in the little details (such as one of my favorite stories, when Gideon is speaking with God and says “wait here while I get a present for you” and God replies “OK, I’ll wait.”) does not detract from those times when God acts in all his majesty.

I agree that ID is less compatible with new age Gnostic type ideas. But in the Christian model, we see time and time again that God is indeed a “tinkerer in matter.” So ID, in principle, does not belittle God.

On the other hand, the methods of the ID community and its leadership are absolutely incompatible with Christian living.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, my purpose wasn't to argue that Behe/Dembski ID was incompatible with Christian theism.  It would be kind of strange if it were incompatible, don't you think?

That said, it's hardly surprising that ID was "intelligently designed" to go hand-in-hand with American evangelical religion - the most thoroughly materialistic* version of Christianity.  Somehow, I don't see Meister Eckhart, or the Cappadocian Fathers, or Duns Scotus, or Gerard Manley Hopkins, or any number of other great Christian thinkers and writers falling for the bacterial flagellum.  Their vision was greater than that - a vision I can acknowledge and admire, even without sharing it.  And then there's the whole school of process theology which sees evolution as the only possible way for God - the Christian God - to have acted.  They're certainly not going to be beating a path to Dembski or Behe's doors either.

The question is not, or shouldn't be, whether theism or non-theistic spirituality is compatible with evolution.  The truth of evolution is not going to be altered one whit by how we wish God's relationship with the world to be.

Nor is the question whether we can form a conception of the divine that is simply compatible with experience.  That's like fitting spirituality into the cracks left in matter, and is just one step up from the "God of the gaps."

Rather, the question is whether we can grasp the divine in a way that embraces and celebrates our experience, while at the same time transcending and unifying it.

Or we can take the Dembski/Behe route: lie and obfuscate, deny empirical fact in order to prop up an impoverished notion of the divine, one which is a blend of fundamentalist pieties and their own self-image (God the biochemical engineer; God the probability-busting mathematician).

Or you can say "to #### with all of that" and just love the science - as most regulars here would say!  I'm not trying to preach here.

So many of the numbskulls at UD, and afdave, are quite simply unreachable.  They're already committed to their thoroughly limited conception of god, for which Behe/Dembski ID is a perfect apologetic.  No amount of explaining that, "no, God didn't make the flagellum, it's quite explicable by normal natural processes" is ever going to reach them.

In avocationist, on the other hand, we have someone who seems almost as blindly devoted to the Behe/Dembski flimflam as an other UDer, yet claims to have a worldview, a metaphysics which is entirely incompatible with ID.  That puzzles me, but also interests me.  I'd like to hear more from her about this: which part of her belief-system does she not follow through to the end?  Not being snarky - we're all imperfect, inconsistent animals - but genuinely interested.


*By "materialistic" here I mean vulgar, crass and self-serving.  Since I think that matter is all there is, and that it is quite marvelous, I don't usually use the term as an insult, or with this sense!
Posted by: heddle on Jan. 25 2007,10:31

Altabin,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, my purpose wasn't to argue that Behe/Dembski ID was incompatible with Christian theism.  It would be kind of strange if it were incompatible, don't you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes I do think so, but many anti-IDers as well as not-a-few Christians argue precisely that point. The usual claim they make is that Christianity is about faith and ID is about looking for physical evidence, hence they are incompatible. (The error in the argument is that Christianity is not at all about blind faith—but that’s another matter,)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That said, it's hardly surprising that ID was "intelligently designed" to go hand-in-hand with American evangelical religion - the most thoroughly materialistic* version of Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’m no great fan of American evangelism, which is dominated by Arminianism and Dispensationalism. However, Christianity has always been materialistic if by that you mean the view that "matter is not evil." It is only distortions of Christianity that have adopted "the physical is evil" mentalities.

Any way, I thought you were arguing that a separable God involved in designing the flagellum was somehow a "small" god. My point was: it is not necessarily so.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2007,11:01

Hi, I don't know if this is legal or not but I'm going to make a post here and John left his computer on and is logged in looking at this thread. So, I guess I need a funny name. How about Dingbat? I'll be Dingbat. That is how you should address me, although I am not going to mention my little escapade here and he won't be back for at least 4 hours so he will never know who did it. What is my official screen name? I guess I will figure it out after I post.

Avocationist, I do not know what you do for a living and I don't know why anyone would bother posting over and over and over about such a boring topic but I would like to point out that there are 6 people in the offices next to this one that all have some sort of science degree I think. They are all overworked and underpaid (I would get points for that one). But another thing they all share is the ability to understand what sciences they are doing. I think John is a biologist or maybe an ecologist and the others are in similar fields. Let me just tell you that they know a heck of a lot more about science than non-scientists do and if you are not a scientist, you will lose a science argument because they will tell you how things really work instead of how you think things work. In my experience, they are polite about ignorance but not particularly forgiving. They really ARE experts and if you are not an expert, you just can't get into it with any kind of success. My advice is to ask questions. If people here are gracious enough to answer you will get a free education and you will be learning good information. Trust me, you may be able to teach them some things but it won't be science.

Also, I have never met a scientist who isn't really interested in what the "mavericks" are doing. Sometimes they turn out to be onto something great. These guys read all the gibberish publications and actually get excited about it. They just require the "maverick" to do good science. That is all. So please, you have no idea how dumb you look telling a scientist that they are blinded by scientific dogma. It is the exact opposite. When they examine an experiment, within two minutes they will either raise their eybrows and start puzzling over it or they will point out the flaw and move on. Enough of them working together always move toward the right answer.

Our office manager has some kooky ideas and he used to argue with these guys when he first got here about chem-trails. That is the idea that airplanes are actually putting some kind of mind control drug into our air and water that will gradually turn us all into sheep so we will be easier to control or something like that. One of the field ecologists brought back samples from 24 sites and analyzed them for the poor man.

Sincerely,
Dingbat
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 25 2007,11:31

Ahh. I see that I am BWE. I didn't type the blue part on the bottom. AFDave... whatever about nazis and scientists. I don't know where that came from. Well, I gotta go. Bye.
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 25 2007,11:59

Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 25 2007,03:21)

These same systems could experience reverse isocaloric/adiabatics - making an isentropic process. Which of course causes no change in entropy.

Sorry its taken so long to reply to this: I was reading back over the thread and picked it up.

Serendipity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly, that's why I said dS/dt must be positive or 0. In the previous setup, I was assuming that the system was allowed to change in an irreversible (dS/dt>0) manner.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,12:43

Okay, a lot of people, without perhaps realizing it, are going at this like lawyers in a courtroom - more focused on the game of battle than finding truth. Because of this, there have been reams of accusations and sneering remarks, which I just don't have time to decently answer. For example, I said I don't want to get sidetracked into falsifiability. It would be fine if this were a normal sedate discussion. I have seen good responses to this, and I have little doubt the poster could find them. Behe made a nice answer, in which he calls people on the fact that they refute ID will claiming it is nonrefutable. There are some scathing exposes of how slippery Darwinian outlooks can be as well. I happen to think that both proposals are scientific and falsifiable, in the main. But this is just not to the heart of the matter. I object to someone saying, "Oh, so you mean you can't even define why ID is falsifiable? So in other words you admit you are an ignoramous and a fool?" I do not claim to be able to have good recall, to the point of articulating well, all these topics. Many of them I could do if it were the only question on the table. But many of these are just baiting questions and the answers are readily available if you read up in the various discussions.

I have to go to work shortly, and I can't stay up late again tonite, and I'm going away for a few days. I think I will be able to bring a laptop.

I'd like to have a look at the nylonase question, it interests me, and I want to see if it parallels antibiotic resistance. But it will be DAYS before I can get to it.

By the way, I had come across some antiDarwinian books perhaps 5 years ago, and was intrigued that they were written by secular people. It was long after that that I discovered the ID movement.

Look, the party scenario question is a good one, even though I answered it. You've persisted so OK. But again, DAYS. I gotta open my mail sometime. I have other interests that are more compelling to me than even this!

Paley,

The essay you linked is far from a simple one. Actually, your cut and paste yesterday wasn't either...could you state what thermodynamics question you think there is? Even if we don't pursue it as a topic, I'm interested. Where are your questions. I am afraid that your motive here is to have the chance to shred Denton, but that's OK. I'll go along. However, I still don't think he made the about face that people say. I think he is a person who has been looking for a long time, and his thinking has evolved. Of course he may backtrack on certain points. I believe people mistook his first book as a creaionist screed, when in fact he was really agnostic, and trying to clear the table, so to speak, of errors so that the real detective work could begin. Sure he took off in a hopeful new direction with his second book, but the one builds on the other.
By the way, I think someone made a remark that Berlinski dislikes ID. He's a maverick. Do you think that's so?
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,12:50

edit - pressed reply button prematurely. sorry
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,12:59

BWE,

My feeling from your post is that you asked me my views on God so that you could look for links to my inner creationist tendencies. I don't appreciate it because you appear to be trying too hard. Maybe the word belief was a poor choice. But it isn't faith, it is logic. Now, some people have come to the conclusion that God is everything, or all is one, through a mystical experience, or LSD.

Yes, of course science can study God. To what extent is the question.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does this struggle influence what is true? Does that muddy the ideal?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No. But it is important to have a strong commitment to truth as a first priority. Yet you can't ignore your own intuition. In the end, truth becomes something recognized. We have a kind of inner compass, or looking glass. It clouds things. It's a long process, of allowing your looking glass to become purified, so that your inner compass can line up better and better with truth. You have to be willing, but you can't throw your convictions out the window either. So what I find true today is hopefully, if I am sincere, clearer than my truth of yesterday.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do have one inkling about how the mind of God could be. Since God is the totality of everything, that everything could have an overarching mind. The way many religions describe God, it's as if he is a separte person who is essentially, here but not there. There but not here.
Is this inkling based on any evidence?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mostly it is logic, but also coupled with my sense that this universe, while it is the body of the impersonal God, is not without a mind.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,13:02

Shit! I did it again! What's wrong with me? I will continue...
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 25 2007,13:02

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,19:43)
Okay, a lot of people, without perhaps realizing it, are going at this like lawyers in a courtroom - more focused on the game of battle than finding truth. Because of this, there have been reams of accusations and sneering remarks, which I just don't have time to decently answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lady, you've walked into a room of curious, highly-opinionated people.  We're all taking time out of our schedules to ask you questions, give you things to read, argue with you.  We're so excited, we're all talking at once.  We've given you your own thread.

Just imagine, for a moment, whether the regulars at UD, in a comparable situation, would be anything like as interested in or ready to debate with someone from the "other side."    Actually, you don't need to imagine - most of us have already been banned from there, for simply wanting to raise the possibility that they might have gotten anything wrong.

This is what's called taking someone seriously - even if it can get a little rough around the edges.  So don't whine about "accusations" and "sneers."   Just be as honest and straightforward with everyone as they are all being with you.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,13:17

More BWE



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemplation does seem to lead to a different set of truths. Maybe on an internal dimension rather than an external dimension?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I do think that spiritual intuition and contemplation are of an internal dimension. That seems to be the best explanation. The fun is, bringing the experience of that dimension to this, and having such a richer experience.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, is god only knowable through contemplation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, no, I think there are other ways.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Little bit confused now. So, in this case, there is no such thing as a false idol, right? Because god is everything so if I hump a goat, I'm getting it on with god?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The goat isn't such a problem, but false ideas are.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Free of religion? Do you think jesus rose from the dead? Really and physically?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why are you asking about Jesus. He's enigmatic and I don't know how much of the Biblical stories are true, nor can we know. Too much obfuscation has occurred. Plus, I think that those stories can be legitimately interpreted in several ways and on several levels. The most material are the least important.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A relentless stripping of false idols until you are left with none.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, that's what I was getting at.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it possible to use thought and words and symbols and ideas to strip away samsara?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For me, yes!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well well. What did you get free of? Are you critical now? Critical of what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

gosh, I'm not quite sure why I feel free. The easy answer is free of the need for dogma, but there is something more subtle. Critical of Christianity as understood by them. I want to reform it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think I should be a xian? Is there any reason I should?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe after I get done with it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, why do you dislike the idea of common descent? If god is simply what is, then why name her at all? Why is understanding god always a prerequisite for not believing in evolution? Do you think it is bad science?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't care about common descent. I name God for convenience. I don't know that it is a prerequisite, although it's common enough. Perhaps belief in God allows one to see through Darwinian falsity? See, a theist can go either way as regards Darwinism, but an atheist, what choice do they have? I don't make global statements like it's bad science. An entire discipline with all the data it has turned up? The fact that we have strong contention is a spur and therefore a blessing in disguise.
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 25 2007,13:31

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:43)
I happen to think that both proposals are scientific and falsifiable, in the main. But this is just not to the heart of the matter. I object to someone saying, "Oh, so you mean you can't even define why ID is falsifiable? So in other words you admit you are an ignoramous and a fool?" I do not claim to be able to have good recall, to the point of articulating well, all these topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you are basically saying that you think ID is falisifiable, but you don't specifically know why.  So it sure looks like you're just talking out of your arse.
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 25 2007,13:33

Quote (heddle @ Jan. 25 2007,17:31)

Any way, I thought you were arguing that a separable God involved in designing the flagellum was somehow a "small" god. My point was: it is not necessarily so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, well it's difficult to know how to answer this.  First, as I've already made clear, I'm not a theist - so, clearly, I'm going to find a "separable," personal god to be lacking.  If I didn't, I would be some sort of theist.

My opinion, then, doesn't get to your question about whether a God visibly active in the world is a "small" God - and is compatible with Christian theism.  I've already said that there is an admirable current of Christian thought that does have a view of God more lofty than a supernatural cosmic tinkerer.  On the other hand, my opinion here counts for little since (1) I'm not a Christian, and quite vehemently reject the notion of the "supernatural" altogether and (2) millions upon millions of Christians (and other theists) are quite satisfied with that "version" of God.  On a purely empirical basis then, it seems indisputable that this kind of god is compatible with Christian theism.

But as to your specific statement: whether 'a separable God involved in designing the flagellum was somehow a "small" god.'  To this, I have to say that if there are Christians out there worshipping the God who made the flagellum, then yes, they are worshipping a very small God indeed.  Because - and it shouldn't need to be repeated - God didn't design the flagellum.  Or, at least, we have no compelling evidence that the flagellum is a special case, different from the countless other features of the natural world that the scientific method has explained.  The God of the flagellum is a chimaera; those who worship it are, as Francis Bacon put it, "seeking to gratify God with a lie."

I find it difficult to imagine quite how - or why - a separable God would fiddle with things.  There is the fact that no such "intervention" has ever been found - and every time one has been declared, closer investigation has uncovered natural causes.

But, for me, the problem is deeper than that.   This is probably a bit flippant, but I recall a conversation I had with some friends at the pub a few months ago.  None were "conventional theists," and they were discussing what might turn them into theists.  Someone suggested that if God sent down a plaque - or rearranged the stars - with a message along the lines of "This is God; I do exist; read the Bible - it's a more or less reliable guide to what I'm all about", then they would believe.  I couldn't disagree more.  In part, it's Hume's objection to miracles: I would find it less of a miracle to believe that I had gone insane, or that the human race was in the grip of a collective delusion, than to admit the much greater miracle of the suspension of the laws of nature.  But even more so, the whole scenario struck me as tacky.  Cheap.  Cheesy.  To be the ground of being of the universe, and yet so insecure as to wish to compel belief by violating your own laws of nature - that's a small god, and not one I want to know.  The bacterial flagellum - if it turned out to be proof positive of supernatural intervention - would be just such a calling card from a two-bit deity.

EDIT: Fixed quote problem.  And BWE, cheers! just saw your post.  and you should encourage your colleague to join us legitimately!  :D
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 25 2007,13:34

Hello Altiban,

I've got 5 minutes left. so I can't do your post justice. I also love the gnostic stuff. The scientific pantheist site I visited once, but that just doesn't quite cut it for me. Essentially I agree with you, yet I also think there is just way more going on to this puzzle, this pandora's box that Darwin et al opened, than anyone had a clue of, and probably still don't. That's why it is so confusing right now. I mean, this thing is BIG. However, I still do see evidence of the kind of design that they ascribe to the tinkering God. I just don't think God is the one responsible. There is no reason to suppose that the gap goes from humans to the Godhead. There could be other inelligences, they could be disembodied intelligences, they could be lightly-bodied intelligences. I was serious when I propsed that DNA might be a living spirit.

The struggle I speak of does not simply concern evolution, but the nature of God and my relationship to that. There is the question of impersonal love. As I said the other day, the evolution of life stumps me for these reasons. I have some vague, barely articulated ideas about how evolution might be natural to the nature of God-universe. But that makes it somewhat inevitable, and that is not really Darwinism. However life unfolded, it was done from within.
Yes, I agree that most Christians are dualists and have a very limited notion of God.

By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions. Just another interesting angle. Yeah, Behe apparently made an off the cuff remark that God poofed the flagellum into existence. I don't know if he really thinks that, but I sure don't. However life got here, it unfolded in an absolutely normal manner. But I don't mean normal in the sense of matter left to its own devices.

I don't accept the idea of the supernatural. No meaning for me.

What I want to reform about christianity is that while consciousness and the lack thereof is ultimately responsible for lowly views of God and the cosmos, I find that Christianity locks people into it, fails to encourage them to grow and even requires them to stay put.

And this is one reason I find Denton so exciting. He's hot on the trail of he's not sure what.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 25 2007,13:36

Oh that poor traumatized goat... ;)
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 25 2007,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, I said I don't want to get sidetracked into falsifiability. It would be fine if this were a normal sedate discussion. I have seen good responses to this, and I have little doubt the poster could find them. Behe made a nice answer, in which he calls people on the fact that they refute ID will claiming it is nonrefutable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The theory of ID, if you can find someone who will actually spell it out, is not falsifiable. The evidence that they use, they believe, is positive evidence for ID, but usually turns out to be negative arguments against evolution or arguments from incredulity. Here, then, is the logical fallacy:
We see A, therefore evolution is wrong.
Intelligent design is correct.

or

Evolution can't explain A yet.
Therefore Intelligent design.

Personally, I don't like to think that God exists in these "margins of science", because if we find some material explanation down the road, His domain shrinks.  But this movement has never been about the science, and to not know that is not to know the history of intelligent design.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 25 2007,14:24

Re "See, a theist can go either way as regards Darwinism, but an atheist, what choice do they have?"

An atheist might conclude that there are processes at work that haven't been discovered yet - so they do have a choice regarding acceptance of the current theory.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2007,15:03

Avocationist:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley,

The essay you linked is far from a simple one. Actually, your cut and paste yesterday wasn't either...could you state what thermodynamics question you think there is? Even if we don't pursue it as a topic, I'm interested. Where are your questions. I am afraid that your motive here is to have the chance to shred Denton, but that's OK. I'll go along. However, I still don't think he made the about face that people say. I think he is a person who has been looking for a long time, and his thinking has evolved. Of course he may backtrack on certain points. I believe people mistook his first book as a creaionist screed, when in fact he was really agnostic, and trying to clear the table, so to speak, of errors so that the real detective work could begin. Sure he took off in a hopeful new direction with his second book, but the one builds on the other.
By the way, I think someone made a remark that Berlinski dislikes ID. He's a maverick. Do you think that's so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm afraid there's no thermodynamic relevance to any of my links -- I'm just criticising Denton's claim that the cytochrome c protein casts doubt on evolution because if you calculate the distance between a bacteria's cytochrome c protein and an "advanced" critter like myself, then the distance should be large, because advanced creatures are very complex and evolved.

Now take a primitive creature like, say, SteveStory. Since Steve hasn't evolved much from primordial slime, his cytochrome protein should be a lot closer to the bacteria's, because Steve is an intermediate between bacteria and real humans. But wait....scientists have found instead that Steve's slug-like protein is just as far removed from a bacteria's as yours is, or a tuna's, or a dog's, or what have you. This suggests to Denton that each basic "type" of creature is unrelated to another "type" of creature, with no way to connect the dots.

But what if each modern type of creature is descended from a single, common ancestor that was an intermediate between bacteria and "higher" creatures? Then we shouldn't be surprised that all modern creatures are equally related to bacteria, because they've had equal amounts of time to evolve in their own direction! (Notice this assumes that the changes are proceeding at a roughly steady, clocklike rate). It follows that the best strategy is to choose a modern creature (a human, let us say) and compare its protein with other advanced animals. According to evolution, you should see different distances between the proteins now, because all complex creatures have recent ancestors that are not common to other animals' recent kin. For example, evolution predicts that humans and chimps should have very similar molecules, since they share a recent ancestor that a horse wouldn't (although all three would share an older ancestor, of course). Therefore, chimp and human proteins haven't had as much time to diverge from each other as each one has had to diverge from a horse's protein. Therfore, a horse's protein should be more different from our protein than a chimp's is. And we find that it is.

More later.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 25 2007,15:53

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:59)
Yes, of course science can study God. To what extent is the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems to me that I've asked you this the last time you had a thread.  How are you going to scientifically test for god?

I'm not the only one who wants to know, others here have asked as well.  You couldn't answer it then, and you can't answer it now.
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 25 2007,16:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Essentially I agree with you, yet I also think there is just way more going on to this puzzle, this pandora's box that Darwin et al opened, than anyone had a clue of, and probably still don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled pantheist.

(With apologies to Richard Dawkins).
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 25 2007,17:29

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:34)
By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't see that one coming!

Did anyone else have to read it three times?

Avo, dare I ask, why do you have this belief?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 25 2007,18:07

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,00:47)
You want my hypothetical tests for ID. I don't thin I am qualified to come up with that.


I never intended to be a one person encyclopedia of knowledge about ID. There are others far better than me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One quick question for you, Avo ---- since, as you admit, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, why should anyone, anywhere,m at any time, give a flying fig WHAT you think about the subject?

Can you answer that simple question for me?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 25 2007,18:12

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,02:27)
My religion is a religion of one. I contemplate. I search for truth and deeper wisdom. I think in terms of consciousness. People are, for the most part, in a state of partial unconsciousness. I seek to increase my consciousness. This is nondifferent from knowing God. Our individuality within this unity is a mystery, it keeps me fascinated and fulfilled; that is why I think we can know and have a relationship with God; it is the bridal chamber Jesus spoke of.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, quit bogarting and pass that bong down HERE, #### it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 25 2007,18:17

Quote (heddle @ Jan. 25 2007,09:18)
Regardless of the truth of Behe/Dembski ID (and Dembski’s, based on faulty mathematics, is trivially false), you have not made any case that ID per se is incompatible with the “Christian” god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who cares.  After all, ID ain't about religion, right? Or are they, uh, just lying to us about that . . . . . ?


BTW, Heddle, I just KNEW that you wouldn't be able to shut up about your religious opinions for TWO posts in a row . . . .

(Insert standard statement here pointing out that you're not any holier than anyone else, you don't know any more about God than anyone else, and your religious opinions ain't any better than anyone else's.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 25 2007,18:20

Quote (don_quixote @ Jan. 25 2007,17:29)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:34)
By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't see that one coming!

Did anyone else have to read it three times?

Avo, dare I ask, why do you have this belief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Avo, tell everyone about the ley lines.

And your aura.


(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 25 2007,18:42

I had a look at Denton's arguments on cytochrome-c back in < the early 1990s >.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 25 2007,22:42

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,02:53)
Mike,
I do like learning most anything. I think my main question is can we not see the law(s) of entropy at work in every day situations. The very fact that when the organism dies, the forces that work against it cease, allowing entropy to increase, seems to validate my point.
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo,
I'll restate what I said before about Entropy.

Entropy is a defined variable used in the balance equations known as Thermodynamics.  Entropy doesn't "exist" as its own, unique force or system.

When you mis-use scientific terms like Entropy then people who DO understand Thermodynamics look at you funny.  Your usage just doesn't make sense.

At present I don't care if you call what you believe a disorganizing force and an organizing force (yin and yang) but just DON'T use Entropy in the discussion.  It doesn't fit (to those who know Thermodynamics) into your description.

You could use Entropy as an analogy of your disorganizing force, but I would avoid that too.

In my eyes the whole Entropy/Thermodynamic discussion is a good example of showing you how arguing points against well established scientific principles leads to a god-of-the-gaps type conclusion.  ALWAYS.  As we "drill down" deeper into details of these scientific principles then you eventually reach some basic mathematical functions like the cosmological constant or the Heisenberg Uncertainty constant.  When we eventually get to that level of detail then the discussion becomes "How many angels fit within the gap spacing of a proton quark."  The proverbial "Where's Waldo" of the evo/creo debate.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd like to have a look at the nylonase question, it interests me, and I want to see if it parallels antibiotic resistance. But it will be DAYS before I can get to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for answering.  Here's the Permalink to the original post.

< Nylon Bug Question Permalink >

Mike PSS
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 26 2007,00:34

Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work? And how in the he11 does this bring us to God of the gaps? Your assumptions are showing. I have explained three times that that is not what I'm groping toward.

Paley,
I know there is no thermodynamic relevance to your links. But you had just asked if anyone was going to answer your thermodynamics questions. I was in a hurry, and didn't write clearly.

ID is falsifiable if things like IC can be acounted for.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution can't explain A yet.
Therefore Intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the end, I can see only two choices. Ether there is a mind involved in the whole process of this cosmos, or there isn't. They aren't the same at all, and they won't look the same. I would just not worry too much about diminishing God by finding natural explanations. The question is, do we live in a universe with a mind or not. The idea that God shrinks is downright silly. Supposedly, people were real deflated when they figured out angels didn't push the planets around. So they said God lost a job. What nonsense. Isn't the truth more magnificent, the planning more impressive? The old way of looking at things was like a fairy tale, with a magic-wand God. God's domain can never shrink. It is a nonproblem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just imagine, for a moment, whether the regulars at UD, in a comparable situation, would be anything like as interested in or ready to debate with someone from our side
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure, they would. You guys just keep disappearing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What about (using Behe's irreducible complexity) other functions of the flagellum? Such as the e coli genome and base pairs? Is the flagellum's specification merely reliant upon the rotary itself? Well umm NO. If we take the blueprint o a flagellum (e coli genome/dna molecular function) can it be stripped from the flagellum (referring to the other subsystems of the flagellum)? It can't. So is using Behe's irreducibly complex systemisation to create his specified complex system, valid in this argument? No. Because it is applying variables where there are none.

In a nutshell: Dembski takes into consideration the rotary of the bacterium, disjointly and rather casually ignoring its subsystems to create a system based on redefinition of scientific terminology to make things "fit".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First paragraph, if it could be rewritten in more regular English, second paragraph, what subsystems?

Cedric,

I guess I don't find the issue of God quite as important to the ID discussion as other people do. Some people just don't want to see any God or weird reality at all. Some people believe in God in a very faraway, nonvibrant form, and they want him to stay in his place. Any overlap between science, which is the study of reality, and God which is the source of said reality, is very uncomfortable. Some people, really want their anthropomorphised and sanitized God of their ego gratification to be true. Some people want a God who is grand and not petty, and it is horrifying to them to contemplate one who would poof a flagellum. Miller might be like that. Some just don't want to see God get diminished by natural explanations for things. They are embarrassed for poor God and don't want any humiliation for her.

The God of my understanding is pretty invulnerable, but I do see the situation (and tried in vain before to express it) as a divide between pure atheism, and all others. Deists, theists, religionists - they are all on one side. Because once you posit a God the deck is stacked and it is just a matter of what level of involvement you want to subscribe to. We are either in a God universe or we aren't, and as Dawkins has blessedly understood, they aren't the same ball of wax.

Now, why did I write this post to you...had to go back and reread yours a few times. It was where you questioned my  finding ID it intellectually satisfying.
But I think if you have kept up with my earlier posts, you'll see I envision the natural world unfolding in a step by step way, however I think this whole shebang isn't chance, and isn't a result of willy nilly interactions of matter.

I don't find a tinkering God at all satisfying, and I think of the whole universe from its inception as one unified system. The parts of ID that I think are strong are the information arguments, and also the IC arguments. I liked the Meyer paper for a pretty readable rundown of the information arguments.

I suppose it is offensive that a bunch of people are not only  into ID, but in their minds they know good and well who did it, the God of the Bible. But I see ID as simply that we are at a crossroads right now - there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.

I just don't find Darwinian mechanisms compelling. I don't expect either side to win, although I think ID is correct. I think we are working on a puzzle that is very, very hard, and without enough pieces we keep trying to interpret the whole.

Neither Dawkins nor the fundies will get their desire, because neither are correct in their assumptions. IMHO
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 26 2007,01:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the end, I can see only two choices. Ether there is a mind involved in the whole process of this cosmos, or there isn't. They aren't the same at all, and they won't look the same. I would just not worry too much about diminishing God by finding natural explanations. The question is, do we live in a universe with a mind or not. The idea that God shrinks is downright silly. Supposedly, people were real deflated when they figured out angels didn't push the planets around. So they said God lost a job. What nonsense. Isn't the truth more magnificent, the planning more impressive? The old way of looking at things was like a fairy tale, with a magic-wand God. God's domain can never shrink. It is a nonproblem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree, but what you've just stated is not a theory of ID, it's a creationist (philosophical) argument, all or nothing. ID wants to have it both ways: X can be observed naturally, therefore supernatural explanation. It masquerades as science until it draws a conclusion. Unfortunately for ID, scientists can see through the bullshit. (I should say, to keep with the logical fallacies, true scientists can see through the bullshit)

edit - scotsman
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 26 2007,01:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How? Be precise. Don't just point to Dembski's mathemagical tripe.

In regard to UD tolerating people from *here*...posting THERE, you say:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, they would. You guys just keep disappearing.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, "disappearing" by  being banned for mere disagreement twice, in my case. And for posting evidence supporting my position.

I don't expect you to answer my first question. You can't, not in any honest way. Sure, you can spew out a fountain of words, but they will contain little semantic content, and even less actual scientifically-sound information.

Nor can you support much else of your odd little belief system, I suspect. I am not saying this to be insulting, just as an observation.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2007,01:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ID is falsifiable if things like IC can be acounted for.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Wrong >.

I do wish some ID advocates would learn what "falsifiability" means, and then take up the job of instructing Behe, Dembski, and others about it.
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 26 2007,01:39

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,07:34)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just imagine, for a moment, whether the regulars at UD, in a comparable situation, would be anything like as interested in or ready to debate with someone from our side
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure, they would. You guys just keep disappearing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You see, when a spirited conversation starts up at UD and then the person offering a dissenting view stops posting, that's because he/she's been banned.  Sometimes Dave or even Dembski makes some remark like "So-and-so is no longer with us."  That's what banning looks like.  (And that's to say nothing about any number of critical -- thoughtfully, politely critical -- posts are submitted to any given thread, but get weeded out before they even appear.  This fact is also often mentioned by the moderators - about comments being caught in the moderation queue, about the hard work they have sifting through all the comments).

It seems, avocationist, that you're not very good at paying attention to evidence, and this is just another example of your apparently willful blindness.

You "think" that ID is true, but cannot offer a single plausible reason for your conviction.  It seems that you want it to be true, because a universe with a disembodied mind hanging around in it is preferable to you than one without.  The problem is, the universe doesn't care what you want.

You "think" that space aliens visited the earth - but I'm willing to put down good money - or even a bottle of scotch! - that you have no better reason for thinking so than that you wish it were so.

You seem to rely entirely on the truthiness of propositions; yet insist on telling "Darwinists" that they are in a conspiracy to ignore the evidence.  BWE's mystery poster made a very good point: everyone here has looked at ID, checked out the evidence, discovered that there is nothing there and moved on.   You whine about the insults and accusations you've received, but take a moment to think about how profoundly you insult the intelligence and character of these people when you act this way.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 26 2007,06:28

{at the party}
[Cedric and Advo are sitting down. Advo's long awaited rundown of her scientific argument for ID is about to begin.  Don joins them and Cedric gets him a comfy chair too.]
                             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do not claim to be able to have good recall
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Never mind. Fortunately for us all, this party is happening over the Internet.  If you forget something, you can just do a quick check-up of your facts at the appropriate reference site of your choice and then pop back into the discussion.  I do it all the time. (conspiratorial wink)
                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But many of these are just baiting questions...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Advo, as the guy who got you the comfy chair, I promise you I am not interested in baiting you.
I WILL be on your case about getting straight answers from you, however!  Your time is precious and you have a life to lead and e-mails to send etc.  Well yeah, but then again so do the rest of us.
I don't want you to give me the runaround and just have you wave your hands in my face if I ask you a straight question.  That kind of selfish and dishonest behaviour does not make me happy at all.  I'll be fair and direct and honest in this discussion and I trust that you will do the same. Deal?
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the answers are readily available if you read up in the various discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt they are, I'll get around to reading them one day when I find the time.  But right now, we're here at the party.  What say you let your hair down, cast caution to the wind and give me your rundown of your understanding of a scientific argument for ID?  Here, let me top that glass up for you...
[Cedric and Don look expectantly at Advo]
                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don: I didn't see that one coming!

[Cedric's eyes bulge slightly in disbelief but waits patiently for Advo to begin her rundown of a scientific argument for ID]

Then Advo begins...
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The God of my understanding is blah, blah, blah a divide between pure atheism, blah, blah Deists, theists, religionists...blah, blah...Because once you posit a God, blah, blah  God universe blah...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Cedric says nothing but the ghostly images of Dempski and DaveScot start jumping up and down frantically.  They look rather upset]

             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I envision the natural world unfolding in a step by step way, however I think this whole shebang isn't chance, and isn't a result of willy nilly interactions of matter.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Cedric waits patiently for Advo to begin her rundown of her version of a scientific argument for ID.]
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't find a tinkering God at all satisfying, and I think of the whole universe from its inception as one unified system. The parts of ID that I think are strong are the information arguments, and also the IC arguments. I liked the Meyer paper for a pretty readable rundown of the information arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahah! See? See?? SEE!!!
(Especially you, Louis! :)
I plan on collecting that drink, bucko.)    :) :) :)
I just KNEW that if I was POLITE and endlessly PATIENT that I could finally get Advo to give me her scientific argument for ID!
Wow, sometimes I impress even myself!

[Cedric rushes over to the stereo and turns it off, much to the annoyance of the other guests]

Well People, Advo is finally warmed up and is going to launch into her much-anticipated scientific argument for ID.  Apparantly, she's going to touch on information arguments, IC arguments and will borrow heavily from the Meyer paper.

(Sorry for the interuption there, Advo.  Go ahead. Let's get into the meat of it.)
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose it is offensive that a bunch of people are not only  into ID, but in their minds they know good and well who did it, the God of the Bible. But I see ID as simply that we are at a crossroads right now - there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.
I just don't find Darwinian mechanisms compelling. I don't expect either side to win, although I think ID is correct. I think we are working on a puzzle that is very, very hard, and without enough pieces we keep trying to interpret the whole.
Neither Dawkins nor the fundies will get their desire, because neither are correct in their assumptions. IMHO

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Cedric's jaw drops open. His drink falls from his suddenly useless fingers onto the floor and rolls under the sofa.]
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 26 2007,06:50

Cedric,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ahah! See? See?? SEE!!!
(Especially you, Louis! :)
I plan on collecting that drink, bucko.)    :) :) :)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bugger!

{Gets cash and car key for trip to beer shop}



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Sorry for the interuption there, Advo.  Go ahead. Let's get into the meat of it.)

QuoteI suppose it is offensive that a bunch of people are not only  into ID, but in their minds they know good and well who did it, the God of the Bible. But I see ID as simply that we are at a crossroads right now - there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.
I just don't find Darwinian mechanisms compelling. I don't expect either side to win, although I think ID is correct. I think we are working on a puzzle that is very, very hard, and without enough pieces we keep trying to interpret the whole.
Neither Dawkins nor the fundies will get their desire, because neither are correct in their assumptions. IMHO
/Quote

[Cedric's jaw drops open. His drink falls from his suddenly useless fingers onto the floor and rolls under the sofa.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh wait....

BWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{Puts cash back in wallet and key back on hook}

Louis

P.S. Space aliens and the argument from personal incredulity coupled to a bog standard  false dichotomy do not evidence make. Colour me extremely bored with this latest incarnation of IDCist. Sorry to break your heart Avocationist, but, WOW.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 26 2007,07:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work? And how in the he11 does this bring us to God of the gaps? Your assumptions are showing. I have explained three times that that is not what I'm groping toward.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We see it in our very bodies (for a description). Over time our bodies lack the disposition to process as it once does. Our conversion for energy and agility is reduced over time (sometimes called the aging process).

Entropy *is* mathematical. It is meaningless away from its formula. If you try and describe entropy to a engineer, a quantum physicist or a biologist, while there will be strong similarities, because of the way each application of entropy is applied (mathematically) among the various fields, the sum won't always be the same.

Serendipity.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 26 2007,07:18

"Colour me extremely bored with this latest incarnation of IDCist."

I don't know, actually.  I mean, futile attempt at refuting evolution theory she knows nothing about based on ID evidence she can't remember (but sounded good at the time) and add to that space aliens into the mix?  it's definately better than Heddle's quantum (G*d) chemistry.  I just wish I had a crate of beer.  Guess I'll have to settle for a virtual one.   :)
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 26 2007,07:22

I just had a small debate in Yahoo Chat with a long time known (in Yahoo Chat) creationist/intelligent design promoter. Perhaps if a creationist can view what other creationists attempt to do, they will be able to better peruse their arguments before posting.

1:37:43 AM  crashtested_dummy: sex and evolution doesnt mix
1:39:13 AM  crashtested_dummy: its closer to the truth than evolutionists try purport
1:39:46 AM  crashtested_dummy: jo tell them they cannot have sex in evoluyion
1:39:59 AM  crashtested_dummy: im sure you have researched by now lol
1:40:25 AM  Fractatious: Then you need to read Dr. Rices' "bad genes good genes through sex"
1:40:34 AM  Fractatious: But you've been told this many times Cary.
1:41:28 AM  crashtested_dummy: but they can postulate the beginnings of the universe
1:41:55 AM  crashtested_dummy: but not how any  mode of reproduction evolved
1:41:56 AM  Fractatious: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the mechanism of evolution.
1:42:01 AM  Fractatious: You have also been told that many times.
1:42:21 AM  Fractatious: Cary, don't start.
1:42:30 AM  crashtested_dummy: im talking of all the modes of reproduction
1:42:58 AM  Fractatious: Yes and the modes of reproduction and procreation can be dealt with biologically without the necessity of cosmology.
1:43:00 AM  crashtested_dummy: all evolving supposedly at seperate times on the supposed evolutionary tree
1:43:21 AM  crashtested_dummy: jo
1:43:36 AM  crashtested_dummy: they cant explain how any evolved
1:43:52 AM  Fractatious: You are not wanting to know evolution you are wanting to know abiogenesis.
1:44:10 AM  Fractatious: Which you have been taught about for like 7 years.
1:44:30 AM  crashtested_dummy: ABIO is the beginning of life
1:44:57 AM  crashtested_dummy: im talking about beginnings of any mode of  sex reproduction
1:45:04 AM  Fractatious: Cary: Abiogenesis occurred. That's obvious. How it occurred is up for debate. Evolution is an ongoing process. Its a mechanism.
1:45:42 AM  Fractatious: "Beginnings of any mode of sex reproduction" incorporates both abiogenesis and biogenesis.
1:45:47 AM  crashtested_dummy: how cme NONE Can be explained
1:46:01 AM  crashtested_dummy: THINK JO
1:46:09 AM  crashtested_dummy: you are asmart girl
1:46:30 AM  crashtested_dummy: JO
1:46:45 AM  Fractatious: Cary: Stop being insulting. First you confuse the terms. Then restate your position. Then ask impossible questions. Science is not solidified on the exact mechanism of biogenesis therefore does not pretend to have one.
1:47:12 AM  crashtested_dummy: my point is,..................
1:47:19 AM  Fractatious: You have NO point.
1:47:32 AM  Fractatious: Because you are introducing extraordinary fallacies.
1:47:37 AM  crashtested_dummy: they can explain the beginnings of the universe...............
1:47:55 AM  crashtested_dummy: but not how any of the modes of reproduction evolved
1:47:58 AM  crashtested_dummy: WHY
1:48:16 AM  crashtested_dummy: because sex cannot evolve viat evolution
1:48:32 AM  crashtested_dummy: in cannot be made sense of
1:48:42 AM  crashtested_dummy: it is not Rational
1:49:13 AM  crashtested_dummy: thats why they cannot explain how the forms odf sex evolved
1:49:36 AM  crashtested_dummy: jo
1:49:49 AM  Fractatious: You've argued this moot point for years, Cary.
1:50:05 AM  crashtested_dummy: they evolved their modes of reproduction seperately do you agree on that
1:50:43 AM  Fractatious: Cary: You stated earlier that it can't be known. So why would I agree to you suddenly knowing?
1:51:01 AM  crashtested_dummy: maybe its moot to you but i think its quite POIGNANT
1:51:13 AM  Fractatious: It's not going to get you laid.
1:51:25 AM  Fractatious: I'm serious.
1:51:34 AM  crashtested_dummy: it cannot be logically explained
1:51:44 AM  crashtested_dummy: cannot be RATIONALIZED..............
1:51:51 AM  crashtested_dummy: so what is SEX................
1:51:59 AM  crashtested_dummy: its a MIRACLE
1:52:07 AM  Fractatious: Good. So if there is no logical or rational explanation - then this discussion is moot.
1:52:12 AM  crashtested_dummy: you atheists believe in Miracles lol
1:52:22 AM  crashtested_dummy: not so
1:52:36 AM  Fractatious: Yes so. The only other alternative is an illogical and non rational explanation.
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 26 2007,07:51

{At the party. Everyone is staring open mouthed at Avo. The only sound is a faint, disembodied "BWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA", which seems to be coming from miles away}

Me: Err.. Avo, you've got a bit of.... on your.... just there.... he11, let me.

{Don wipes the mouth-froth from Avo's chin with a handkerchief}

Me: Cedric, what the feck was that drink you just gave her? An LSD Martini?

{Don backs away from Avo, slowly}

Me: I have to go over here now. Bye.

==============

Darth Robo said "I just wish I had a crate of beer.  Guess I'll have to settle for a virtual one."

Hey, if you can imagine it, it's real! Right, Avo? AFDave? Anyone?
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 26 2007,07:58

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 25 2007,22:42)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,02:53)
Mike,
I do like learning most anything. I think my main question is can we not see the law(s) of entropy at work in every day situations. The very fact that when the organism dies, the forces that work against it cease, allowing entropy to increase, seems to validate my point.
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo,
I'll restate what I said before about Entropy.

Entropy is a defined variable used in the balance equations known as Thermodynamics.  Entropy doesn't "exist" as its own, unique force or system.

When you mis-use scientific terms like Entropy then people who DO understand Thermodynamics look at you funny.  Your usage just doesn't make sense.

At present I don't care if you call what you believe a disorganizing force and an organizing force (yin and yang) but just DON'T use Entropy in the discussion.  It doesn't fit (to those who know Thermodynamics) into your description.

You could use Entropy as an analogy of your disorganizing force, but I would avoid that too.

In my eyes the whole Entropy/Thermodynamic discussion is a good example of showing you how arguing points against well established scientific principles leads to a god-of-the-gaps type conclusion.  ALWAYS.  As we "drill down" deeper into details of these scientific principles then you eventually reach some basic mathematical functions like the cosmological constant or the Heisenberg Uncertainty constant.  When we eventually get to that level of detail then the discussion becomes "How many angels fit within the gap spacing of a proton quark."  The proverbial "Where's Waldo" of the evo/creo debate.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd like to have a look at the nylonase question, it interests me, and I want to see if it parallels antibiotic resistance. But it will be DAYS before I can get to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for answering.  Here's the Permalink to the original post.

< Nylon Bug Question Permalink >

Mike PSS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like your point there so; Entropy is like Time,
neither once purchased, can be returned for credit.
Posted by: improvius on Jan. 26 2007,08:33

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,01:34)
Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think about my earlier question.  We see equilibrium only in very isolated systems.  It's easy enough to demonstrate in the lab.  But when you look at the real world, you'll see all kinds of forces constantly at work.  Even if you were to remove every living organism from the planet, you'd still have energy being transfered from lightning, wind, rain, sunlight, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.  As you can see, we have no shortage of natural forces to prevent planetary equilibrium.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 26 2007,08:40

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 26 2007,08:33)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,01:34)
Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think about my earlier question.  We see equilibrium only in very isolated systems.  It's easy enough to demonstrate in the lab.  But when you look at the real world, you'll see all kinds of forces constantly at work.  Even if you were to remove every living organism from the planet, you'd still have energy being transfered from lightning, wind, rain, sunlight, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.  As you can see, we have no shortage of natural forces to prevent planetary equilibrium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well said. Saying that - what is the argument for Intelligent Design?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 26 2007,08:40

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,01:34)
Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I and Serendipity and Creeky (and others) have stated is that when you invoke "Entropy" into your arguments then you have to INCLUDE all the other Thermodynamic variables too.  Because Entropy is not a stand-alone state but a variable contained within Thermodynamic balance equations.  I suggested that you just drop any reference to Entropy in your arguments.  You can talk all day about universal equilibrium and disorganizing forces but the moment you use Entropy to describe any of these concepts you are introducing Thermodynamics into the discussion.  And I will THEN ask you to give me the actual (or estimated) VALUE of S (Entropy) and some of the other Thermodynamic VALUES (A, H, U, G) OR the environmental conditions (P, T, V, N, m, ...).

The "public" use of Entropy (and SLoT) is historical in nature primarily because of the evo/creo debate.  This doesn't make Entropy any more seperable from Thermodynamics.  This DOES cause confusion with people who DON'T understand the mathematics and basic concepts of Thermodynamics.

In this case I invoke Lenny.  "I don't care what you "think" Entropy should represent."  There are pages and posts that clearly explain and define what Entropy represents.  And you are clearly misusing and misrepresenting the Thermodynamic variable called Entropy.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And how in the he11 does this bring us to God of the gaps? Your assumptions are showing. I have explained three times that that is not what I'm groping toward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The god of the gaps argument will result when you challange or invoke any well established scientific principle to support your points.  If you invoke Entropy in an argument about the universe (or the earth, or your socks, doesn't matter) then I can look into Thermodynamics (remember, Entropy is a variable) and find out it uses the absolute temeperature scale as a basis of measurement.  I then ask you to define your argument in terms of Thermodynamics.  If you CAN'T define your system in these terms (the well established balance equations of Thermodynamics) then your argument HAS TO EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE DEFINED SYSTEM (TEMPERATURE SCALE IN THIS CASE).

Now you have some choices for your argument...
1) Redefine your argument to avoid invoking Thermodynamics in the first place.
2) State that your argument lies outside the established bounds of Thermodynamics.
3) Overturn Thermodynamic theory so you can carry on with your argument.

I suggested you go with 1).
You disagree (or don't quite understand the implications) so I said you will find out that your argument will invoke 2).
I really don't think you want to try 3).

Remember, you can always define your argument in Thermodynamic terms but I think we'll be checking your math too.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 26 2007,08:48

Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 26 2007,08:58)
I like your point there so; Entropy is like Time,
neither once purchased, can be returned for credit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In a closed system.  :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 26 2007,09:35

Avocationist:

I hope I explained the central objection to Denton's cytochrome c arguments passably well. Denton has several counterarguments against the molecular clock, and that's what my links were addressing. Keep in mind that Cytochrome C is a very important protein with a low-to-moderate mutation rate, so the assumptions of the molecular clock here are not so bad. In any case, the scientists are getting a better handle on how to deal with mutational variation among different lineages and molecules. < Here's one example among many. >

I can't recommend Max highly enough -- his essay will reward the time it takes to read it. I think that the existence of pseudogenes is the very best evidence of common descent.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 26 2007,09:58

I forgot to address your other questions.

I agree that Berlinski is a maverick, but sometimes he makes overly provocative statements when the scientists aren't listening and then he has to backpeddle somewhat when they take him at face value. But please note that Berlinski's beef is with the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, not evolution proper. None of the observed mechanisms driving evolution run contrary to the Second Law so long as the animals eat.  :)

Berlinski has a point when he complains that scientists haven't demonstrated that naturalistic abiogenesis is thermodynamically plausible, especially in the earlier going when you can't call upon RNA polymerases* to do the assembly work. But they very well may demonstrate this in the future.

*i.e. not to be confused with the modern DNA enzymes by the same name. We're talking about prebiotic scenarios here.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 26 2007,10:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Berlinski has a point when he complains that scientists haven't demonstrated that naturalistic abiogenesis is thermodynamically plausible, especially in the earlier going when you can't call upon RNA polymerases to do the assembly work. But they very well may demonstrate this in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, he really doesn't. This is like saying that chemistry isn't thermodynamically plausible.

Many polymers form perfectly happily without (RNA) polymerases. As indeed do a wqealth of "complex" molecules, both chiral and achiral. Full, modern, polymeric nucleotides haven't been found to form without biological scaffolding (enzymes etc) but this seriously isn't the point. This is a standard creationist canard GoP: "From Goo to You". Some people put in "Via the zoo". Nobody expects a) the Spanish Inquisition or b) modern polymeric nucleotides to pop into existence without some form of "scaffolding".

The fact that a modern system doesn't survive too well without it's modern scaffolding does not mean that a) said scaffolding always had to exist or that b) the systems were always the modern ones.

Berlinki's drawing an ever retreating line in the sand and using funny maths to obfuscate it. You've been told this before, and guess what, you didn't believe it then. Why not actually learn some science BEFORE expecting all scientists to refute the drivel of creationists that you happen to find personally compelling because it fits into your worldview?

Oh wait. I know the answer to this don't I.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 27 2007,08:07

But if Louis is correct, then why hasn't anyone produced the relevant papers? The only < Louis-approved > < thermo paper > relies in part on the enzymatic action of RNA nucleic acids, just like I said. I'm only arguing that the no one has produced a detailed scenario yet, not that the scenario is impossible. I'm willing to learn more about the subject, however.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 28 2007,01:54

Troll,

I've just deleted the post I was making. There's no point. Read my previous post you total shithead, it answers the question.

Louis
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 28 2007,23:43

I just lost about two hours of work in wihch I answered all posts since I left, and was on the final poster, when my server failed or computer locked up, which is always very discouraging.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 29 2007,00:47

As regards the nylon eating bacteria, the paper cited was a bit technical (and also I'm having trouble with pdf links and I think it is the reason my computer shut down), but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation. Then ther's the problem I can't cut and paste from the article because it's in pdf. I was going to ask for clarification of a couple of things.

My understanding of antibiotic resistance is 1) that it is being found that bacteria have a way of turning on mutations that are directed toward solving a problem, and 2) that they usually involve either a reshuffling of some sort or actually a loss of information or functionality. In reading around on the net, I found a couple of references to frame shifting alteration as the source of their ability to ingest nylon:

The bacteria were examined and compared with others of their species and it was discovered that a particular frame shift mutation (which means that a gene got read at a slightly different starting point and slightly different ending point) allowed that bacteria to break down the nylon and obtain energy from that process. But not a LOT of energy. It wasn't a highly competent design because the bacteria weren't extracting a lot of energy from the process, just enough to get by. And it was based on a simply frame shift reading of a gene that had other uses. But with a simple frame shift of a gene that was already there, it could now "eat" nylon. Future mutations, perhaps point mutations inside that gene, could conceivably heighten the energy gain of the nylon decomp process, and allow the bacteria to truly feast and reproduce faster and more plentifully on just nylon, thus leading perhaps in time to an irreducibly complex arrangement between bacteria who live solely on nylon and a man-made fiber produced only by man.

Nor does this address the problems associated with speciation, as opposed to fine tuning of an organism to suit an environment.

I'll just keep these short, so I don't lose them.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 29 2007,01:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My understanding of antibiotic resistance is 1) that it is being found that bacteria have a way of turning on mutations that are directed toward solving a problem
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 29 2007,01:24

Creeky Belly,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Me:  In the end, I can see only two choices. Ether there is a mind involved in the whole process of this cosmos, or there isn't. They aren't the same at all, and they won't look the same. I would just not worry too much about diminishing God by finding natural explanations. The question is, do we live in a universe with a mind or not. The idea that God shrinks is downright silly. Supposedly, people were real deflated when they figured out angels didn't push the planets around. So they said God lost a job. What nonsense. Isn't the truth more magnificent, the planning more impressive? The old way of looking at things was like a fairy tale, with a magic-wand God. God's domain can never shrink. It is a nonproblem.

You:  I agree, but what you've just stated is not a theory of ID, it's a creationist (philosophical) argument, all or nothing. ID wants to have it both ways: X can be observed naturally, therefore supernatural explanation. It masquerades as science until it draws a conclusion. Unfortunately for ID, scientists can see through the bullshit. (I should say, to keep with the logical fallacies, true scientists can see through the bullshit)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I'm not sure which part you agree with, and which is creationist bullshit. Yes, it was a philosophical answer, because your original question was philosophical: you worry that if we find naturalistic explanations for things, God's domain shrinks. I find it hard to relate to this. On one hand, I do not believe in the supernatural, and I don't think there is such a thing as disrupting the laws of physics. On the other hand, if we manufacture a car, we have definitely designed something that nature alone could not, but neither have we gone against the laws of nature. I also resent being called a creationist because it is usually pejoriative and often refers to Biblical literalists. Whatever poor sap wrote Genesis probably never dreamed humanity would descend to such an extremity of foolishness as to take it literally.

Deadman,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.


How? Be precise. Don't just point to Dembski's mathemagical tripe.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't point to his tripe because I haven't read it. But I have read some explanations of information from an ID viewpoint in the Meyer paper, probably Spetner and perhaps also Dembski in a short essay. Generally, we don't have too much trouble discerning when things are designed or not. There may be some ambiguous cases, but ID would not focus on those. There comes a point of complexity, when the probability of unguided processes producing the result just becomes untenable. Where it becomes more rational and reasonable to infer design. That people who believe in an omnipotent and moralizing God argue against that, not just as to whether we have reached that point, but whether we ever can, is puzzling to say the least.

It's important to realize that because we aren't sure, we speak as if we had a choice of universes, whereas in fact there is only one kind. Either we live in a God universe or we don't, and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, then existence without God is a nonpossibility. If there is no God, then God is a silly notion, and there is not possibility of one. If we live in a God universe, it is a designed universe, and if it is a designed universe then a nondesigned one cannot have any existence and therfore cannot be rationally postulated.

Wesley,(or anyone)

I read down quite a bit on the link about falsifiability, but I never found the point made that I am looking for. So why is it that ID is not falsifiable if we could account for IC and CSI?

Altabin,

Very disappointing post. I thought we had established a bit of rapport, but apparently not. I'm sorry you didn't realize my remark about people disappearing was meant to be a joke. Probably you haven't read through the history of this thread, in which I made it clear I'm unhappy about the moderation over there.

The alien thing comes from a genre of books about it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[Cedric's jaw drops open. His drink falls from his suddenly useless fingers onto the floor and rolls under the sofa.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not sure why.
****************
I made several replies to all the entropy nonsense. Won't go over it again in detail. My points were:

I never did have any 'argument' regarding the second law.
My interest in the second law has nothing to do with the ID debate, never did, it was a side issue that struck me at the time, largely due to a book I'm reading on a different topic.
Entropy is not only defined as a variable, but as a process and a result.
How can you say that we cannot discuss entropy unless we have the ability to plug in the actual numerical values? Do the laws of physics only work if we have learnt to understand and quantify them?
Everything Improvius said in post 633 is obviously true.

I find it VERY odd that people keep thinking I'm worried that the SLOT prevents evolution. I do realize that has been done by creationists, but how many times do I have to make myself clear, and if you guys don't listen well to that, why should I expect you to listen to what else I say?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But please note that Berlinski's beef is with the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, not evolution proper. None of the observed mechanisms driving evolution run contrary to the Second Law so long as the animals eat.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You too, Paley? sigh
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 29 2007,01:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure which part you agree with, and which is creationist bullshit. Yes, it was a philosophical answer, because your original question was philosophical: you worry that if we find naturalistic explanations for things, God's domain shrinks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think it shrinks and I'm not particularly worried, since I don't think we can empirically support the supernatural. If we could, then we could rule out God from natural processes and in that sense God's domain would necessarily diminish. That's why I spoke in the domain of philosophy; since in science, the answer is simple: God gets dropped by Occam's Razor.
Posted by: Altabin on Jan. 29 2007,03:14

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,08:24)
Altabin,

Very disappointing post. I thought we had established a bit of rapport, but apparently not. I'm sorry you didn't realize my remark about people disappearing was meant to be a joke. Probably you haven't read through the history of this thread, in which I made it clear I'm unhappy about the moderation over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apologies - nuances can be lost in this medium, and ironic inflections are usually the first to go.  And, as you may have noticed, what gets people riled up here is not ignorance (in the sense of simply not knowing something) but dishonesty.  We can be hyper-sensitive to apparent dishonesty simply because we have seen so much of it.  If I falsely accused you of something, again I apologize.  I hope we can continue our conversation.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The alien thing comes from a genre of books about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not sure I got that.
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 29 2007,05:05

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,00:47)
...

The bacteria were examined and compared with others of their species and it was discovered that a particular frame shift mutation (which means that a gene got read at a slightly different starting point and slightly different ending point) allowed that bacteria to break down the nylon and obtain energy from that process. But not a LOT of energy. It wasn't a highly competent design because the bacteria weren't extracting a lot of energy from the process, just enough to get by. And it was based on a simply frame shift reading of a gene that had other uses. But with a simple frame shift of a gene that was already there, it could now "eat" nylon. Future mutations, perhaps point mutations inside that gene, could conceivably heighten the energy gain of the nylon decomp process, and allow the bacteria to truly feast and reproduce faster and more plentifully on just nylon, thus leading perhaps in time to an irreducibly complex arrangement between bacteria who live solely on nylon and a man-made fiber produced only by man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You see, right there is a fine example of the disconnect that occurs in the brains of IDists, and I for the life of me cannot see how the disconnect happens.

You describe in detail the mutation (a frame shift).  You acknowledge that the gene that has been frame-shifted was in fact originally used for other purposes.  You acknowledge that with further point mutations to this gene we could arrive at a highly specialised organism that is apparently (according to the measures "defined" by Behe) irreducibly complex, yet arrived at by simple random mutation and natural selection.  In your own words, you have just completely invalidated ID, showing that irreducibly complex organisms can evolve naturally.

But then, something weird happens in your head.  Instead of saying "oh!  Hang on!  ID can't be right then", as would be the logical thing to do at this point, you go on defending it?!?!?!  Huh!?!?!?!  Please explain!

Don't be sidetracked by speciation.  Speciation is just the accumulation over time of lots of these mutations in reproductively separated groups, until the two groups can no longer interbreed - voilà, new species...  Anyway, ID doesn't contest speciation, it contests evolution of cell-level machinery, such as the machinery to permit a bacteria to digest nylon.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 29 2007,06:30

Hello, Avocationist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never did have any 'argument' regarding the second law.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would require the equation (maths).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My interest in the second law has nothing to do with the ID debate, never did, it was a side issue that struck me at the time, largely due to a book I'm reading on a different topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you don't mind my asking, what book is that? I remember how excited i got reading Shannon's Entropy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Entropy is not only defined as a variable, but as a process and a result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Entropy is meaningless outside of the equation thus making it a variable. It remains a variable due to process. Even its result is a variable. For example: entropy and chemistry (as was mentioned earlier by Creeky) would render a different mathematical application, to say Entropy and Information Theory (again, Shannon), or Entropy and Quantum Mechanics, or Entropy and Classical Thermodynamics. In classical Clausius Thermodynamics, Entropy is representative of S based on heat (Q) and temperature (T) which is applicable (S that is) for systems/states in thermodynamical equilibrium. However, if applied to statistical mechanics then entropy is equal to the probability of a particle in a microstate, compared to the macrostate of its system, added to determine all of the particles in that system. Defining its entropic measure using Boltzmann's constant rendering an arbitrary result (based on a probability of 0 and/or 1). While I can understand a need to apply reductionism to a simple "word" that actual word "entropy" is representative of a myriad of mathematical applications, where outside that application, is meaningless. Thus you have pseudophilosophers then utilise standard definitions and jigsaw together something that pulls away from the maths of it - making it USELESS for anything than philosophical jargon.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can you say that we cannot discuss entropy unless we have the ability to plug in the actual numerical values?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read above. I have no idea how much clearer it can be made for you. If you wish to discuss entropy outside of maths, then thats your prerogative (totally) but it is a meaningless, obselete cause because it means having to redefine its application, thus its entire meaning.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do the laws of physics only work if we have learnt to understand and quantify them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The Laws of Physics work regardless of our understanding them or not. For those that take the time to understand them - it makes things easier. For those that don't, it makes it harder for those who do who are presented by those who don't but wish to give them meaning without understanding.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it VERY odd that people keep thinking I'm worried that the SLOT prevents evolution. I do realize that has been done by creationists, but how many times do I have to make myself clear, and if you guys don't listen well to that, why should I expect you to listen to what else I say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Besides stating previously that all biological systems apply thermodynamics there really isn't an argument per se. But its an interesting conversation to have outside of "creationism" if I must say so myself.

Ciao.

Serendipity.
Posted by: mitschlag on Jan. 29 2007,06:59

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,00:47)
Then ther's the problem I can't cut and paste from the article because it's in pdf. I was going to ask for clarification of a couple of things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To cut and paste from a pdf file, go to the Tools menu, click on "Select and Zoom."  If the tool is checked, you can select text with the I-beam cursor.  Right-click on the selected text to copy.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 29 2007,07:14

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,00:47)
Nor does this address the problems associated with speciation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sigh)


You know, I'm not at all surprised when creationists like Avo prove themselves to be crushingly uneducated and ignorant about basic biology and evolution.  But I *am* mildly surprised (and a little annoyed) when they turn out to be too stupid and uninformed to even get the basic CREATIONIST arguments straight.

This is from the website of Answers in Genesis, one of the largest creationist organizations in the world:

"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation."

Let me repeat that, in case you're not bright enough to get it.  Answers in Genesis says that not only does creationism itself "depend heavily on speciation", but they also say that those who argue that there are NO "new species forming in nature" are "poorly informed".

Guess that means YOU, huh.  By arguing to me that new species cannot evolve, you are not only demonstrating that you are completely ignorant of basic biology, but you're also demonstrating that you're too stupid and uninformed to even understand the most elementary CREATIONIST arguments.

But hey, if you think speciation is such a "problem", perhaps you could explain to me why speciation has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED, both in the wild and in the lab, over one hundred times in the past 20 years . . . .?

You are a pig-ignorant buffoon, Avo.  I see no reason why anyone should pay the slightest attention to anything you babble about.  Fortunately, though, it appears that no one --either ID or "evolutionist" -- DOES pay any attention to your babbling.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 29 2007,07:18

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,00:47)
My understanding of antibiotic resistance is 1) that it is being found that bacteria have a way of turning on mutations that are directed toward solving a problem, and 2) that they usually involve either a reshuffling of some sort or actually a loss of information or functionality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your understanding is wrong.  Not surprising, actually, since you don't understand anything that you presume to babble about.

Thanks for once again demonstrating to everyone that you are just an uninformed uneducated pig-ignorant buffoon who has no idea at all what she is talking about.
Posted by: mitschlag on Jan. 29 2007,07:58

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,01:24)
...I do not believe in the supernatural, and I don't think there is such a thing as disrupting the laws of physics...

Either we live in a God universe or we don't, and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, then existence without God is a nonpossibility. If there is no God, then God is a silly notion, and there is not possibility of one. If we live in a God universe, it is a designed universe, and if it is a designed universe then a nondesigned one cannot have any existence and therfore cannot be rationally postulated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo, you present yourself as a sincere seeker of truth, and your efforts to understand the science involved in nylon-eating bacteria speak to that.  But I have trouble interpreting your thoughts excerpted above.  You seem to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you believe in design of the universe by a god?
Posted by: k.e. on Jan. 29 2007,09:06

Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 29 2007,07:58)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,01:24)
...I do not believe in the supernatural, and I don't think there is such a thing as disrupting the laws of physics...

Either we live in a God universe or we don't, and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, then existence without God is a nonpossibility. If there is no God, then God is a silly notion, and there is not possibility of one. If we live in a God universe, it is a designed universe, and if it is a designed universe then a nondesigned one cannot have any existence and therfore cannot be rationally postulated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo, you present yourself as a sincere seeker of truth, and your efforts to understand the science involved in nylon-eating bacteria speak to that.  But I have trouble interpreting your thoughts excerpted above.  You seem to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you believe in design of the universe by a god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's how it works (HenryJ I'll channel Reciprocating bill for a change).

If something is supernatural it isn't, and everyone knows that. Supernatural is like UFO's they never show up to the best parties uninivited and bring extra nachos and Stolichnaya or zap the fuzz when they catch you driving home on the wrong side of the road.

So supernatural is very unreliable and so are the people who are abducted and analy probed by them.

Given the choice between supernatural and electro shock treatment for shop lifting most people would take supernatural, it passes the least harm test and remains the logical choice for any intelligent shop lifter.

Now given the brand  awareness of supernatural and its usefulness as the product of choice by various spivs,hucksters, piss artists and purveyors of flim flam for g$d to actually exist it would be much easier to deny her superness and make her just natural.

'K?
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 29 2007,11:21

Creeky,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think it shrinks and I'm not particularly worried, since I don't think we can empirically support the supernatural. If we could, then we could rule out God from natural processes and in that sense God's domain would necessarily diminish. That's why I spoke in the domain of philosophy; since in science, the answer is simple: God gets dropped by Occam's Razor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

See, I don't think there is a divide between nature and God. If there is a God, I don't think this God is outside of natural processes. If I could drown Occam in the deepest ocean it would be a boon to philosophy. People get away with all sorts of lazy thinking by invoking the poor ghost, and we should let him rest in peace. No, we do not drop God due to Occam. Either there's a God or there isn't. And accounting for existence and a highly complex universe without recourse to any sort of mind or causation is actually the more difficult route.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you believe in design of the universe by a god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't consider God to be supernatural. I don't think the situation is one where God is here but not there. I think it is a lot like the idea of two dimensional beings seeing a third dimensional being jump up and down. When he jumps up off the flat plane, he disappears, so he is supernatural and has magical powers. It seems obvious enough that we are also like these two dimensional beings, and when we see only dimly or not at all or by clues and inferences, we consign the phenomenon to a realm called supernatural.

Lenny,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answers in Genesis says that not only does creationism itself "depend heavily on speciation", but they also say that those who argue that there are NO "new species forming in nature" are "poorly informed".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What they mean by speciation is not the arisal of totally new kinds. They consider one kind to have given rise to dogs and wolves and jackals and foxes, that sort of thing. they do not think that amoebas became fish became reptiles, etc.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You describe in detail the mutation (a frame shift).  You acknowledge that the gene that has been frame-shifted was in fact originally used for other purposes.  You acknowledge that with further point mutations to this gene we could arrive at a highly specialised organism that is apparently (according to the measures "defined" by Behe) irreducibly complex, yet arrived at by simple random mutation and natural selection.  In your own words, you have just completely invalidated ID, showing that irreducibly complex organisms can evolve naturally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't show that mutations could lead to IC - I show that whoever wrote what I quoted, believes that. But is a frame shift new information?  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speciation is just the accumulation over time of lots of these mutations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A lot of people think that is an unwarranted extrapolation from minimal data.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 29 2007,11:29

Avocationist:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
But please note that Berlinski's beef is with the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, not evolution proper. None of the observed mechanisms driving evolution run contrary to the Second Law so long as the animals eat.  :)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You too, Paley? sigh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, think about gene duplication + mutation of the extra copy. That's a good way to build complexity in the system, and this process has been observed in a < mosquito >, and seems to have played a large role in shaping < the human genome. > Obviously, the process can't be contrary to the Second Law because it's been observed. So where does the energy come from? The calories the animal consumes. If the animal stops eating, the animal's body doesn't have enough energy to perform meiosis (let alone anything else), and the animal dies. Remember, animal bodies are not closed systems. Now as to how meiosis and retrotransposition came to be in the first place....that's a different question. Nevertheless, gene duplication itself is uncontroversial.

Sun's energy -> plants -> herbivores -> food.

:D  :D  :D
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 29 2007,13:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't consider God to be supernatural. I don't think the situation is one where God is here but not there. I think it is a lot like the idea of two dimensional beings seeing a third dimensional being jump up and down. When he jumps up off the flat plane, he disappears, so he is supernatural and has magical powers. It seems obvious enough that we are also like these two dimensional beings, and when we see only dimly or not at all or by clues and inferences, we consign the phenomenon to a realm called supernatural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should be very careful when you start talking about dimensions; did you mean it in the scientific sense or as an analogy? If you're interested in the scientific aspect of multi-dimensions, I can direct you to a wealth of information on String Theory.
What I meant by God is removed by Occam's; it's not that his existence is disproved, but that God is removed as an explanation for a natural process (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). Either God is supernatural, or he isn't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And accounting for existence and a highly complex universe without recourse to any sort of mind or causation is actually the more difficult route.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an argument from incredulity, and unless you're going to provide some evidence for this you're going to be stuck in the realm of philosophy. I don't mind, since I agree with you there. To say that it's more difficult to justify a natural universe than one created by God is to ignore the body of work in chemistry, physics, and biology.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 29 2007,14:02

Anyway, I found where somebody had asked Spetner about the nylon bug:

Comments by Lee Spetner, November 19, 2002

It's interesting, first of all, that the URL you pointed to picked the "nylon bug" as an example of a random mutation yielding a gain of information. (The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random?) It's interesting because the "nylon bug" is exactly what I used in my letter #7 to Jim Crow (of which you got a copy) as a possible example of a nonrandom mutation triggered by the environment. To respond to your query, I shall have to elaborate on this more than I did in that letter, which was not polemical.

Let me point out two important facts that the URL ignores. First, there are two altered enzymes, not just one.  Both these enzymes are needed to metabolize the 6-aminohexanoic-acid-cyclic-dimer (6-AHA CD) found in the waste water of the nylon factory. Neither of these enzymes alone is effective. Both are needed. The first enzyme, which I shall call enzyme 1, is 6-aminohexanoic-acid-cyclic-dimer hydrolase (6-AHA CDH) and catalyzes the conversion of 6-AHA CD to 6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer (6-AHA LO). The second enzyme, which I shall call enzyme 2, is (6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer hydrolase (6-AHA LOH) and catalyzes the conversion of 6-AHA LO  to 6-amino-hexanoic acid [Kinoshita et al. 1981].  Only enzyme 2 is the product of a frame shift. Enzyme 1, whose DNA sequence I have not seen, is probably the product of only point mutations. [Okada et al. 1983, Ohno 1984]

Second, enzyme 2 is not just the product of a frame shift, it is also the product of 140 point mutations. Many of these mutations are silent, but many are not. 47 amino acids out of 392 of the enzyme have been changed.

It seems to me that many of these altered amino acids are essential to the catalytic effect of the enzyme. How many, I don't know. In my above cited letter to Jim, I calculated the probability of getting multiple random mutations in the 30 years it took to evolve these enzymes. If the evolution of this enzyme had to rely on random point mutations, it could have never evolved. Thus, if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it in 30 years is about 3 x 1035. So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be nonrandom, and as I have suggested in my book, they would be triggered by the environment. That is, the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment triggers the mutations.

I have ignored the evolution of enzyme 1, and the random evolution of that enzyme makes for an even less probable event.

Now, why should there be a built-in capability to metabolize nylon, which did not exist until 1937 or so? The answer is there shouldn't be. But there could have been a built-in capability to metabolize some other substrate. Kinoshita et al. (1981) tested enzyme 2 against 50 possible substrates and found no activity, but that does not mean that it doesn't have activity on some substrate not tested. The activity of enzyme 2 was small, but enabled the bacteria to metabolize the nylon waste.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 29 2007,14:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 29 2007,14:21

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,12:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What gets turned on? And the letter above does not describe any experiments showing directed mutations. Spetner asserts that the enzyme could not have evolved "randomly," but makes no note of how selection might impact the evolution of the enzyme.

Are you interested in discussing papers that actually test whether or not directed mutations exist (in given experimental conditions, of course)?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 29 2007,14:21

< This link > addresses a few of Spetner's claims.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 29 2007,14:29

Re "they do not think that amoebas became fish became reptiles, etc."

Do scientists think a kind of amoeba was predecessor to animals?

Henry
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 29 2007,15:50

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2007,14:29)
Re "they do not think that amoebas became fish became reptiles, etc."

Do scientists think a kind of amoeba was predecessor to animals?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not specifically, as far as I can tell, but unicellular eukaryotes  are our ancestors. For a creationist, that means "ameobas".  ???
Posted by: mitschlag on Jan. 29 2007,16:23

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,11:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you believe in design of the universe by a god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't consider God to be supernatural. I don't think the situation is one where God is here but not there. I think it is a lot like the idea of two dimensional beings seeing a third dimensional being jump up and down. When he jumps up off the flat plane, he disappears, so he is supernatural and has magical powers. It seems obvious enough that we are also like these two dimensional beings, and when we see only dimly or not at all or by clues and inferences, we consign the phenomenon to a realm called supernatural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, thanks for clarifying that!

OK, God is not supernatural.  We just think it [he/she] is beyond nature because it [he/she] exists in  another dimension that we can't perceive, because it's beyond nature.  But it's not supernatural.  
Sure, I get it!
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 29 2007,16:37

Hmm. Quantum physicists also put a bunch of stuff in other dimensions too. Wonder how that fits in with the natural/supernatural distinction?
Posted by: mitschlag on Jan. 29 2007,16:42

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2007,16:37)
Hmm. Quantum physicists also put a bunch of stuff in other dimensions too. Wonder how that fits in with the natural/supernatural distinction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Henry, you are so pedestrian.

There's dimensions and then there's D!I!M!E!N!S!I!O!N!S.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 29 2007,16:48

Re "Henry, you are so pedestrian."

Well, foot!  :p
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 29 2007,17:01

Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 29 2007,17:23)
 
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,11:21)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you believe in design of the universe by a god?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't consider God to be supernatural. I don't think the situation is one where God is here but not there. I think it is a lot like the idea of two dimensional beings seeing a third dimensional being jump up and down. When he jumps up off the flat plane, he disappears, so he is supernatural and has magical powers. It seems obvious enough that we are also like these two dimensional beings, and when we see only dimly or not at all or by clues and inferences, we consign the phenomenon to a realm called supernatural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, thanks for clarifying that!

OK, God is not supernatural.  We just think it [he/she] is beyond nature because it [he/she] exists in  another dimension that we can't perceive, because it's beyond nature.  But it's not supernatural.  
Sure, I get it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No see god is natural because the universe is god and the universe that god created is god and god is a part of everything so when you are measuring gravity you are measuring god and this proves that IDdidit because goddidit is the answer for everything and there's no need to test for it because it's what I believe and what I believe is truth because I'm also part of god and I can see in higher dimensions than all of you sorry people that haven't studied and been touched like I have which enables me to see other dimensions which I already said and why aren't you listening to me because you need to see god like I do so that you'll throw your stupid evolution aside and know the evidence that I just know even though I have no clue what any of the science actually is or means but I don't have to because god is everywhere and there is only one possibility for god because that's the only one I can think of because if god were just an observer or something that wouldn't make sense because I can't conceive of it but that's not an argument from incredulity because my incredulity is good because I'm a skeptic of everything except god because I know god is real and god is everything and you people should just agree with me and what was I talking about again?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 29 2007,17:08

breathe, GCT, breathe... ;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 29 2007,18:11

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,11:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answers in Genesis says that not only does creationism itself "depend heavily on speciation", but they also say that those who argue that there are NO "new species forming in nature" are "poorly informed".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What they mean by speciation is not the arisal of totally new kinds. They consider one kind to have given rise to dogs and wolves and jackals and foxes, that sort of thing. they do not think that amoebas became fish became reptiles, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Avo, what they mean by "speciation" is . . . well . . . "speciation".

Idiot.  No WONDER the ID/creationists think you're just as nutty and pig-ignorant as WE do.  (shrug)
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 29 2007,21:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What gets turned on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The hypermutation state.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the letter above does not describe any experiments showing directed mutations. Spetner asserts that the enzyme could not have evolved "randomly," but makes no note of how selection might impact the evolution of the enzyme.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As I said, the mutations themselves are not directed, but the search for a solution is turned on. The hypermutation state is under control of the cell. Of course selection, after the fact, will reinforce keeping the enzyme which works.
***


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, God is not supernatural.  We just think it [he/she] is beyond nature because it [he/she] exists in  another dimension that we can't perceive, because it's beyond nature.  But it's not supernatural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension. That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?

Lenny, you provide me a link where the answers in genesis people think species spontaneously arise from one another, and they do not mean 'Biblical kinds."
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 29 2007,22:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you just described is the basis for string theory. As we increase the power of our particle colliders, we will be able to probe such scales. In fact, it's thought that the reason gravity is so weak might derive from the fact that it could operate in such extra dimensions. The new Large Hadron Collider is designed to test some of the basics of string theory in a non-trivial way. See: < LHC >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want to save yourself the embarrassment and not post drivel like this.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 29 2007,22:08

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,01:47)
As regards the nylon eating bacteria, the paper cited was a bit technical (and also I'm having trouble with pdf links and I think it is the reason my computer shut down), but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation. Then ther's the problem I can't cut and paste from the article because it's in pdf. I was going to ask for clarification of a couple of things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeesh.  It sucks being you.  :O

SORRY!  Sorry.  Shouldn't say things like that.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bacteria were examined and compared with others of their species and it was discovered that a particular frame shift mutation (which means that a gene got read at a slightly different starting point and slightly different ending point) allowed that bacteria to break down the nylon and obtain energy from that process. But not a LOT of energy. It wasn't a highly competent design because the bacteria weren't extracting a lot of energy from the process, just enough to get by. And it was based on a simply frame shift reading of a gene that had other uses. But with a simple frame shift of a gene that was already there, it could now "eat" nylon. Future mutations, perhaps point mutations inside that gene, could conceivably heighten the energy gain of the nylon decomp process, and allow the bacteria to truly feast and reproduce faster and more plentifully on just nylon, thus leading perhaps in time to an irreducibly complex arrangement between bacteria who live solely on nylon and a man-made fiber produced only by man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O.K. You got the main points of the paper.  
And you realized that the nylon digestion/conversion function, although "primative" was still functional enough for the organism to survive.
AND you realized that this function COULD be improved with further "evolution" (my word, not yours).

Here's a few more points from the paper that will be important in a second. < Nylon eating bug paper. >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have previously isolated two microorganisms, Flavobacterium sp. strain KI72 (7) and Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87 (6), that grow with the Ahx cyclic dimer (Acd) as the sole source of carbon and nitrogen.
...
In this study, we investigated the possibility of creating a new metabolic activity that would degrade the Ahx oligomer in a strain that is not inherently capable of such degradation.
...
If a new metabolic ability could be directly evolved under laboratory conditions,
...
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO was clinically isolated in New Zealand and has been well studied biochemically and genetically as a standard strain of Pseudomonas (5). The wild-type PAO1 did not use Acd (Fig. 1) and the Ahx linear dimer (Ald) (data not shown); therefore, this strain was used to study whether microorganisms can acquire the ability to metabolize nylon oligomers experimentally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the experimenters identified that there existed two DIFFERENT bacteria strains that digested nylon.  But they wanted to see if a strain that DIDN"T have the nylon digesting mutation could be developed under laboratory conditions.

So the experimenters took a well identified strain PAO1 and subjected it to conditions where nylon was the only food available.

The results found two NEW bacterial strains (PAO5501 and PAO5502) where PAO5502 was actually derived from an isolated solution of PAO5501.  Tests were done on all three strains (-1, -5501, -5502) and it was confirmed that the two NEW strains were true derivatives of the original PAO1 strain.  The PAO5502 strain was the active strain that actually digested nylon.  THIS IS A KEY POINT.

The PAO5502 strain was compared to one of the originally discovered strains mentioned and found to have similar enzymatic funtions (although the rates of activity differed).

This was ALL the data.  Everything.  In three months this was the reported testing (measuring, cleaning, recording, observing, etc...) that was done.

NOW comes the hard part.  The experimenters have to answer the questions;
How does the data fit into the established theory of evolution?
What mechanisms within the theory are available to explain this data?
Are there any data discrepencies that don't fit the theory?


So the experimenters reported thus;  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The adaptation of microorganisms to nonphysiological substrates has been extensively studied, and several molecular bases have been proposed: (i) alteration of substrate specificity of an enzyme (amidase/P. aeruginosa) (1), (ii) activation of a cryptic gene by mutation in the promoter region (evolved b-galactosidase/Escherichia coli) (3), and (iii) alteration of regulator specificity (xylS/Pseudomonas sp.) (16). Though a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown, it is probable that the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the experimenters are making what we call an "educated guess" with "modifiers" and "clarification".  Notice that the suggested mechanism is supported by references to previous work.

Guess what, someone else could run this experiment again and set up a sampling regime to actually test and measure the molecular changes from generation to generation of this bug to see what actual mechanism occurs.  Maybe if I go back to school and pursue a biology doctorate this could be my thesis.

So when you say  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think that is a bit disingenuous to the work done and support given to the "educated guess" of the experimenters.

I'll reference this post from another when I take down Spetner's objections.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 29 2007,22:51

Avo,
You posted Spetner's objections to the nylon bug.  Here's some quick and dirty counter points by referencing the results of the nylon bug paper you read.

Remember, Spetner is only referencing a few papers (found at the bottom of < Spetner's Objections to nylon bugs. >) so he either wasn't aware of this paper or chose not to use it in his reply.
Also, the < paper I referenced > uses two of the three references that Spetner uses.
 
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,15:02)
Anyway, I found where somebody had asked Spetner about the nylon bug:

Comments by Lee Spetner, November 19, 2002

[snip paragraph 1]

there are two altered enzymes, not just one.
Both these enzymes are needed
Neither of these enzymes alone is effective. Both are needed.
The first enzyme, which I shall call enzyme 1, catalyzes the conversion of 6-AHA CD to 6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer (6-AHA LO).
The second enzyme, which I shall call enzyme 2, catalyzes the conversion of 6-AHA LO  to 6-amino-hexanoic acid [Kinoshita et al. 1981].  
Only enzyme 2 is the product of a frame shift.
Enzyme 1, whose DNA sequence I have not seen, is probably the product of only point mutations. [Okada et al. 1983, Ohno 1984]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Spetner can read a report, and I can parse his comments down even further.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, enzyme 2 is not just the product of a frame shift, it is also the product of 140 point mutations. Many of these mutations are silent, but many are not. 47 amino acids out of 392 of the enzyme have been changed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Spetner is NOT aware of the enzymes in the NEW strain of PAO5502 that eat nylon.
I wonder how many point mutations and changed amino acids are in the PAO5502 bug?
I don't have the referenced papers where these mutations are counted so I can't comment further.  But Spetner certainly can...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that many of these altered amino acids are essential to the catalytic effect of the enzyme. How many, I don't know. In my above cited letter to Jim, I calculated the probability of getting multiple random mutations in the 30 years it took to evolve these enzymes. If the evolution of this enzyme had to rely on random point mutations, it could have never evolved. Thus, if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it in 30 years is about 3 x 1035. So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be nonrandom, and as I have suggested in my book, they would be triggered by the environment. That is, the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment triggers the mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here is where Spetner waves his hands to create an answer based on a false premise.
Spetner cannot make these claims without further analyzing the mutational effect of the NEW strain of PAO5502 which was produced in only 3 months (maximum, maybe faster) from PAO1.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have ignored the evolution of enzyme 1, and the random evolution of that enzyme makes for an even less probable event.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BUT, we saw in the experiment that PAO5502 was a new strain only AFTER PAO5501 was isolated and the conditions changed.  Remember that key point in my last post.
Therefore, might it be possible that PAO1 mutates to form PAO5501 which has enzyme 1 developed but not enzyme 2.  THEN PAO5501 mutates to form PAO5502 which now has both enzyme 1 AND enzyme 2.
Is this pathway a possiblility?  And shouldn't Spetner examine the development of enzyme 1 instead of discarding it with a non-sequitor?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, why should there be a built-in capability to metabolize nylon, which did not exist until 1937 or so? The answer is there shouldn't be. But there could have been a built-in capability to metabolize some other substrate. Kinoshita et al. (1981) tested enzyme 2 against 50 possible substrates and found no activity, but that does not mean that it doesn't have activity on some substrate not tested. The activity of enzyme 2 was small, but enabled the bacteria to metabolize the nylon waste.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And we finish with an argument from personal increduality.  Without supporting evidence on WHY the increduality is even valid.

Spetner ignored (or didn't know about) this paper when he formed his objection.  Even though it was published in May1995 (seven and a half years before Spetner's objections).

In my eyes Spetner is a hack.  Like so many other leaners against windmills.  He is a Luddite to sensible experimentation and interpretation of results.

Mike PSS
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 29 2007,23:00

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 29 2007,18:11)
Idiot.  No WONDER the ID/creationists think you're just as nutty and pig-ignorant as WE do.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool it Lenny.  The fact that Avocationist has received quite a bit of misinformation about how the world works is not justification for the continued stream of abuse that you're spewing out.  She has discussed the topic politely, and is trying to answer our questions, and does not deserve the personal attacks.

Frankly, it's you that comes off as the bigger idiot with this type of comment.
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 29 2007,23:18

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,14:09)
It (rapid mutation) gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh, OK, there's the disconnect! For you, God is in there fiddling with the mutations that occur so that our bacteria can adapt to it's new environment.  This leads me to ask you if you consider God to be completely incompetent?  Because I don't see any other justification for all of the other mutations that are observed in the experiment, but which don't aid in the task of adapting to the environment, if it's God that's responable. Remember the "silent" point mutations that were observed?

Normally, I would suggest that one should apply Occam's Razor here.  We have a bunch of apparently random mutations, some which are beneficial in adapting to a new environment.  Which is the simpler explanation - that God did it, but made bucket-loads of mistakes along the way, or that the apparently random nature of the mutations is really random....

There is nothing magical about increased mutation rates.  Mutations happen when an organism is stressed by it's environment.  Think of humans and carcinogens.  Carcinogens are generally poisonous, and they cause cancer because they muck up the replication of DNA, introducing mutations.  Extreme starvation can have a similar effect, where the cell does not have enough energy to reproduce correctly.  This actually goes back to the entropy discussion.  As an organism starves, it approaches a closed system, thermodynamically speaking, and hence entropy - represented in this case by errors in the replication of DNA (aka mutations) increases.  But of course, if the next generation is lucky, these increased mutations will enable them to be able to eat something else in their environment.

As I said, there's nothing magical about all of this.  We don't need to invoke God for it to make sense, and, after a quick application of the big O's Razor, we can dispense of God altogether in evolution.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 29 2007,23:45

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,15:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed this one.

Avo,
Are you referring to the second-to-last paragraph in the nylon bug article where it states...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Though a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown, it is probable that the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation. Recently, it was reported that simple polymerase errors increase in the adaptive mutation from Lac2 to Lac1 in E. coli (2, 17) and that molecular mechanisms by which adaptive mutation occurs include recombination (4). Lenski and Mittler have observed a 10,000-fold increase in Mu element excision due to starvation (10). Since the nylon oligomer has no detectable toxicity toward microorganisms, the wild-type cells could be maintained in a starved condition for a long period.  After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The paper is making a claim based upon previous observations.  The increased mutation rate occurs due to starvation of the bug.  There is no "switch" or "selection" that occurs because of this starvation condition.  There is only inferred mutation rate increase based upon conditions that resemble past experiments and observations.  Argy's response supports this claim.
Posted by: Serendipity on Jan. 30 2007,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension. That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This reminded me of Ronald Pearsons "psychokinesis" where he attempted to break down a quantum field beyond its wave particle duality to incorporate minute quanta-quanta mechanics, being psychic energy hehe.

Anyway, heading towards a more reductionist view (it seems) how would Planck and Classical Quantum (Gauge Field) be divided into smaller microstats?

Serendipity.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 30 2007,07:21

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,21:50)
Lenny, you provide me a link where the answers in genesis people think species spontaneously arise from one another, and they do not mean 'Biblical kinds."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sigh)  Jesus Christ, you are stupid. . . . .
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 30 2007,07:30

Quote (demallien @ Jan. 29 2007,23:00)
Cool it Lenny.  The fact that Avocationist has received quite a bit of misinformation about how the world works is not justification for the continued stream of abuse that you're spewing out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the fact that she is WILLFULLY pig-ignorant (and, further, wants to inflict her pig-ignorance on everyone else), is.

I have nothing against people being ignorant.  After all, no one is born with the sum of human knowledge.

Fortunately for Avo, ignorance is a correctable condition.  UN-fortunately for Avo, correcting it will require some effort on her part.  And, alas, she shows no indication whatever that she is willing to put out any effort at all in that direction, and everyone's efforts here to "teach her something" are doomed to utter failure.  She's simply not interested in learning anything.  If she were, she'd ghet her pig-ignorant ass to a library and learn some beginner's science BEFORE she shoots her mouth off about it.

So she gets absolutely no sympathy from me whatsoever.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 30 2007,13:59

Demallien,
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The fact that Avocationist has received quite a bit of misinformation about how the world works is not justification for the continued stream of abuse that you're spewing out.  She has discussed the topic politely, and is trying to answer our questions, and does not deserve the personal attacks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't disagree more.  She hasn't "received it" at all. She's willfully sought out crap, soaked it all up and got it all ass-backwards.  There's nothing polite about about Avo's obfuscatory blather.  Its rude and frustrating.  She doesn't "discuss the topic", she avoids scientific argument like the plague!
However, PLEASE prove me wrong.  See if you can get her to cough up her version of a scientific argument for ID.   Not much to ask really.  After all, she does support ID. She does believe in ID.  It's not like asking somebody to defend their position on a "scientific" issue with an off-the-cuff scientific argument is a  frikken revolutionary concept.  Just a couple of paragraphs would be nice.  Louis will buy you a drink if you succeed in getting her to do it.  I'll even  throw in some nachos to sweeten the deal, 'kay?  Good luck, you'll need it.
AVO's
SCIENTIFIC.
ARGUMENT.
FOR!!!!!!
ID.
(waits....grinds teeth....and waits....)
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 30 2007,15:35

He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo.

Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous.

Eh, but what do I know.

Louis
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 30 2007,17:20

Agreed.

Avo is certainly not innocent on this board.  In her previous thread, she lied pretty consistently, made all kinds of unsupported assertions and when asked to back them up went into personal attacks, and also made other assertions that bordered on personal attacks.  For instance, she basically said that biologists stick with evolution because their egos get in the way, and even though they know they are wrong, they can't admit it because they are too egotistical.  She also said all evolutionists are atheists, which may offend some of the posters here who are, in fact, theistic.
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 30 2007,23:26

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 30 2007,15:35)
but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous.

Eh, but what do I know.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's not rude.  Dumb maybe, but unless you're using a definition of the word "rude" not found in common English, I really can't see how making grandiose claims from ignorance can be construed as rude.  I hear it all of the time from my colleagues at work, from my friends, from my family, and from complete strangers, and I think they would all be dumbfounded to learn that you consider such comportment to be rude.

The use of the word "fuck" on an open forum, off-colour sex jokes, and straight out personal attacks on participants in the discussion are however comportments that are considered rude by most people.  You guys might want to have a think about that.

I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the creationists that wander in here anyhow.  Evidently, the fact that they are creationists means that they don't know how to think critically, or scientifically.  But I think I can say with absolute certainty that you'll never convince them with abuse.  About the best that you can do is give real world examples that contradict their beliefs, a bit like some of us are trying to do with Avocationist via nylon eating bacteria at the moment.

And Cedric, you're being disingenuous by insisting on the scientific explanation of ID.  There isn't one - you know it every bit as well as every other person with the heqd screwed on thqt participates on this list (ooof, sorry, I have got to stop changing between qwerty and azerty keyboards, it's killing my touch typing....)
Avo won't be able to provide one - she just doesn't think that way.  But nevertheless, please, stop abusing her.  I for one find her completely fascinating.  Trying to figure what contortions her brain is doing to go from the facts that she does know, to arrive at the conclusions that she has.  An excellent study specimen for those of us that wish to know better how to address creationists in a manner that perhaps may be convincing...

Anyway, please, keep it civil.  It doesn't cost you anything, and it substantially raises the tone of the conversation
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 30 2007,23:55

Not to raise too fine a point, but "rude" has meanings beyond merely overtly obnoxious, profane or disrespectful.
Louis is from the Empire, hence his usage is different from us Colonials, I imagine. Note Louis' definition:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note Merriam-Webster: 2. Lacking refinement or delicacy. (a) Ignorant, unlearned. (b) Inelegant, uncouth. (c ) offensive in manner or action: Discourteous.

I think because I read a lot of Victorian-era stuff, I recognized the usage immediately.

Louis may not be that old, however.

Ack. Edit: I agree that some posts I find on the board may be rude. My own posts are very often rude and profane, with lots of fun words tossed in. In fact, in this thread Avocationist has used a bit of that, but that's irrelevant, really, in my mind. I'd be happy to engage her in strictly genteel terms, but after reading through her other thread, I think it's kind of a moot point for me. Carry on!
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Jan. 31 2007,01:55

Demallien, if you're prepared to use the voice of sweet reason with Avo then I wish you the best of success.
I truely mean that.
If Avo responded honesty then I would have let her go.
If she said that she doesn't HAVE a scientific understanding of ID or she just likes to hang out at UD to pick up guys then...fine.  She's at least being honest and we can all move on.  She can walk of into the sunset will all of her alien friends for all I care.
Yet she doesn't.  The meaning of terms, coherent arguments, contradictions in her thinking have been patiently and laboriously laid out before her again and again.  There's a difference between being someone who's ignorant/misinformed and and someone shoving their fingers in their ears going "La, la, la, you're a materialist, la, la, la, can't hear you, la, la, la, can't prove it to me, la, la ,la" etc. If somebody tried to pull that kind of crap on you at a debate or at a social gathering then you'd have every right to be offended.   They are not behaving decently.  They not being fair and honest.  They're being offensive and  bloody RUDE!
If you can get anything positive from her then more power to you.
I'm going back to lurking.
:p
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 31 2007,03:37

(Thanks GCT, Deadman and Cedric.)

Demallien,

Point taken, but you are missing mine.

Being unintelligent or ignorant or misled or apathetic is no crime at all, and since, as a fallible human being, I do them all on a pretty regular basis I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot by poking at them.

Being DELIBERATELY, DISHONESTLY and WILLFULLY ignorant and repeatedly making claims known to be false, shown to be false, esp after they have been shown to be false to you personally, is ruder (not in the uneducated sense but in the impolite sense) and more destructive to civil discourse than ten "fucks", twenty five "wankers" and at least a brace of "cunts". There are three key words in that sentence, they are the ones in caps not the ones in inverted commas!

Try having a rational conversation with a petulent, spoilt and intensely stubborn 5 year old. The kid doesn't have to be even aware of swear words and knob jokes for it to be a hopelessly futile experience. Obviously you don't scream and shout and rant at the poor benighted infant, but you can point out to them that such behaviour gets them nowhere. We expect adults to have grown out of behaviour such as "LALALALALALALA I'm not listening", whether Avo personally has or not I cannot comment on, I don't know or care to know. This is a bigger picture conversation than mere Avo, in fact I started a thread (Civility) about this very topic and would welcome your input.

I agree with you that simply abusing Avo (or anyone like her) is not the way forward, and sorry but I personally have not SIMPLY abused anyone ever. Note key word. I might get extremely pissed off with people mincing about and being dishonest before you would do so, and I'll cheerfully hold my hands up to being an intolerant bastard on that front. And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts. (Oh btw you DO realise the difference between offending someone intentionally and someone taking offense don't you? I'd hate to reduce the discussion to pointing out that tiny difference.) Perhaps unlike you, I would rather deal with an honest person who said "fuck" than a dishonest person who didn't, or indeed someone so almost maniacally shallow as to consider the use of the word "fuck" as of prime importance in a discussion.

This also relates to the logic and coherence of an argument. Someone's argument is not in any way invalidated by the inclusion of the word "fuck" in it (in fact were you to claim it were you'd be commiting an ad hominem fallacy [he said "fuck" in his argument, that's impolite, therefore argument wrong]). Someone's argument IS invalidated by dishonestly representing the data, deliberately ignoring data or refutations, raising straw versions of the opponent's argument, lying etc. I'll cheerfully grant you that "fuck fuck fuck, knob joke knob joke knob joke" is not a discussion, but then if you really think that this is all I or indeed anyone else here does then I would strongly suggest some remedial reading for comprehension lessons immediately if not sooner.

Unlike some it would appear I'm more concerned about honest, civil interaction than merely interaction without swearing etc. Pointing out that someone has lied, or is a liar, or is deliberately ignoring a point/datum etc is NOT an insult. The person may be insulted by it but guess what: Tough! If a person doesn't having their lies pointed out to them then don't bloody lie! Is this rocket science? Am I somehow revealing some cryptic secret? I doubt it! Nobody has the right not to be offended or challenged. I know I certainly don't!

So it would appaer this is where we part company: you 'twould appear are willing to tolerate lies, distortions, outright fabrications and gratuitous insults to extremely hard working, honest legions of scientists and indeed against the very established facts and data themselves simply because you wish to study creationists, I am also so tolerant but only up to a point. There does come a point when dealing with a certain subset of creationist, when tolerating their lies etc, only serves to fuel their delusion that they actually are contributing something of intellectual worth. We've all heard the "well YOU'RE debating with me so my ideas must be worth something" rejoinder and it's manifold variations.

There exists a certain subset of mentally ill people for whom the attention is all they desire and they will run dishonest, irrational circles around people like you and I (because believe it or not I do the same damned thing, I'm just in an "intolerant phase" atm! ) who want to rationally discuss things with them. Sadly these people seem to be overrepresented amongst creationists (anecdotally at least). Occasionally we need to stop the cartoon of them running around us with the Acme Frying Pan to the face of a good, honest, unflinching assessment. That will involve nasty words like "lies" "liar" "not you're just being dishonest" "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?" and variations therein. Sometimes continual acceptance of their behaviour for fear of offending them is the worst tactic. Not always, just sometimes. For THEIR benefit they need to be confronted with, for want of a better word, the reality of their own behaviour, just like you are attempting to confront others with the reality of theirs. Sadly, your version and reality don't match but hey, that's no biggy as long as you can admit that! ;)

Also, I'm not so sure I like the implied patronising tone of your complaint. Not towards me you understand, but towards creationists. Are these creationists not adults? Are these creationists not people responsible for their actions? Are they mere puppets for your amusement and study? It appears I give them more credit as people than you do! You want to effectively counter creationist gibberish, great so do I! Guess what, JUST calling them "fucktards" won't do it, but neither will ignoring their distortions and letting them run the show. Pointing out where and when and how they are lying, distorting, and obfuscating puts them on the back foot. Granted this is not a "one size fits all tactic" but it is certainly one that fits those poor deluded unfortunates described above. That they cry offense or insult DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Get it?

Louis
Posted by: don_quixote on Jan. 31 2007,05:44

Very well said, Louis!
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 31 2007,06:27

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,03:37)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis, personally I find you to be a highly aggressive and judgemental person.  This may not be true, but it is certainly the impression that you give.  If, back at Cedric's hypothetical party, I had to make a choice between talking to you, and talking to Avocationist, you would not be the winner.  Have a think about that before embracing the agrressive, insulting behaviour that has frequently been displayed on this discussion.

You claim to know Avocationist's inner motives - you seem to believe that you know that she is being, and I quote "DELIBERATELY, DISHONESTLY and WILLFULLY ignorant".  Oh, really?  And you arrived at this highly scientific conclusion how exactly?  Personally, I would prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt where doubt exists (as it most certainly must in such a case).

You are also exceedingly condescending: "Oh btw you DO realise the difference between offending someone intentionally and someone taking offense don't you? I'd hate to reduce the discussion to pointing out that tiny difference." Call me dumb, but I reckon that most people when called "pig-ignorant" can safely assume that the caller is seeking to offend intentionally ("Oh, what?  You mean you find the term "pig-ignorant" offensive?  Who woulda thought?!?).  And before you shoot off again Louis, no, I'm not accusing you of having called anyone pig-ignorant.  It was about the 5th usage of this term, accomanied by quite a few swearwords,  by Lenny that prompted me to start this little sub-discussion with a call to civility.

If you still don't get my point about civility Louis (now who's being deliberaelty obtuse?), let me ask you this - If you were to go down to your local pub, start a conversation with some guy, and then commence to call him "pig-ignorant", or a "fucktard", or any of the other cheerful little terms of abuse that have been used in this thread, how do you reckon he'd react.  Personally I'm guessing that repeated behaviour of this kind would result in you eating your teeth.  I'm also guessing that if you did find yourself in a pub discussing ID with a creationist, that you would avoid using such language - at least in part to avoid a large dental bill.

Why do you think it's ok then to behave like this on the Internet?  An even better question:  Why are you fighting so hard for the right to abuse people?  Are you really just a bully Louis?  Is abusing people so important to you that you are willing to write long rants in reply to people suggesting that a little civility could be in order?

It costs exactly nothing to be civil to others on this list Louis.

As a final little sub-note, sure, I study the reactions of creationists when I debate them.  I try to understand the reasons for why what I am saying doesn't seem to penetrate.  This always amazes me, because in general I restrict myself to relating scientifically-provable facts.  Understanding how people avoid accepting the truth of a proven fact is instrumental in learning how to best communicate that fact.  For example, probing Avocationist's bizarre disconnect a few posts back, we learn that for Avocationist, ID means that God fiddles with mutations in DNA. All of Lenny's insults failed to unveil this little tidbit of information.  It also shows that Avocationist probably isn't being deliberately and willfully ignorant.  If we push a little further on the studies that govern probabilities of mutations, we will probably discover that Avocationist will argue a God-Of-The-Gaps type of line - specifically that the big guy fiddles with molecules on the sub-quantum level.  Indetectible of course, and hence infalsifiable, and hence completely unscientific.  But whilst we can't close down the gaps, we will never be able to convince Avocationist wrong

Anyway, you may find such a study patronising.  It's true that most humans don't like to be the subject of research.  But when such research is restricted to actions in the public domain, I really can't see anything wrong, or even patronising, about it. YMMV
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 31 2007,07:03

Quote (demallien @ Jan. 30 2007,23:26)
I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the creationists that wander in here anyhow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Creationism simply has nothing serious to talk about.  As far as I am concerned, they are here to provide entertainment value at their antics and their silly "arguments".  I.e., they are here to be laughed at.  Nothing more.

Trying to "convert" or "educate" them is an utter complete waste of time.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 31 2007,07:05

To be fair, demallien, I think that calling Louis and Lenny 'abusive' is a bit OTT.  I've seen other posters at PT for example borderline on 'abuse', but I don't think what I've seen so far cuts it.  Okay, you may disagree with their methods, you might think that they're a pain in the butt, but so what?  The reason they might not be as 'nice' as you is simply they pointed out a flaw in Avo's reasoning, Avo didn't back it up and refused to back down when she was shown wrong.  That's when the kid-gloves come off and they'll just say what they think.  Avo is perfectly welcome to just switch off, or simply just say: "Fuckoff, you mean old evolutionists!".  Or back up (or even retract) some of her claims.  Sorry, but I had to have a little smile at some of Avo's posts because I KNEW that at any moment that Lenny was gonna come in for the slaughter.  (I also had that same smile when you told him to cool it).  

Now Avo could have reconsidered her position (especially since she had lots of other nice posters like yourself to point out her errors) but she didn't.  Hence the response she got.  I've seen this happen on other forums and usually it's the fundies who then cry out about how mean they are being treated, right after they've been slaughtered for talking nonsense.  If you wanna feel sorry for her then fine, but I saw this coming a mile away.  I don't think Louis or Lenny are gonna worry too much just because someone thinks they're 'mean'.  So, slaughter away, boys.   :D
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 31 2007,08:11

Quote (Darth Robo @ Jan. 31 2007,07:05)
To be fair, demallien, I think that calling Louis and Lenny 'abusive' is a bit OTT.  I've seen other posters at PT for example borderline on 'abuse', but I don't think what I've seen so far cuts it.  Okay, you may disagree with their methods, you might think that they're a pain in the butt, but so what?  The reason they might not be as 'nice' as you is simply they pointed out a flaw in Avo's reasoning, Avo didn't back it up and refused to back down when she was shown wrong.  That's when the kid-gloves come off and they'll just say what they think.  Avo is perfectly welcome to just switch off, or simply just say: "Fuckoff, you mean old evolutionists!".  Or back up (or even retract) some of her claims.  Sorry, but I had to have a little smile at some of Avo's posts because I KNEW that at any moment that Lenny was gonna come in for the slaughter.  (I also had that same smile when you told him to cool it).  

Now Avo could have reconsidered her position (especially since she had lots of other nice posters like yourself to point out her errors) but she didn't.  Hence the response she got.  I've seen this happen on other forums and usually it's the fundies who then cry out about how mean they are being treated, right after they've been slaughtered for talking nonsense.  If you wanna feel sorry for her then fine, but I saw this coming a mile away.  I don't think Louis or Lenny are gonna worry too much just because someone thinks they're 'mean'.  So, slaughter away, boys.   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darth,

Firstly, I didn't call Louis abusive.  He did that himself.  To quote: "And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed".

As for Lenny, I offer up the following excerpts from the last seven days on this thread:

======================
Thanks for once again demonstrating to everyone that you are just an uninformed uneducated pig-ignorant buffoon who has no idea at all what she is talking about.

creationists like Avo prove themselves to be crushingly uneducated and ignorant about basic biology and evolution.  But I *am* mildly surprised (and a little annoyed) when they turn out to be too stupid and uninformed to even get the basic CREATIONIST arguments straight.

Idiot.  No WONDER the ID/creationists think you're just as nutty and pig-ignorant as WE do.  (shrug)

One quick question for you, Avo ---- since, as you admit, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, why should anyone, anywhere,m at any time, give a flying fig WHAT you think about the subject?

Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, you should, uh, shut the #### up and stop yammering stupidly about things that you don't understand and don't know anything about?

See, Avo, I think you're utterly totally absolutely completely pig-ignorant of every single topc that you are presuming to discuss here.

Demonstrate to me that you actually have the slightest grasp of what you are yammering about.

That's why she hasn't a goddamn clue what she's blithering about.  (shrug)

===================

I'm wondering what more you would need before considering someone "abusive" Darth.

Something to think about - If a creationist on this thread let loose the same stream of comments as Lenny has above, how long would it be before said creationist was banned in your opinion?

I don't feel sorry for Avocationist.  Personally I find that she's extremely ignorant on the topic of evolution, and foolish for thinking that despite her ignorance, she could lecture people here, most of whom are vastly more informed than herself.  But watching attacks like Lenny's little effort makes me extremely uneasy, a bit like that sensation you get when you witness a pub fight but don't have the courage to step in and stop it.

Civility costs nothing.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 31 2007,08:18

Demallien,

Well someone's got their nosie in a snit!

You find me condescending and aggressive and judgemental? Dude, read your own posts on this topic, then cry me a river. My dilemma now is do I treat you as you argue or do I attempt to smoothe ruffled feathers? Hmm. I'll tell you what, I'll give you benefit of the doubt.

As I had the decency to take your comment seriously (even if you don't like the answer) perhaps, just perhaps you could read my comments in a similarly charitable vein?

Let's deal with your strawman. Read back, where am I in anyway advocating, supporting or indeed performing outright abuse in the manner suggested in your pub analogy? Nowhere. (BTW are you British? If so we should have a drink in a pub sometime, you never know, you might just agree with me! ) I treat those offline just like those online FYI, and it's bloody rare that things get to the dental rearrangement stages, in fact I can't think of one offline debate I've had where this has happened. Since I've had quite a few of these offline debates, the stats aren't bad, although obviously you'll have to trust me on that, something I doubt you'll do, mainly because I have certain suspicions. But anyhoo, should one day I merit a dental restructuring I at least want to earn it! BTW are you another message board toughie like GoP? I'd love to meet you in real life, I'm sure you'd find it edifying.

If you bother to read back over my replies to Avo of since her re-emergence (she is an old hand as it were) you will see that I at least started out unfailingly polite and then, when I decided I was dealing with an unrepentant IDCist, mostly ignored her. As for deliberately, dishnoestly and willfully ignorant, I suggest that those reading for comprehension lessons I mentioned go up your agenda. I was making a general point, one amply clarified later on. Is Avo in this subset of people? No idea, I THINK she might well be, but I'm happy to be wrong. Just as indeed I'm happy to be wrong about anything. Of course these are the actions of an aggressive, condescending bully.

Anyway, rather than me rewrite my previous post for the sake of an uncharitable reader, how about you read back over it and deal with it as an argument, not a series of potential quotemines and strawmen. I think you'll find it's eminantly more reasonable than you might suppose, you may have missed that in your leap for your high horse.

Louis
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 31 2007,09:31

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,08:18)
Let's deal with your strawman. Read back, where am I in anyway advocating, supporting or indeed performing outright abuse in the manner suggested in your pub analogy? Nowhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try here for justifying abuse:
" Sadly these people seem to be overrepresented amongst creationists (anecdotally at least). Occasionally we need to stop the cartoon of them running around us with the Acme Frying Pan to the face of a good, honest, unflinching assessment. That will involve nasty words like "lies" "liar" "not you're just being dishonest" "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?" and variations therein."

Or here for supporting Lenny's effort:
"Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO)"

That strawman seems to have a fair bit of substance to me Louis.

I'm not being incharitable towards you as a reader.  I had no issue with anything you had said on this thread, until you leapt to the defense of Lenny after I called him on his unceasing stream of vitriol.  On the other hand, I find that defense of comportement such as Lenny's is in itself indefensible.  And I find your support for the use of abuse as a valid tactic rather worrying.

Apparently I'm in the minority here.  Apparently the majority of people here think it's cool to abuse creationists.  Frankly, I don't care if the majority disagrees.  I've had enough of this piss-poor behaviour on the 'Net.  On other sites, it's me the target, for daring to have a contrary opinion on a given topic.  I can't really argue the point for civility when I'm the victim, but no longer shall I remain silent when I'm a bystander.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 31 2007,10:40

Demallien,

Like I said, the post I wrote is an argument, not a series of potential quote mines. I am not advocating or defending abuse (in the case of Lenny I was saying his annoyance was justified, not his abuse. Seriously, reading for comprehension, look it up. At the same time look up the difference between justified emotional/psychological state and justified actions based on said state).

As for the previous comment you quote, and here's some "abuse" for you, are you so determined to paint me the villain that you deliberately take my comments out of context? Some might consider that less than fully 100% honest, although I would never have the temerity to even attempt to suggest it. Read the whole argument Demallien, deal with the whole argument.

Explain to me how pointing out to a person who has lied that they have lied, even using the word "liar", constitutes abuse. Perhaps the cartoon metaphor threw you. The "Acme frying pan to the face" comment was an amusing image I had in my head at the time of posting, does it need saying that I am not advocating real frying pans to real faces? Do you really think that after you have explained delicately and patiently 2+2=4 to a confirmed 2+2=TripleQ advocate 2, 3 or more times that it is somehow ABUSIVE to ask the question "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?". Wow you're ability to be even faintly self critical is terribly low isn't it of you think THAT constitutes abuse. I'll grant you it might not be very tolerant, but it sure as #### is perfectly justified based on the actions of said 2+2=TripleQ advocate. Since when did tolerance of hypocrisy, deliberate ignorance and outright lies become polite? I must have missed that little update.

All the following are from the OED:

Abuse

1. The process of using up or wearing out. Obs.
2. a. Wrong or improper use, misuse, misapplication, perversion. spec. The non-therapeutic or excessive use of a drug; the misuse of any substance, esp. for its stimulant effects. Cf. drug-abuse s.v. DRUG n.1 1b; solvent abuse s.v. SOLVENT n. 5.
b. Rhet. Improper use of words, catachresis.
3. A bad or improper usage (i.e. a use which has become chronic), a corrupt practice.
4. Imposture, deceit; delusion. Obs.
5. Injury, wrong, ill-usage. Obs.
6. Violation, defilement (now only in self-abuse).  1993 update [6.] For def. read: Violation, defilement. In mod. use esp. sexual or other maltreatment, and freq. with qualifying word, as CHILD abuse, SELF-ABUSE n., SEXUAL abuse, etc.
7. Injurious speech, reviling, execration; abusive language.

Injurious:

Fraught with injury; tending to injure: said of actions, and persons committing them.

1. Wrongful; hurtful or prejudicial to the rights of another; wilfully inflicting injury or wrong.
2. Wilfully hurtful or offensive in language; contumelious, insulting; calumnious. (Now only of words or speech, and passing into sense 3.)
3. Tending to hurt or damage; hurtful, harmful, detrimental, deleterious.
4. injurious affection (Law): a term used of a situation in which part of a person's land is acquired compulsorily under statutory powers and the remaining part is reduced in value, either because it is a smaller piece or because of what has been done on the land compulsorily acquired; also, of other situations in which an owner seeks compensation for the deleterious effect on his property of the exercise of statutory powers; injurious falsehood (Law): an actionable falsehood, a false statement claimed to have caused damage to the plaintiff in respect of his office, profession, trade or business, etc.

(and since it is a favourite of mine) Execration:

1. The action of execrating.    a. The action of solemnly laying under a curse; an instance of this. Obs. or arch.
b. The utterance of curses (as an expression of hatred).
c. Utter detestation; intense abhorrence.
2. An uttered curse; an anathema, an imprecation.
3. That which is execrated; an object of cursing.

So, unless it is intended to cause injury, unless it is as a curse, or unless it is wrong, (for example) calling a proven liar a liar does not constitute abuse. The only possible hope for it being abusive is in its limited sense of being injurious in the sense of it being hurtful. I agree a proven liar may well be hurt by having this trait pointed out, but I think I could argue (and in part actually have done so above) that by far the greater abuse is that of the liar. Merely pointing this out is by far and away the lesser of the two "abuses". And this is only the case if we grant that it is abusive at all, for it can only be so in a very limited sense.

That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?

Also I think you need to read what people have actually written, not what you think they have written. Your claim that I am defending Lenny's abuse, when I am defending his irritation is a good case in point. Whether or not I would defend Lenny's phraseology is a different (and as yet unexplored) matter. You'll also find that, as you would note if you had read the above for anything approaching comprehension, I am far from dogmatic on the issue and consider it an entirely situational one. Please try to grasp the difference between an empathetic understanding, even sympathy for a person's mental state and a defense or advocacy of the actions they perform in that mental state. Incidentally this is also why I am "hard" on creationists (I'm really a total kitten), not because I don't understand their mental state, I do (like many others do too), I just don't agree with how they ACT on it. When proven wrong about X beyond reasonable doubt I expect people to have the intellectual honesty to say so, I know I do.

Like I said before, but I'll make it a bit more explicit this time, there is a difference between hurling abuse at a creationist the very second they open their mouths and announce their presence, and telling them in no uncertain terms that they have lied (for the sake of example). Do I really need to spell out YET AGAIN I do not defend, advocate or even DO the former, and have no problem with the latter. Just like your pub strawman analogy, no Demallien I do not advocate, defend or do abuse in that sense. What I DO do, advocate and defend is the justifiable pricking of pompous creationists by not letting them get away with their dishonesty. Lenny's tactics might differ from mine, but as I said, we haven't yet got to the issue of whether or not I support Lenny's actions.

You might enjoy creationists feeding you horse shit as honey cakes, but I sure as eggs is eggs do not. Guess what, occasionally I'm going to ever so delicately let them know that, if that's ok with you of course. And even rarer than those tiny few occasions, sweetheart, I might prefix it with the word "fuck". On those few occasions Demallien I fervently hope you will have the wit to comprehend that there has been a) some history prior to the utterance of "fuck", b) that when all is said and done of all the crimes commited the use of the word "fuck" is a very very minor one. Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying? I'd argue lying, I'd also argue that it is vastly more damaging to civil, pleasant, productive, rational, informative discourse than any number of "fucks".

Oh and one last thing Demallien:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had no issue with anything you had said on this thread, until you leapt to the defense of Lenny after I called him on his unceasing stream of vitriol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis, personally I find you to be a highly aggressive and judgemental person.  This may not be true, but it is certainly the impression that you give.  If, back at Cedric's hypothetical party, I had to make a choice between talking to you, and talking to Avocationist, you would not be the winner.  Have a think about that before embracing the agrressive, insulting behaviour that has frequently been displayed on this discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow you got ALL that from ONE post defending Lenny's irritation? Hardly seems consistent with having "no issue with anything I'd said on this thread" now does it? You're not an old friend like Avo are you Demallien?

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 31 2007,12:51

demallian:

Take it from someone who lives in the American Deep South:

Reasoning with the uncivilised doesn't work. They are either incapable of responding to such measures, or they will misuse whatever logic they possess to rationalise their barbarism.

More people sympathise with your position than you think. Just keep on providing the quality arguments and the lurkers will respond.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 31 2007,16:34

Quote (demallien @ Jan. 31 2007,00:26)
I'm not entirely sure what you expect from the creationists that wander in here anyhow.  Evidently, the fact that they are creationists means that they don't know how to think critically, or scientifically.  But I think I can say with absolute certainty that you'll never convince them with abuse.  About the best that you can do is give real world examples that contradict their beliefs, a bit like some of us are trying to do with Avocationist via nylon eating bacteria at the moment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, Avo is way beyond being convinced by anything.  If you go back and read the first thread, she says a lot of the same things here that were already shredded there.

Second, Avo might not know how to think critically or scientifically (actually she doesn't, there's no need for the "might" modifier) but that doesn't excuse her from the attacks she has made on all of us and the distortions she made against quite a few people.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 31 2007,16:56

Quote (demallien @ Jan. 31 2007,10:31)
Apparently I'm in the minority here.  Apparently the majority of people here think it's cool to abuse creationists.  Frankly, I don't care if the majority disagrees.  I've had enough of this piss-poor behaviour on the 'Net.  On other sites, it's me the target, for daring to have a contrary opinion on a given topic.  I can't really argue the point for civility when I'm the victim, but no longer shall I remain silent when I'm a bystander.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's done on a case by case basis.

If I went to a site and argued the way Avo does, obviously lying, manipulating words, condecension, etc. then I would expect to get some pretty shoddy treatment.  If she were polite, then I would treat her the same way.  In fact, I did, until she became rather rude and abusive.  From there, I decided that I would call her out on her lies and everything else.  If she had remained polite, then I would still be polite to her.

Edit:  demaillen, as someone else said, if you can get a straight answer out of Avo, good on you.  I've given her as much benefit of the doubt that I can, and I will no longer tolerate her lies, which is why I've called her "liar" in no-uncertain-terms.  I don't feel that I'm being abusive, because I'm pointing out the truth.  She is a liar.  I gave her ample opportunities to say that she made a mistake or to retract, and she never took one of them.  Instead, she lashed out at me and others and continued even further down the path.  This is not being polite.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2007,17:26

demallien, there is too much abuse on this board. I've been thinking about the problem for a couple of months. It's clear there needs to be a change of direction, I've just been too busy to sort out this messy problem. Trust me, though, I'm thinking about it. I've got some ideas, I just haven't had a few uninterrupted hours in which to sort out all the issues.

(of course, anyone with suggestions is welcome to send them to me)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 31 2007,17:41

Well ####, I think that pointing out that someone is pig-ignorant and utterly uninformed about the topic she presumes to pontificate at us about, is not "abuse".  It is a simple statement of fact.

Sorry if she doesn't like it.  Sorry if YOU don't like it.   (shrug)
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 31 2007,18:40

Message boards always get like this, especially when is discussing srtongly held opinions.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 31 2007,19:04

MidnightVoice:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Message boards always get like this, especially when is discussing srtongly held opinions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not true. There's a baseball board I also post on, and the level of civility is much, much higher. And no, the mods don't have to crack the whip that often.

On the other hand, Sherdog is much nastier than any forum I've ever seen. This might say something about MMA fans vs baseball fans, but I'll leave it to the sociologists to hash out the cause.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 31 2007,19:06

Quote (demallien @ Jan. 31 2007,08:11)
Thanks for once again demonstrating to everyone that you are just an uninformed uneducated pig-ignorant buffoon who has no idea at all what she is talking about.

creationists like Avo prove themselves to be crushingly uneducated and ignorant about basic biology and evolution.  But I *am* mildly surprised (and a little annoyed) when they turn out to be too stupid and uninformed to even get the basic CREATIONIST arguments straight.

Idiot.  No WONDER the ID/creationists think you're just as nutty and pig-ignorant as WE do.  (shrug)

One quick question for you, Avo ---- since, as you admit, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, why should anyone, anywhere,m at any time, give a flying fig WHAT you think about the subject?

Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, you should, uh, shut the #### up and stop yammering stupidly about things that you don't understand and don't know anything about?

See, Avo, I think you're utterly totally absolutely completely pig-ignorant of every single topc that you are presuming to discuss here.

Demonstrate to me that you actually have the slightest grasp of what you are yammering about.

That's why she hasn't a goddamn clue what she's blithering about.  (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm mildly curious as to which of these, specifically, you feel to be . . . well . . . incorrect . . . ?  It looks to me as if every one of these statements is 100% accurate.  Do you disagree?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Jan. 31 2007,19:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



totally OT, but this is exactly why I get so flummoxed about skeptic's posts, whenever he tries to expound on science of any type.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 31 2007,19:27

GCT:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's done on a case by case basis.

If I went to a site and argued the way Avo does, obviously lying, manipulating words, condecension, etc. then I would expect to get some pretty shoddy treatment.  If she were polite, then I would treat her the same way.  In fact, I did, until she became rather rude and abusive.  From there, I decided that I would call her out on her lies and everything else.  If she had remained polite, then I would still be polite to her.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, the definition of "lying" seems a little elastic on this board. "Lying" does not mean what many Panda's Thumbers seem to think it does: i.e. being a creationist or repeating arguments that have been addressed in the literature. If Avo misrepresents someone's position, then demonstrate it with permalinks and ask her to retract her statements. If that doesn't work, ignore her until she proves that she is interested in honesty. The rest of your charges are even more slippery: ####, every debate eventually becomes a battle over how to interpret words. If we insulted everyone who "manipulates" words, the internet would be nothing but a screaming match (so what's new, huh).

I'm not picking on you, and Lord knows I've been a big sinner myself, but I'm not going to sugarcoat unbridled abuse.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 31 2007,20:07

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 31 2007,20:27)
GCT:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's done on a case by case basis.

If I went to a site and argued the way Avo does, obviously lying, manipulating words, condecension, etc. then I would expect to get some pretty shoddy treatment.  If she were polite, then I would treat her the same way.  In fact, I did, until she became rather rude and abusive.  From there, I decided that I would call her out on her lies and everything else.  If she had remained polite, then I would still be polite to her.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, the definition of "lying" seems a little elastic on this board. "Lying" does not mean what many Panda's Thumbers seem to think it does: i.e. being a creationist or repeating arguments that have been addressed in the literature. If Avo misrepresents someone's position, then demonstrate it with permalinks and ask her to retract her statements. If that doesn't work, ignore her until she proves that she is interested in honesty. The rest of your charges are even more slippery: ####, every debate eventually becomes a battle over how to interpret words. If we insulted everyone who "manipulates" words, the internet would be nothing but a screaming match (so what's new, huh).

I'm not picking on you, and Lord knows I've been a big sinner myself, but I'm not going to sugarcoat unbridled abuse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, that's exactly what I did in the previous thread.  She misrepresented me, I showed her the quotes, she persisted and even directed personal attacks at me for calling her on it as well as for calling her on unsupported assertions.

Now, it's true, I could ignore her, or I could call it like it is.  She is dishonest and a liar.  I'm not going to shy away from that, and I'm not doing it simply because she uses arguments that have been refuted, even after they've been refuted in front of her.  I don't use the term lightly, and I've never used it in that sense.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Jan. 31 2007,20:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Lying" does not mean what many Panda's Thumbers seem to think it does: i.e. being a creationist or repeating arguments that have been addressed in the literature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



since i know for a fact that no 'thumber EVER has used that as a definition for lying, that means you must, er, be ... lying.

go figure.
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on Jan. 31 2007,20:34

GoP: what baseball board?  I frequent several, but baseballthinkfactory rules all.

I have always thought that analysis of baseball statistics would be an excellent lesson, for those so inclined, in data analysis and logical thinking.  If you can understand why Nolan Ryan was a good, but not necessarily great, pitcher then you can understand why ID has no logical basis.

My apologies to my European friends that might not get to experience baseball, the most sublime of all sports.  And don't even start about cricket.  Really.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2007,21:02

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 31 2007,21:34)
GoP: what baseball board?  I frequent several, but baseballthinkfactory rules all.

I have always thought that analysis of baseball statistics would be an excellent lesson, for those so inclined, in data analysis and logical thinking.  If you can understand why Nolan Ryan was a good, but not necessarily great, pitcher then you can understand why ID has no logical basis.

My apologies to my European friends that might not get to experience baseball, the most sublime of all sports.  And don't even start about cricket.  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While all other sports are mere distractions compared to the sublime NBA basketball, I at least thought Nolan Ryan was world-class. I seem to remember, as a little kid in front of the tv, him throwing 104-mph fastballs, fans celebrating his four thousand strikeouts, etc. Could you elaborate on why he was merely a good pitcher?
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on Jan. 31 2007,21:42

Oh, you had to get me started...

Nolan Ryan was a very good pitcher for a long time. He excelled at throwing very hard and striking out many people.  But the primary job of a pitcher is not to strike out people, but to prevent runs from scoring.

If we were to use a measurement called ERA+, which is the ratio of the pitcher's ERA to the league ERA in which he pitched (100 being average - higher the better), we would find that Nolan does not do so well.

For his career, Mr. Ryan has an ERA+ of 112; he was 12% better than the league average in which he pitched.  That is not in the top 100 of all pitchers in history.  In fact the list I found says that number 100 scores an ERA+ of 121, so Mr. Ryan may not be in the top 200.

A few comparisons: Greg Maddux 136, Roger Clemens 144, Pedro Martinez 160.

Mr. Ryan's primary problem was that he walked a massive number of people.  He indeed has the record for both career strikeouts and career walks.  And he exceeds the number two man in walks allowed by 50%.  

He was a spectacular and unique pitcher, but not nearly as good as Clemens or Maddux or even a contemporary such as Steve Carlton.  But he was a great deal of fun to watch.

And the NBA comment is simply too silly to merit response.
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 31 2007,23:36

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:40)
Demallien,

Like I said, the post I wrote is an argument, not a series of potential quote mines. I am not advocating or defending abuse (in the case of Lenny I was saying his annoyance was justified, not his abuse. Seriously, reading for comprehension, look it up. At the same time look up the difference between justified emotional/psychological state and justified actions based on said state).

As for the previous comment you quote, and here's some "abuse" for you, are you so determined to paint me the villain that you deliberately take my comments out of context? Some might consider that less than fully 100% honest, although I would never have the temerity to even attempt to suggest it. Read the whole argument Demallien, deal with the whole argument.

Explain to me how pointing out to a person who has lied that they have lied, even using the word "liar", constitutes abuse. Perhaps the cartoon metaphor threw you. The "Acme frying pan to the face" comment was an amusing image I had in my head at the time of posting, does it need saying that I am not advocating real frying pans to real faces? Do you really think that after you have explained delicately and patiently 2+2=4 to a confirmed 2+2=TripleQ advocate 2, 3 or more times that it is somehow ABUSIVE to ask the question "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?". Wow you're ability to be even faintly self critical is terribly low isn't it of you think THAT constitutes abuse. I'll grant you it might not be very tolerant, but it sure as #### is perfectly justified based on the actions of said 2+2=TripleQ advocate. Since when did tolerance of hypocrisy, deliberate ignorance and outright lies become polite? I must have missed that little update.

All the following are from the OED:

Abuse

1. The process of using up or wearing out. Obs.
2. a. Wrong or improper use, misuse, misapplication, perversion. spec. The non-therapeutic or excessive use of a drug; the misuse of any substance, esp. for its stimulant effects. Cf. drug-abuse s.v. DRUG n.1 1b; solvent abuse s.v. SOLVENT n. 5.
b. Rhet. Improper use of words, catachresis.
3. A bad or improper usage (i.e. a use which has become chronic), a corrupt practice.
4. Imposture, deceit; delusion. Obs.
5. Injury, wrong, ill-usage. Obs.
6. Violation, defilement (now only in self-abuse).  1993 update [6.] For def. read: Violation, defilement. In mod. use esp. sexual or other maltreatment, and freq. with qualifying word, as CHILD abuse, SELF-ABUSE n., SEXUAL abuse, etc.
7. Injurious speech, reviling, execration; abusive language.

Injurious:

Fraught with injury; tending to injure: said of actions, and persons committing them.

1. Wrongful; hurtful or prejudicial to the rights of another; wilfully inflicting injury or wrong.
2. Wilfully hurtful or offensive in language; contumelious, insulting; calumnious. (Now only of words or speech, and passing into sense 3.)
3. Tending to hurt or damage; hurtful, harmful, detrimental, deleterious.
4. injurious affection (Law): a term used of a situation in which part of a person's land is acquired compulsorily under statutory powers and the remaining part is reduced in value, either because it is a smaller piece or because of what has been done on the land compulsorily acquired; also, of other situations in which an owner seeks compensation for the deleterious effect on his property of the exercise of statutory powers; injurious falsehood (Law): an actionable falsehood, a false statement claimed to have caused damage to the plaintiff in respect of his office, profession, trade or business, etc.

(and since it is a favourite of mine) Execration:

1. The action of execrating.    a. The action of solemnly laying under a curse; an instance of this. Obs. or arch.
b. The utterance of curses (as an expression of hatred).
c. Utter detestation; intense abhorrence.
2. An uttered curse; an anathema, an imprecation.
3. That which is execrated; an object of cursing.

So, unless it is intended to cause injury, unless it is as a curse, or unless it is wrong, (for example) calling a proven liar a liar does not constitute abuse. The only possible hope for it being abusive is in its limited sense of being injurious in the sense of it being hurtful. I agree a proven liar may well be hurt by having this trait pointed out, but I think I could argue (and in part actually have done so above) that by far the greater abuse is that of the liar. Merely pointing this out is by far and away the lesser of the two "abuses". And this is only the case if we grant that it is abusive at all, for it can only be so in a very limited sense.

That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?

Also I think you need to read what people have actually written, not what you think they have written. Your claim that I am defending Lenny's abuse, when I am defending his irritation is a good case in point. Whether or not I would defend Lenny's phraseology is a different (and as yet unexplored) matter. You'll also find that, as you would note if you had read the above for anything approaching comprehension, I am far from dogmatic on the issue and consider it an entirely situational one. Please try to grasp the difference between an empathetic understanding, even sympathy for a person's mental state and a defense or advocacy of the actions they perform in that mental state. Incidentally this is also why I am "hard" on creationists (I'm really a total kitten), not because I don't understand their mental state, I do (like many others do too), I just don't agree with how they ACT on it. When proven wrong about X beyond reasonable doubt I expect people to have the intellectual honesty to say so, I know I do.

Like I said before, but I'll make it a bit more explicit this time, there is a difference between hurling abuse at a creationist the very second they open their mouths and announce their presence, and telling them in no uncertain terms that they have lied (for the sake of example). Do I really need to spell out YET AGAIN I do not defend, advocate or even DO the former, and have no problem with the latter. Just like your pub strawman analogy, no Demallien I do not advocate, defend or do abuse in that sense. What I DO do, advocate and defend is the justifiable pricking of pompous creationists by not letting them get away with their dishonesty. Lenny's tactics might differ from mine, but as I said, we haven't yet got to the issue of whether or not I support Lenny's actions.

You might enjoy creationists feeding you horse shit as honey cakes, but I sure as eggs is eggs do not. Guess what, occasionally I'm going to ever so delicately let them know that, if that's ok with you of course. And even rarer than those tiny few occasions, sweetheart, I might prefix it with the word "fuck". On those few occasions Demallien I fervently hope you will have the wit to comprehend that there has been a) some history prior to the utterance of "fuck", b) that when all is said and done of all the crimes commited the use of the word "fuck" is a very very minor one. Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying? I'd argue lying, I'd also argue that it is vastly more damaging to civil, pleasant, productive, rational, informative discourse than any number of "fucks".

Oh and one last thing Demallien:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had no issue with anything you had said on this thread, until you leapt to the defense of Lenny after I called him on his unceasing stream of vitriol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis, personally I find you to be a highly aggressive and judgemental person.  This may not be true, but it is certainly the impression that you give.  If, back at Cedric's hypothetical party, I had to make a choice between talking to you, and talking to Avocationist, you would not be the winner.  Have a think about that before embracing the agrressive, insulting behaviour that has frequently been displayed on this discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow you got ALL that from ONE post defending Lenny's irritation? Hardly seems consistent with having "no issue with anything I'd said on this thread" now does it? You're not an old friend like Avo are you Demallien?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, Louis, let's look at the "argument" then.  In gross terms, I called Lenny on abusive behaviour, and you butted in, and attacked me (well, originally just my critique of Lenny, but it's got steadily more personal the longer things have gone on) instead.  That, overall, Louis, is the "argument".  Everthing else is to be read in that context.

You're right about the quote I gave defending Lenny's annoyance.  You can infact interpret it very narrowly, as you propose.  Indeed, at first, that's how I interpreted it too.  But later on, with your own admission that you are downright abusive, and that you aren't going to apologise with that, plus the famous frying pan comment have caused me to re-evaluate the first quote more widely, with 'annoyance' becoming an euphimism for 'abuse'.

I'm not some dumb hick creationist Louis.  I read EVERYTHING that you write, very carefully.  I'm capable of adding 2 + 2 and getting 4.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that repeatedly you have defended abusive behaviour in this thread.  Not once, not twice, but repeatedly.  Furthermore, as I've already said, this is all in the context of you butting in when I called Lenny for abuse.

I do not quote-mine you.  Show me where the quotes I use have been used out of context.  You can't.  You know every bit as well as I do, that the quotes have been used in context.  Ergo, NOT quote-mining.

You complain that I attack strawmen of my own creation.  Where Louis?  Last time you made that accusation, demanding I show where you defend abuse, I responded, giving you two.  I could have given others as well.  Your response?  You whinge yet again that I am quote-mining you.  I don't think quote-mining means what you think it means Louis (to paraphrase The PB - love that film!).  Giving direct quotes in back-up of my assertion when you have challenged the assertion is not quote-mining Louis.

Snide remarks about my reading comprehension are out of place.  If I am getting stuff out of your writing that you did not intend, may I humbly suggest that it is the carity of your writing at fault.  Again, on any challenge of misapprehension on my part, I'll happily explain how I arrived at the conclusions that I have arrived at.  But remember Louis, I won't be limited to quibbling over what the meaning of the word 'is' is.  I'll be looking at the whole history of your posts on this thread, and let me warn you - they are not painting a pretty picture of you as a human being.

Let's go back to that frying pan comment.  You start of with the image of someone literally whacking someone else with a frying pan.  OK, evidently, it's not to be taking literally, but it is, nevertheless, abuse. Physical abuse in this case, but as a metaphor, we arrive at just abuse.

You then follow up with talking about calling someone a liar, that doesn't advance our cause any, as this being a hypothetical, we can't know if the person was in fact lying or not. I'll let it pass. You then finish off with "oh for fuck's sake this is the third time you've had this pointed out to you today, are you simply deranged?".  You try to pass this off as just normal polite banter, completely reasonable.  THIS is the whole crux of my point Louis.  That quote is straight out abuse.  The use of the word "fuck" sets a very aggressive tone, and then you follow it up with the suggestion that the person is deranged.  Now, you could probably say this to a friend, and it'll pass - the friend knows that you don't seriously think they are deranged.  Say this to a person that you don't know, that you are in obvious disagreement with, and that person is going to, rightly, feel like they are being abused.

So, metaphor of abuse, followed up by actual abuse.  Yup, I think we're getting the picture. you're defending abuse.  Which is of course what I claimed in the first place, and which now you are trying to worm out of.

You obviously don't get that abuse is wrong.  You have already said that, to quote you again "And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts. "
OK. outright abusive statements, without remorse.  Got it.  But don't complain when people reading your comments interpret them as having come frome someone that thinks abuse is OK Louis, because it's what you have said yourself!

You finish off your last charming post with an insinuation that I'm lying about who I am, wondering if I'm "an old friend like Avo"?  Now, Louis, I, as most readers would, will take this as an insinuation that I am infact a creationist using another pseudo to hide who I am.  I'll admit, it can be interpreted in other ways.  As I've already mentioned, your writing lacks clarity, but the best interpretation that I can come up with is the one I've just given.

Go back, and read my posts to Avocationist Louis.  It should be pretty evident that I'm a through and through evolutionist.  Go and read my other posts on PT, and it will even be clear that not only am I an evolutionist, but an "evangelical atheist".  So take your snide insuation and jam it where the sun don't shine.  I don't appreciate it.  The fact that you resort to such crude ad-hominems is a sure sign that you are losing this little debate - can't win the argument, so attack the man.

Can't say that this is a surprising response from a bully...
Posted by: demallien on Jan. 31 2007,23:43

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 31 2007,19:06)
I'm mildly curious as to which of these, specifically, you feel to be . . . well . . . incorrect . . . ?  It looks to me as if every one of these statements is 100% accurate.  Do you disagree?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't figure out if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you really just don't get it Lenny.  It's not the factual content that is the problem, it's the tone.  If you had said for example "Avocationist, you don't know what you are talking about", that's not abuse, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Instead, you chose to say "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about". That's abusive.

The message is the same, the tone is vastly different.  Your tone is not acceptable.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 31 2007,23:53

Please take this petty, insinuation filled diatribe to the proper thread.


< The "Civility" Thread. >

"I came in here for an argument."
"Sorry, this is abuse.  Arguments are two doors down."
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 01 2007,00:25

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 01 2007,07:53)
Please take this petty, insinuation filled diatribe to the proper thread.


< The "Civility" Thread. >

"I came in here for an argument."
"Sorry, this is abuse.  Arguments are two doors down."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you didn't
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 01 2007,00:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your tone is not acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



says who?

methinks thou dost protest too much.

Stevo makes those decisions 'round these here parts.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 01 2007,01:22

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 01 2007,00:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your tone is not acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



says who?

methinks thou dost protest too much.

Stevo makes those decisions 'round these here parts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says me.  

Steve is free to either tell me to shut up, or to tell Lenny to cool it.  As he has seen fit to do neither, I remain free to voice my disapprobation of Lenny's tone.  And regardless of what you think, Lenny's tone, by any normal standards of behaviour, is unacceptable.  The fact that many Internet forums are nothing but incessant abuse doesn't mean that it's acceptable.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 01 2007,01:32

Oh, and my apologies for forgetting to cut the long quote from Louis in my post a few back...
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 01 2007,02:44

See "Civility" thread. Quite right btw, apologies for derailerisation.

Louis
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 01 2007,05:51

Ah.. k. So what is the scientific model and argument for ID?
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 01 2007,06:00

Kick start to help Avocationist:

1. Who and/or what is the Intelligent Designer (identification)?

2. What is the supporting model?

3. What is the testability of that model (and falsifiability)?

4. What are the predictions?

This is pretty straight forwards (by all appearances). Merely an answer is required to each question. It does not need the antithesis to support it - it should be self supporting on the questions alone.

*waits*
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,07:09

Quote (demallien @ Jan. 31 2007,23:43)
I can't figure out if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you really just don't get it Lenny.  It's not the factual content that is the problem, it's the tone.  If you had said for example "Avocationist, you don't know what you are talking about", that's not abuse, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Instead, you chose to say "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about". That's abusive.

The message is the same, the tone is vastly different.  Your tone is not acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see no need to make nice-nice with the nutters.  (shrug)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2007,07:55

The Wayward Hammer:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GoP: what baseball board?  I frequent several, but baseballthinkfactory rules all.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Check your PMs. I agree that baseball think factory is awesome.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have always thought that analysis of baseball statistics would be an excellent lesson, for those so inclined, in data analysis and logical thinking.  If you can understand why Nolan Ryan was a good, but not necessarily great, pitcher then you can understand why ID has no logical basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, and it's funny that you mention Nolan, because his accomplishments are widely misunderstood. He was perhaps the hardest pitcher to hit in history, but his walks, shaky defense, and lack of pitching smarts really cut into his value. A very good workhorse with flashes of dominance, but not comparable to the greatest of all time.

One of the most irritating things people say about him is, "Well sure, his won-loss was around .500, but he pitched for mediocre teams throughout his career!"

If his teams were mediocre (actually they were slightly above .500 if memory serves), then his won-loss percentage should be better than average if he was a great pitcher. And I've seen no evidence that his teams didn't score for him (I think he got average support for his career).

Ryan was a good guy, and fun to watch.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2007,12:05

Demallien:

I hate to say I told you so, but.....let's just say living in the South gives one plenty of experience in dealing with low-grade bullies and sociopaths. Don't let the hyenas get to you -- just tune them out and seek out people worth dealing with. I know you're an adult and you don't need any advice from a rascal like myself, but I don't want you leaving this board due to the baiting of assholes. Just be content that their true nature has been revealed for anyone with eyes to see.

I'd like to clear one thing up, however: I accept evolutionary biology. I know it's easy to confuse me with my parody (my fault entirely), but I'm actually rather pro-science. I'm just a little eccentric in how I show it.

;)
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 01 2007,12:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hate to say I told you so, but.....let's just say living in the South gives one plenty of experience in dealing with low-grade bullies and sociopaths. Don't let the hyenas get to you -- just tune them out and seek out people worth dealing with. I know you're an adult and you don't need any advice from a rascal like myself, but I don't want you leaving this board due to the baiting of assholes. Just be content that their true nature has been revealed for anyone with eyes to see.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Says the demonstrated and self confessed troll, liar and racist.

Bravo!

Louis
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 01 2007,13:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kick start to help Avocationist:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My theory of intelligent design checklist goes:

1. How old is the Earth?
2. Did all species:
  b. All descended from a smaller number of species(ie kinds) (goto 3)
  c. All descended from a common ancestor(goto 5)

3. If the earth is old, how does special creation better explain the nested heirachies found in nature than the idea that species evolved from a common ancestor with guidance from an intelligent designer.(goto 5)

4. If the Earth is young, how did a small number of species evolve into all those that currently exist in a few thousand years (taking into account extinct fossil species).(goto 12)

5. Assumiung some evolution took place did the designer:
  a. Act periodically to add information
  b. Set life off with all the information already contained in the genomes

6. If information was 'frontloaded' into genomes what did it look like in ancient organisms before it was used, and how did it avoid being degraded by mutation

7. What triggered the release of new information

8. What mechanism did the organism use to detect the trigger

9. What mechanism did the organism use to activate the new information

10. What evidence shows that these mechanisms have been in operation

11. If theses mechanisms are unknown what experiments could be performed to determine them?(goto 13)

12. Assuming the desinger intervened to input new information how could this be tested scientifically? Assume that the theory of evolution and common descent have been disproven.

13. Assuming the theory of evolution has been disproven, what discoveries could falsify your mechanisms, idea of common descent, and age of the earth.

You can assume for all of these questions that the theory of evolution has been disproven.

There may be more quesitons, but you need answers to all of them before you can claim there is a theory of ID, let alone that it is better than the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 01 2007,14:02

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 31 2007,20:34)
GoP: what baseball board?  I frequent several, but baseballthinkfactory rules all.

I have always thought that analysis of baseball statistics would be an excellent lesson, for those so inclined, in data analysis and logical thinking.  If you can understand why Nolan Ryan was a good, but not necessarily great, pitcher then you can understand why ID has no logical basis.

My apologies to my European friends that might not get to experience baseball, the most sublime of all sports.  And don't even start about cricket.  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baseball is more like "rounders" than it is like "cricket".
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 01 2007,14:12

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,01:22)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 01 2007,00:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your tone is not acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



says who?

methinks thou dost protest too much.

Stevo makes those decisions 'round these here parts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says me.  

Steve is free to either tell me to shut up, or to tell Lenny to cool it.  As he has seen fit to do neither, I remain free to voice my disapprobation of Lenny's tone.  And regardless of what you think, Lenny's tone, by any normal standards of behaviour, is unacceptable.  The fact that many Internet forums are nothing but incessant abuse doesn't mean that it's acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny is rude? I would agree. Lenny is very rude. Sometimes I dislike how rude Lenny can be. Then again, Lenny has ben dealing with creationists for over 20 years and deserves some slack. Should a creationist actually bother to try to answer Lenny's boilerplate questions I might give them some credit.

Anyway, I do think Lenny can be too abrupt. But I can understand why. Let's be fair. Any creationist is free to answer back and dispute him (Lenny) on this forum. Ever wonder why most (creationists) just run away?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 01 2007,14:35

Stephen Elliott:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Should a creationist actually bother to try to answer Lenny's boilerplate questions I might give them some credit.
 * * * * * *
Ever wonder why most (creationists) just run away?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All that good pizza confers zingier electrons, too hot for those creos to handle...much less sling back?

All that snake-handling confers slitherier electrons, too wiggly for those creos to read...much less rebut?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2007,15:23

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,02:22)
Steve is free to either tell me to shut up, or to tell Lenny to cool it.  As he has seen fit to do neither, I remain free to voice my disapprobation of Lenny's tone.  And regardless of what you think, Lenny's tone, by any normal standards of behaviour, is unacceptable.  The fact that many Internet forums are nothing but incessant abuse doesn't mean that it's acceptable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my post on the civility thread. I have been an absentee landlord, but beginning now, uncivil behavior will not be permitted.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 01 2007,15:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you're an adult and you don't need any advice from a rascal like myself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ah, since you already knew that applies to everyone else as well, it's unfortunate that you chose to go ahead and post that little bit of drivel anyway.

*sigh*
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,18:42

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 01 2007,14:12)
Anyway, I do think Lenny can be too abrupt. But I can understand why. Let's be fair. Any creationist is free to answer back and dispute him (Lenny) on this forum. Ever wonder why most (creationists) just run away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'all seem to be laboring under the misconception that creationists come here to make arguments and carry on discussions and respond to questions.  They, uh, don't.  If they DID, they would  . . . well . . .  ya know, actually present arguments and discuss things and answer questions.  They, uh, don't.  It's not why they are here.  They come here to pick a fight and feed their massive martyr complexes.  That's why they never respond to polite people and always respond to "rude" people.  They enjoy congratulating themselves over how "oppressed" they are.

They should all thank me for giving them exactly what they want.  (shrug)


As an aside, a very good cyber-friend of mine actually did that experiment himself.  Over a period of several months, whenever a new creationist appeared -- in an email list we were both on --- he would flip a coin.  If it came up heads, he responded politely. If it came up tails, he was harsh and brusque and swore a lot.  Guess when he got the most responses? Go on, take a guess . . . .  

I encourage others to duplicate that experiment and replicate the results for themselves.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,19:03

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,12:50)
Says the demonstrated and self confessed troll, liar and racist.

Bravo!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha,  *I* got sent to the Bathroom Wall for *my* comment, and *you* didn't.  Neener neener.

I assume the Politeness Police don't like the term "bridge", for some reason . . . . .
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2007,19:06

The New Civility does not apply retroactively because I do not have the time to search through all the comments on all the active threads. If anyone has any questions about what it means to be civil to people, PM me.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,19:42

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 01 2007,13:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kick start to help Avocationist:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My theory of intelligent design checklist goes:
(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always more or less condensed this down into:

(1) what did the designer do, specifically?
(2) what mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck it is you think it did?
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?


Alas, never got any intelligible answers, other than various versions of (1) "Jesus saves!!!!!!!!" and (2) "I don't have to tell you".


For the past ten years, all of the various argumehnts for teaching ID "theory" have boiled down to:

(1) we think there's a designer
(2) we don't know what it is (wink, wink)
(3) we don't know what it does
(4) we don't know how it does it, and
(5) we don't know how to go about answering any of those questions, but
(6) we want you to teach about it anyway


(shrug)
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 01 2007,19:47

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 02 2007,02:42)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 01 2007,14:12)
Anyway, I do think Lenny can be too abrupt. But I can understand why. Let's be fair. Any creationist is free to answer back and dispute him (Lenny) on this forum. Ever wonder why most (creationists) just run away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'all seem to be laboring under the misconception that creationists come here to make arguments and carry on discussions and respond to questions.  They, uh, don't.  If they DID, they would  . . . well . . .  ya know, actually present arguments and discuss things and answer questions.  They, uh, don't.  It's not why they are here.  They come here to pick a fight and feed their massive martyr complexes.  That's why they never respond to polite people and always respond to "rude" people.  They enjoy congratulating themselves over how "oppressed" they are.

They should all thank me for giving them exactly what they want.  (shrug)


As an aside, a very good cyber-friend of mine actually did that experiment himself.  Over a period of several months, whenever a new creationist appeared -- in an email list we were both on --- he would flip a coin.  If it came up heads, he responded politely. If it came up tails, he was harsh and brusque and swore a lot.  Guess when he got the most responses? Go on, take a guess . . . .  

I encourage others to duplicate that experiment and replicate the results for themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenny is 100% correct.

The only reason creationists today are even able to engage in a conversation with a sane person is the postmodernist idea that all ideas are equal and deserve equal time regardless of the provenance of the idea AND the permission to promote that false idea society gives to essentially Theofacist identity politics.

Creationists are every single one to the last drop COMPLETELY AND UTERLY INSANE and are no different to the 9/11 bombers...they believe the biggest lie ever told.

To draw you into their magical reality; in an attempt to get you to see the world as they do, they practice the most obsequious  form of false politeness and quisling behavior it makes me want to vomit.

By being polite to them you further their cause because you remove opposition to their logical fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum.

All they have to do is be polite, nothing else, to them victory will be no noisy cranky opposition.

Anyone who thinks that being polite to a Theofacist will stop them, is living in fantasy land.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2007,20:10

k.e.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By being polite to them you further their cause because you remove opposition to their logical fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum.

All they have to do is be polite, nothing else, to them victory will be no noisy cranky opposition.

Anyone who thinks that being polite to a Theofacist will stop them, is living in fantasy land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But according to Lenny, being rude feeds their sense of martyrdom. They win either way.

So why not do the right thing?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,20:27

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 01 2007,20:10)
So why not do the right thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do.

I point out, bluntly, how nutty they are.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 01 2007,20:29

Oh, GoP, you're so right, ahem, pun intended.  We have indeed been so wrong, so uncivil, so blindly ... lefty!

Well, dammit then, the only onnabull thing to do is step right up and say something, er, ah, civil, doncha know!

Here goes: say, Ghosty, I been meaning to tellya, that that highlight on the right side of your forehead is ever so fetchin', ol' bean.  However does your avatarial batman manage that effect?  By all means, do have your batman get in touch with my batman, so that they may bat the matter 'round...

Feel all better now, chief?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 01 2007,20:33

well, i dunno about gawp, but I sure do.

:p
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,20:35

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Feb. 01 2007,20:29)
Well, dammit then
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, are you allowed to say "dammit" . . . . ?

It might offend some people, ya know . . . . .
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2007,20:55

Boring day at work, guys?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 01 2007,21:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've always more or less condensed this down into:

(1) what did the designer do, specifically?
(2) what mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck it is you think it did?
(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'd say all my questions are an expansion of your question 1. A theory of intelligent design needs to say what the designer did. Especially if they refuse to name Him/Her/Them/It.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 01 2007,21:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Boring day at work, guys?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



are you that clueless, gawp?  did you miss the whole discussion about moderation changes?

I pity your constant attempts at trolling.

first a concern troll for demallien, now just a standard troll.

*sigh*

I do wonder why you bother to stick around.

aren't you bored yet?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Feb. 01 2007,21:02

Nah, GoPster, I'm not a miner or a concrete drilling specialist, so my work rarely involves boring.

...oh, and while I've got your scintillating attention, I've also been meaning to compliment your ava-tailor on the distinctive drapery of your left upper extremity.

Tres chic, babe.

Edit: misspelling corrected.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 01 2007,22:50

Quote (k.e @ Feb. 01 2007,19:47)
Lenny is 100% correct.

The only reason creationists today are even able to engage in a conversation with a sane person is the postmodernist idea that all ideas are equal and deserve equal time regardless of the provenance of the idea AND the permission to promote that false idea society gives to essentially Theofacist identity politics.

Creationists are every single one to the last drop COMPLETELY AND UTERLY INSANE and are no different to the 9/11 bombers...they believe the biggest lie ever told.

To draw you into their magical reality; in an attempt to get you to see the world as they do, they practice the most obsequious  form of false politeness and quisling behavior it makes me want to vomit.

By being polite to them you further their cause because you remove opposition to their logical fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum.

All they have to do is be polite, nothing else, to them victory will be no noisy cranky opposition.

Anyone who thinks that being polite to a Theofacist will stop them, is living in fantasy land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Lenny is correct, and talking to creationist is a complete waste of time, what are we doing here?  Is this forum really just a bunch of people that have nothing better to do in their lives than to congratulate each other for being intelligent enough to see through the less than challenging deceptions of the DI et al. ?  

I've always assumed that the whole point of this forum is to communicate our ideas to those that don't share them.  I mean, we already know that evolution is real.  We don't need to go on some silly forum to reaffirm it, we have textbooks, journals and scientific papers for that.

Although I do think Lenny is partially right - diehard creationists that come here aren't going to learn anything.  But there are others that come on by that aren't fixed in their ideas, though they may have been misguided.  Those people need to be reached out to.  It's not enough to say that you'll be polite to someone if they show that they are debating in good faith ( as it were).  There are also those that come by here to read, not to participate.  Most boards on the Internet have a lurker rate of over 50% (do we have lurker stats for this board SteveStory?), and we need those people to feel welcome too.

As a result, I can not agree with Lenny's position.  Politeness needs to be maintained so that this forum can fulfil a role of educating those that have not received the necessary education on evolution at school.  I welcome Steve's promise of stronger moderation in the future (although that probably doesn't come as a surprise to most here ;-) )
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,22:56

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,22:50)
If Lenny is correct, and talking to creationist is a complete waste of time, what are we doing here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We are laughing at them.

As my political hero, Abbie Hoffman, once said, "There are times when the only proper intellectual response is 'Fuck you' ."

And any lurker who is stupid enough to become sympathetic to creationism because we are mean to them . . . well . . . good luck to them.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,23:05

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 01 2007,21:00)
I'd say all my questions are an expansion of your question 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  

But since fundies are lethally allergic to answering direct questions anyway, it doesn't matter HOW many we ask.  

;)
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 01 2007,23:06

That's a pretty mean-spirited kind of forum you're proposing there Lenny - a forum dedicated to ridiculing creationists...

I would have thought that we didn't need to ridicule them - they do that for themselves.  But like it or not, a lot (the majority?) of people are influenced by the way you say something, not what you say.  That's why politicians don't throw around insults when they are being interviewed on TV...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 01 2007,23:14

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,23:06)
That's a pretty mean-spirited kind of forum you're proposing there Lenny - a forum dedicated to ridiculing creationists...

I would have thought that we didn't need to ridicule them - they do that for themselves.  But like it or not, a lot (the majority?) of people are influenced by the way you say something, not what you say.  That's why politicians don't throw around insults when they are being interviewed on TV...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I ridicule them because they are . . . well . . . ridicule-ous.  (shrug)

If you want to have serious scientific debates with them . . . well . . . good luck with that.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 01 2007,23:51

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,07:06)
That's a pretty mean-spirited kind of forum you're proposing there Lenny - a forum dedicated to ridiculing creationists...

I would have thought that we didn't need to ridicule them - they do that for themselves.  But like it or not, a lot (the majority?) of people are influenced by the way you say something, not what you say.  That's why politicians don't throw around insults when they are being interviewed on TV...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strangely demallien that is the very reason the Theofacists have been able to succeed in creating their constructed social reality .....by use of a massive propaganda machine.

Luckily for your country and the rest of the 'free world' some VERY BRAVE PARENTS in DOVER took up the challenge the politicians were too scared take up themselves.

Its methods are no different to the political commissars of the old Soviet Union. Party hacks use a form of peer pressure that questions your allegiance to God and country and thus your rights as a citizen. The airwaves and streets are full of people praising the dear leader and woe is the person who questions it.

You may think there is a difference and there is, in Russia they had to send huge numbers of the population to gulags to achieve it. In the US the mass media and the fear of being rejected achieve the same thing.

The Politicians sucked up to them for votes (and will continue sucking up to them).


In fact the situation is so ludicrous a politician who claims to be an atheist has as much chance of getting voted into office in Tehran as the US.

<Sarcasm on>Just to show how crazy that is....a Catholic got voted in as US President once.  Do they even worship the same mammon as GWB? <Sarcasm off>
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 02 2007,00:04

Quote (k.e @ Feb. 01 2007,23:51)
Luckily for your country and the rest of the 'free world' some VERY BRAVE PARENTS in DOVER took up the challenge the politicians were too scared take up themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt very much that my country of birth, or my country of residence care much at all about the result of Dover, k.e.  This is strictly a US problem (for the time being at least)
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 02 2007,00:52

uh, you might want to check up on the latest efforts by the "truth in science" gang in the UK.

this ain't just a US problem any more.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 02 2007,01:06

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 02 2007,00:52)
uh, you might want to check up on the latest efforts by the "truth in science" gang in the UK.

this ain't just a US problem any more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The UK is different. We have had schools teach religion for centuries. Yet very few students believe the bible is a "scientific" reference.

To put it a diferent way. Untill very recently (within my lifetime) most UK schools taught Christianity as a fact (taught in RE classes BTW, not as science). Yet in the UK we have far fewer people (as a %) that believe in biblical literalism than the USA has.
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 02 2007,01:16

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,17:04)
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 01 2007,23:51)
Luckily for your country and the rest of the 'free world' some VERY BRAVE PARENTS in DOVER took up the challenge the politicians were too scared take up themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt very much that my country of birth, or my country of residence care much at all about the result of Dover, k.e.  This is strictly a US problem (for the time being at least)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was also a New Zealand issue. As a leader in the field of biology education - we took great interest in the Dover Case. It set down boundaries between science and religion. If memory serves me right, Australia took an interest in it relating to law.

< Here >
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 02 2007,01:45

stephen-

hmm, didn't you catch all the flak about the "Truth in Science" gang?

Blair wanted to make a proposal to teach intelligent design?

there were several threads about it, IIRC, fairly recently.

would you like me to track them down for you?

I haven't seen anything in a few weeks now, but I assume the Truth in Science guys are still active over there (btw, it does look like representatives of the DI have provided materials to them, if not direct funding).

However, you are right that because of the history of education in the UK, it is very likely that there will be far more resistance to the spread of this claptrap than here in the US.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 02 2007,02:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was also a New Zealand issue. As a leader in the field of biology education - we took great interest in the Dover Case. It set down boundaries between science and religion. If memory serves me right, Australia took an interest in it relating to law.

< Here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you trying to tell us that New Zealand is at moderate risk of adopting ID in the school classroom in the near future?!?!

I can't see any other way that Dover would be of interest to a country.  But maybe I'm missing something.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 02 2007,02:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I doubt very much that my country of birth, or my country of residence care much at all about the result of Dover, k.e.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is certainly true for (y)our country of residence.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, you are right that because of the history of education in the UK, virtual non-existance of creationist culture comparable to the US*, it is very likely that there will be far more resistance to the spread of this claptrap than here in the US.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*correction added
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 02 2007,03:08

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,19:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was also a New Zealand issue. As a leader in the field of biology education - we took great interest in the Dover Case. It set down boundaries between science and religion. If memory serves me right, Australia took an interest in it relating to law.

< Here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you trying to tell us that New Zealand is at moderate risk of adopting ID in the school classroom in the near future?!?!

I can't see any other way that Dover would be of interest to a country.  But maybe I'm missing something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I am telling you that it is of interest. It is of interest because much like Roe vs. Wade, it has set down boundaries. Australia was very interested in it. Not because of Creationism but as I said before, the boundaries between science and religion.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 02 2007,03:14

The French have got it about right. Every time some pointless muppet touting his or her bronze age fairy story pops his or her head up and claims it deserves special protection in law, they get a slap. Not a cuddle and a lolly, a slap. They deserve nothing more. It is a rank failure of our education system that they think their fictions deserve special treatment over and above toehr people's fictions or lack thereof.

Oh and Demallien, I disagree with Lenny that just laughing at the creationists is enough, or even the valid purpose of any reasonable debate forum. I think arguing with them is very very valid and very very useful. Education is after all an ongoing thing. BUT, where Lenny and I do agree is that after some point, when a creationist has demonstrated themselves conclusively to be a dishonest and uneducable moron (and some do do this) that they don't get their arses kissed but kicked. And kicked good and hard. You also seem to think the same thing by the way, as your conduct on the civility thread proves beyond all doubt, I imagine we only differ about where that tipping point occurs.

Louis
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 02 2007,03:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I imagine we only differ about where that tipping point occurs.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Exactly. I try never to write anything that I wouldn't let my mother read.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 02 2007,03:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Exactly. I try never to write anything that I wouldn't let my mother read.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah but I'm not as tolerant and wonderful a human being as you are Alan. And my mother is a robust and intelligent woman who is occasionally capable of seeing past the odd use of "fuck". I assume your mother is too.

I take a slightly different tack. I try never to write anything I cannot defend to the hilt, or immediately apologise for! ;) #### their eyes and the devil take the hindmost. Hark for'ard!

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 02 2007,03:30

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 02 2007,01:45)
stephen-

hmm, didn't you catch all the flak about the "Truth in Science" gang?

Blair wanted to make a proposal to teach intelligent design?

there were several threads about it, IIRC, fairly recently.

would you like me to track them down for you?

I haven't seen anything in a few weeks now, but I assume the Truth in Science guys are still active over there (btw, it does look like representatives of the DI have provided materials to them, if not direct funding).

However, you are right that because of the history of education in the UK, it is very likely that there will be far more resistance to the spread of this claptrap than here in the US.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really any need Ichy.

I was a tad concerned about a year ago when I thought that religious apologetics might get taught in science lessons. I do not see that as a danger now. I couldn't care less if ID was taught in schools providing it was in religious lessons rather than science.

IMO ID is a bit of a joke. Not particularly from our efforts but rather through their own. They do tend to shoot themselves.

Dover was great. Plenty of evidence about just how "scientific" ID is. UD also performs admirably for evidence against ID as science. DeTard is probably our biggest supporter, though he seems not to know it.

Take a good long look at ID's protagonists. They provide about the best evidence possible that ID is not science.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 02 2007,03:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I assume your mother is too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, she's 86 and I'm still scared of her :D



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah but I'm not as tolerant and wonderful a human being as you are Alan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not true, even if you are being ironic, my irritation manifests as polite sarcasm; I envy people who can stamp their foot in anger, I'm sure they have lower stress levels.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 02 2007,04:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you might want to check up on the latest efforts by the "truth in science" gang in the UK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The government basically told them they weren't allowed to show unlocking the mystery of life in science classes, and to take it up with the scientists.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Feb. 02 2007,05:07

"I was a tad concerned about a year ago when I thought that religious apologetics might get taught in science lessons. I do not see that as a danger now. I couldn't care less if ID was taught in schools providing it was in religious lessons rather than science."

I'm a little worried that they would use it as a stepping stone to gain public support and then try to force it in science class a few years later.  Remember, ID is not religion, it's a con.  So it shouln't be taught at all.  It was designed to appear scientific to the laymen and that's the problem.  Also, the Vardy schools teach creationism already.  

We unfortunately don't have the protection of seperation of church and state in the UK.  I know that our religious classes have not stopped us from teaching good science in general, but if public support grows for 'teach the controversy', it could be a problem.  It's easy for us to look at the USA and think we could never be that daft to even consider ID as science, but I would argue that fundieism in the UK is on the rise.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 02 2007,12:48

Quote (Darth Robo @ Feb. 02 2007,05:07)
"I was a tad concerned about a year ago when I thought that religious apologetics might get taught in science lessons. I do not see that as a danger now. I couldn't care less if ID was taught in schools providing it was in religious lessons rather than science."

I'm a little worried that they would use it as a stepping stone to gain public support and then try to force it in science class a few years later.  Remember, ID is not religion, it's a con.  So it shouln't be taught at all.  It was designed to appear scientific to the laymen and that's the problem.  Also, the Vardy schools teach creationism already.  

We unfortunately don't have the protection of seperation of church and state in the UK.  I know that our religious classes have not stopped us from teaching good science in general, but if public support grows for 'teach the controversy', it could be a problem.  It's easy for us to look at the USA and think we could never be that daft to even consider ID as science, but I would argue that fundieism in the UK is on the rise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not as worried as you are. ID is so self evidently "full of shit" that it is no threat. The recorded history of ID is there for all to see. Blatant lies and deception.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 02 2007,15:46

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,03:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was also a New Zealand issue. As a leader in the field of biology education - we took great interest in the Dover Case. It set down boundaries between science and religion. If memory serves me right, Australia took an interest in it relating to law.

< Here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you trying to tell us that New Zealand is at moderate risk of adopting ID in the school classroom in the near future?!?!

I can't see any other way that Dover would be of interest to a country.  But maybe I'm missing something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would take it seriously that this country has ID/Creationist problems.  If we start raising generations of ignorant individuals that rely on Biblical teaching instead of reality, it could have repercussions for the whole world.  What happens when some fundy president decides that he's going to start armageddon?  That's a worst case scenario, but there are other considerations, like a loss of US research effort and funding and how that would affect the scientific progress of the world.  Yes, lots of other countries do great work, but there's quite a bit going on here that the world would miss.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 02 2007,18:10

Creeky,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Me-That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?

You-You might want to save yourself the embarrassment and not post drivel like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why is it drivel? Someone responds to the idea of other dimensions as if they were a magical idea, and I point out that if they exist, they are invisible to us. As you mentioned yourself, it is a part of string theory. If the string theorists are right, then those other dimensions are the bedrock of what we call reality, and yet we can't perceive those dimensions. We already know that there is a world of the unseen - life forms, molecules, atoms. We know that we can perceive but a small band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and yet people perist in always thinking that the latest discovery is the final and last. That we have already uncovered so much of the unseen, should instead have the opposite effect.

Mike DSS,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeesh.  It sucks being you.  :O

SORRY!  Sorry.  Shouldn't say things like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sometimes it does!I don't even know how to manage the TV set upstairs or the DVD player.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AND you realized that this function COULD be improved with further "evolution"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do not realize that. That is the supposition of the author of the bit I quoted. I included it to show that the author is not antievolution.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The results found two NEW bacterial strains (PAO5501 and PAO5502) where PAO5502 was actually derived from an isolated solution of PAO5501.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm not clear on the relevance of 5501 and it what way it was a different strain from the original -1.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation.
I think that is a bit disingenuous to the work done and support given to the "educated guess" of the experimenters.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am not sure why you say so. If we don't know how it happens, how can we talk about whether random processes are adequate? I don't disagree at all with their educated guess that 'the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation.'  

You quote Spetner:
"there are two altered enzymes, not just one.
Both these enzymes are needed
Neither of these enzymes alone is effective."

But did you undersand his point that he finds two alterations mathematically suspect, i.e., improbable?

I do not understand your point here:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Spetner is NOT aware of the enzymes in the NEW strain of PAO5502 that eat nylon. I wonder how many point mutations and changed amino acids are in the PAO5502 bug?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you saying he was talking about a different organsm, and should have been aware also of this one? The bug he discussed did survive on nylon.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Spetner cannot make these claims [probability of success] without further analyzing the mutational effect of the NEW strain of PAO5502 which was produced in only 3 months (maximum, maybe faster) from PAO1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What was different about this case - fewer steps?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BUT, we saw in the experiment that PAO5502 was a new strain only AFTER PAO5501 was isolated and the conditions changed. Therefore, might it be possible that PAO1 mutates to form PAO5501 which has enzyme 1 developed but not enzyme 2.  THEN PAO5501 mutates to form PAO5502 which now has both enzyme 1 AND enzyme 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course it might be possible - but is it the case? Do we know that 5501 had the first enzyme? And if it did, what contribution did it have so as to preserve it?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this pathway a possiblility?  And shouldn't Spetner examine the development of enzyme 1 instead of discarding it with a non-sequitor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It isn't that he dismissed it. He just concentrated on the probability of the other enzyme, and then mentions that the existence of the need for two enzymes and more steps decreases the probability further.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, why should there be a built-in capability to metabolize nylon, which did not exist until 1937 or so? The answer is there shouldn't be. But there could have been a built-in capability to metabolize some other substrate. Kinoshita et al. (1981) tested enzyme 2 against 50 possible substrates and found no activity, but that does not mean that it doesn't have activity on some substrate not tested. The activity of enzyme 2 was small, but enabled the bacteria to metabolize the nylon waste.

And we finish with an argument from personal increduality.  Without supporting evidence on WHY the increduality is even valid.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I would not call this an argument from Personal Incredulity (blessed be It's name) but that he thinks bugs are already prewired to deal with environmental stressors such as the natural penicillin that occurs in bread mold.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Avo,
Are you referring to the second-to-last paragraph in the nylon bug article where it states...  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not directly, but rather from my memory of what I have read in a few different places about organisms being able to turn on a high mutation rate under certain conditions and which apply only to certain parts of the genome, and which gets turned off again when appropriate. And that, really, is the only point I had about all this. That it is a controlled skill which directs the mutations in these cases.

Demallion,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,14:09)
It (rapid mutation) gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.
***********
Ahhh, OK, there's the disconnect! For you, God is in there fiddling with the mutations that occur so that our bacteria can adapt to it's new environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well wow and double wow. I mean, where did you ever come up with that? How can you just make up stuff that is so completely at odds with everything I said? Are you that desperate to have me say what you think a 'creationist' would say?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This leads me to ask you if you consider God to be completely incompetent?  Because I don't see any other justification for all of the other mutations that are observed in the experiment, but which don't aid in the task of adapting to the environment, if it's God that's responable. Remember the "silent" point mutations that were observed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I mean, how hard is this? I responded to another poster's misunderstanding of what I wrote, I clarified that the mutations are random. The organism turns up mutations somehow, in what is probably a random search for solutions. Faced with certain stressors, it turns up mutations in certain areas of the genome,  and when a solution is found, turns it off again.

Serendipity,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, heading towards a more reductionist view (it seems) how would Planck and Classical Quantum (Gauge Field) be divided into smaller microstats?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

could you clarify your question?

Cedric,

You ask for my scientific arguments for ID, and you insist that unless the game is played on your terms, I can be dismissed. But I have answered you by telling what books and papers I have read, and said I find their arguments tenable. I also said I find the arguments about information buildup and IC particularly strong. For you to dismiss Denton's arguments in Nature's Destiny and Crisis as unscientific is idiotic. If all you guys can come up with is that the counterarguments to evolution are not science, then you really are playing games.
*******
I am VERY dismayed by the level of hatred expressed by most of the posters here. I was going to use the word hostility, but it isn't adequate. You have quite convined me that you are fundamentalists. Numbers of comments show that the poster considers it just fine to dismiss other human beings based upon their prejudice, and that they do not deserve civil treatment. This means that you are unable to hear what they say, and the constant assumptions and misunderstandings of my many plain statements mean that my words are just piss in the wind here. There is little point in talking to people who can't listen. And I do want to emphasize the word 'can't.'

You guys seriously believe that those who don't agree with you are dishonest, and you use words such as nutters and the insane so that you can keep it up - the ability to completely dismiss other points of view by dehumanizing those who hold them. Please tell me how you are different from an Islamic fundamentalist who wants to engage in Jihad with the infidels. Or the Christian explorers of yore who killed and abused the natives who were, after all, destined for ####? And if I had tried to point out to them the error of their ways - could they hear it?

This means you have isolated yourselves in a mental world of your making.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! And I know you can't hear me, can't believe me, can't examine yourselves.

I don't have any hope that more than a slight amount of real progress can be had in a discussion like this. People are not going to change, generally, but what does interest me is the patterns I see in human beings, and how it matters little what position you take, but that the content of your character determines how you behave within that position.

Just look at this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists are every single one to the last drop COMPLETELY AND UTERLY INSANE and are no different to the 9/11 bombers...they believe the biggest lie ever told.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who thinks that being polite to a Theofacist will stop them, is living in fantasy land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am shocked, and even frightened by this level of hatred. There is nothing to which such a person would not stoop. This is the seed of violence. k.e. has given us a picture of his inner world, and it is not a decent place. k.e. apparently believes that if you believe in God you are a theofascist. That would include Wesley, apparently. And if that is not what he believes, then he has some nerve calling me a theofascist. If anyone would call me a theofascist then they have not seen a word I have said, and have made up an opinion out of pure fantasy. I don't appreciate it, it is cetainly dishonest, and it indicates a mind that is so tied up with preconceptions that you just can't get into it's smooth, billard ball surface.

I don't mind the F word near as much as this, and I would overlook some of Lenny's nastiness if what he had to say contained any substance. It doesn't. His posts are downright silly.

But generally, it is hard to overlook nastiness, because it is draining. I don't live that way. It's like if you had some relative who asked you to take her in during some crisis, and she pulls her world into your life. Her ex-husband comes and knocks her around, there are fights and screaming, glasses get thrown, police arrive. Drug dealing boyfriends spend the night, she drinks and gets into fights and cries, etc, etc. I just wouldn't want something like that in my house.

I find it best to distance myself from people who don't know how else to live but in extremes of useless emotion.

The level of emotionality expressed here is way beyond what it should be.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,18:29

Avo, given that (as you acknowledged yourself) you don't know anything you are talking about, why should anyone here give a flying fig what you think?

Sorry if that question is impolite.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 02 2007,18:37

Chris,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My theory of intelligent design checklist goes:

1. How old is the Earth?
2. Did all species:
 b. All descended from a smaller number of species(ie kinds) (goto 3)
 c. All descended from a common ancestor(goto 5)

3. If the earth is old, how does special creation better explain the nested heirachies found in nature than the idea that species evolved from a common ancestor with guidance from an intelligent designer.(goto 5)

4. If the Earth is young, how did a small number of species evolve into all those that currently exist in a few thousand years (taking into account extinct fossil species).(goto 12)

5. Assumiung some evolution took place did the designer:
 a. Act periodically to add information
 b. Set life off with all the information already contained in the genomes

6. If information was 'frontloaded' into genomes what did it look like in ancient organisms before it was used, and how did it avoid being degraded by mutation

7. What triggered the release of new information

8. What mechanism did the organism use to detect the trigger

9. What mechanism did the organism use to activate the new information

10. What evidence shows that these mechanisms have been in operation

11. If theses mechanisms are unknown what experiments could be performed to determine them?(goto 13)

12. Assuming the desinger intervened to input new information how could this be tested scientifically? Assume that the theory of evolution and common descent have been disproven.

13. Assuming the theory of evolution has been disproven, what discoveries could falsify your mechanisms, idea of common descent, and age of the earth.

You can assume for all of these questions that the theory of evolution has been disproven.

There may be more quesitons, but you need answers to all of them before you can claim there is a theory of ID, let alone that it is better than the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Plenty of good questions. Where I disagree with you is that they have to be answered before anyone can approach origins with other than mindless chance as the assumption. It is no more logical, in the face of our ignorance, to have a preset notion of mindlessness at the bottom of reality, than mind. All other things being equal. But are they equal. And that is the question. What I can say, in regard to your several questions, is to repeat that trying to decode life, what it is and how it works, and it's history, turns out to be a really hard, and really big and deep question. Slamming and sneering because one faction has used more imagination to cement together a coherent-appearing theory just slows things down. Better to hang loose and not be motivated by inner feelings of threat. Whatever will be will be, whatever is true is true.

For all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.

But hey, Davison and others have made some attempt at getting started on a few of them.

Again, I don't disbelieve in evolution, just don't think it happened in an NDE way. That is why I say life unfolded.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 02 2007,18:48

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,23:50)
(do we have lurker stats for this board SteveStory?),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are a couple dozen people who comment regularly here. 50 or so who comment occasionally. A few hundred who routinely lurk under registered accounts, and thousands who stop by occasionally.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 02 2007,18:50

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 02 2007,19:10)
If all you guys can come up with is that the counterarguments to evolution are not science, then you really are playing games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am VERY dismayed by the level of hatred expressed by most of the posters here. I was going to use the word hostility, but it isn't adequate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry honey, but it ain't hatred.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For you to dismiss Denton's arguments in Nature's Destiny and Crisis as unscientific is idiotic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have quite convined me that you are fundamentalists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is little point in talking to people who can't listen. And I do want to emphasize the word 'can't.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys seriously believe that those who don't agree with you are dishonest....If anyone would call me a theofascist then they have not seen a word I have said, and have made up an opinion out of pure fantasy. I don't appreciate it, it is cetainly dishonest, and it indicates a mind that is so tied up with preconceptions that you just can't get into it's smooth, billard ball surface.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just love it when someone chides you for making personal attacks by making personal attacks.  This is the person that called me a Simpleton when I challenged her assertion

< linky >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 02 2007,18:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted: Feb. 02 2007,19:10

Please tell me how you are different from an Islamic fundamentalist who wants to engage in Jihad with the infidels. Or the Christian explorers of yore who killed and abused the natives who were, after all, destined for ####?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this post hadn't had so much substance to it, it would have gotten moved to the Bathroom Wall. The next such 'how are you any different from the following murderers' type post gets the boot.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 02 2007,19:01

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2007,19:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted: Feb. 02 2007,19:10

Please tell me how you are different from an Islamic fundamentalist who wants to engage in Jihad with the infidels. Or the Christian explorers of yore who killed and abused the natives who were, after all, destined for ####?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this post hadn't had so much substance to it, it would have gotten moved to the Bathroom Wall. The next such 'how are you any different from the following murderers' type post gets the boot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Substance?
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 02 2007,19:26

Hello, Avocationist..


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
could you clarify your question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I honestly have forgotten what it specifically related too except some vague memory of "beyond quantum". That being said (and my being rather lazy at the moment to go back through the thread to recheck) - is there anything smaller than quanta?

Frac aka Serendipity.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 02 2007,19:33

I am VERY dismayed by the level of hatred expressed certain posters -- not to mention the hyperbole, the overwrought melodramatic generalizations, the instant identification with the least applicable statements.

To use a comment directed at creationist/fundamentalists to launch into a venom-and-smelling-salts-laced diatribe against posters in general is horrifying. Being of Native American extraction, I was shocked beyond all possible imagination at  the comparison of sweet, kindly people here and the Krazed Konquistador Killers of the past.

I wept when I heard this terrifying level of cruel and murderous dehumanizing generalization that spewed forth in a raging manic diatribe --  I am still crying as I imagine the bulging eyes of those that post such monstrous things, just because people ask for ...evidence *gasp*.

I have no doubts that the underlying motive is some kind of desire to bring violent reprisals on those who disagree as the true demonic perpetrators hide behind  the thin disguise of victimhood.

I am afraid now-- afraid for the well-being of every single human being on the planet because I have seen the TRUE face of evil, and it is ...posters like you and me...typing, typing typing their bloody screeds to inflame the souls of billions and bring about ARMAGEDDON!!!

Parodies done cheap.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,19:51

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 02 2007,18:37)
But hey, Davison and others have made some attempt at getting started on a few of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Davison?

JOHN Davison?

John *A* Davison ?????

(shakes head, pulls own hair)  Oh, puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

No WONDER everyone thinks you're nutty.


Sorry if that is impolite.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 02 2007,19:55

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 02 2007,18:37)
Again, I don't disbelieve in evolution, just don't think it happened in an NDE way. That is why I say life unfolded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see.  

And science should give a flying fig what you think . . . um . . . why, again . . . . ?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 02 2007,20:18



Leonard your posts have become tiresome.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 02 2007,20:23

deadman:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I am still crying as I imagine the bulging eyes of those that post such monstrous things, just because people ask for ...evidence *gasp*.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Well .....gerbils to you.
Posted by: creeky belly on Feb. 02 2007,20:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it drivel? Someone responds to the idea of other dimensions as if they were a magical idea, and I point out that if they exist, they are invisible to us. As you mentioned yourself, it is a part of string theory. If the string theorists are right, then those other dimensions are the bedrock of what we call reality, and yet we can't perceive those dimensions. We already know that there is a world of the unseen - life forms, molecules, atoms. We know that we can perceive but a small band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and yet people perist in always thinking that the latest discovery is the final and last. That we have already uncovered so much of the unseen, should instead have the opposite effect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We have ways of measuring these things, verifying empirically that they exist. That human beings can't see X-rays or hear dog whistles, is inconsequential since we can construct devices that measure pressure or react when exposed to x-rays which produce observations that we can understand/perceive. String theory is no different. If string theory is correct, then there are certain things that we should observe, non-trivially, that would confirm the basic tenants of the theory (Lorentz invariance, hopefully the escaping graviton, etc). We can reconstruct data that supports the theory without being able to sense it directly.  If God exists in some other dimension, then He too must be able to act in a non-trivially way.
Judging from the last sentence you wrote, again, you should probably save yourself the embarrassment, if that's really how you think scientists view the world. We have at least 10 experiments coming in the next decade, one of which I'm a part of, that are re-measuring parts of the EM spectrum in our universe(from Gamma-rays to Radio). They've all been measured before, but breakthroughs in technology and theory have driven us to peer deeper and further than ever before. To say that the scientific community thinks that the most recent experiment is the final tell-all displays great ignorance of the discipline of science and the current state of science research. At this point I will wish you good luck in your philosophical quest, I respectfully disagree with your position, and hope you spend some time reading about real science instead of what you think science is.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 02 2007,20:55

I think it is accurate to say, without exaggeration, that no being has ever been exposed to such emasculating, dehumanizing mockery as I was when not only was I forced to read k.e say "gerbils" but I was then assaulted by the terrifying visage of Dieter.

I am crying as I write this because this is the same Dieter whose demonic posturings and contortions are shown to millions of callow youths as he prances and capers like Satan himself across the graves of countless innocents.

I am crying because my shaking fear now knows no bounds since others have seen fit to torture my senses with their pixels of furious hate.

I am crying because now mankind itself is endangered.

I am crying because now my life has lost all meaning and I stand at the precipice of madness, staring into the dark abyss of nihilistic suicide.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 02 2007,22:42

[quote=avocationist,Feb. 02 2007,19:10]Mike DSS,[/quote]
It's Mike PSS
Project
Steve
Sibling

My brother is on the list at < Project Steve at NCSE. >
I'm only a lowly BSc. of Chemical Engineering so I guess I can't join "Project Mike" when it gets started (hopefully never).

Also, here's the papers were talking about.
< Nylon Bug paper I referenced. >
< Spetner's Objections to nylon bugs. >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The results found two NEW bacterial strains (PAO5501 and PAO5502) where PAO5502 was actually derived from an isolated solution of PAO5501.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm not clear on the relevance of 5501 and in what way it was a different strain from the original -1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, now we would have to get into the chemical details of why there is a two step process for a bug to eat nylon.  Each step has distinct products.  In simple terms suffice it to say that the experimenters created an environment where a bug that produced the first product of nylon digestion would thrive (they called this bug PAO5501) whereas the PAO1 bug would starve.  The experimenters then took this PAO5501 bug and placed it into an environment that only a bug that produced the second product of nylon digestion would thrive (they called THIS bug PAO5502).  So they showed that two seperate mutations were needed but they "created" these mutations in the lab in a stepwise function.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that is a bit disingenuous to the work done and support given to the "educated guess" of the experimenters.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am not sure why you say so. If we don't know how it happens, how can we talk about whether random processes are adequate? I don't disagree at all with their educated guess that 'the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I explained clearly in the last post WHY it was a bit disingenuous because of the detailed analysis of comparitive experiments whose results speak directly to this experiment.  This is no different from a judge using case law and past precedence as a basis for a judgement of a related case.  Whether lawyer or biologist, both parties used previously established norms to support their present conclusions.  THIS is why you can't just say "Their guessing so it's no good".  You have to show WHY the guess is no good by investigating the past precedence evidence and find flaws in reasoning or judgement to "break" the links of the present experimental conclusions with any supporting evidence.  This is not meant to be onerous to the challanger but a necessary step to have any factual or logical basis to challange the experimental conclusions.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You quote Spetner:
"there are two altered enzymes, not just one.
Both these enzymes are needed
Neither of these enzymes alone is effective."

But did you undersand his point that he finds two alterations mathematically suspect, i.e., improbable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spetner never referenced (so I suspect was not aware) this experiment.  If Spetner saw the experimental results then what he claimed (his calculation of a small probability of two alterations) would require a bit of rework in the mathematical assumptions.  Because the process happened from scratch (pure PAO1 bug) in three months.  I know I wouldn't carry on with my improbability claims if someone showed me what I was claiming had actually occurred in three months.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do not understand your point here:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Spetner is NOT aware of the enzymes in the NEW strain of PAO5502 that eat nylon. I wonder how many point mutations and changed amino acids are in the PAO5502 bug?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you saying he was talking about a different organsm, and should have been aware also of this one? The bug he discussed did survive on nylon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I had told you that there are TWO different bugs already identified before this experiment.  And this experiment created a THIRD bug from scratch.  Spetner is referencing one of the two original bugs when he is talking about point mutations and amino acid changes.  However, he doesn't clarify what baseline he is choosing to compare results (it's probably contained in one of his three references).  I would have to see the referenced paper to make any conclusion.  But I can guess that the mutation numbers are probably in comparison with the parent bug from 30 years ago.  This means that we have 30 years of mutations and changes to account.  And some of these could appear in the organism over time as modifications to the original mutation to improve its nylon eating/digesting capability.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Spetner cannot make these claims [probability of success] without further analyzing the mutational effect of the NEW strain of PAO5502 which was produced in only 3 months (maximum, maybe faster) from PAO1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What was different about this case - fewer steps?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As stated above, Spetners probability claims are probably based on a point mutation comparison of bugs that seperated 30 years ago.  He hasn't measured the point mutations or amino acid changes between PAO1 and PAO5502.  Those numbers are surely different than the ones he is using in his sputum math.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BUT, we saw in the experiment that PAO5502 was a new strain only AFTER PAO5501 was isolated and the conditions changed. Therefore, might it be possible that PAO1 mutates to form PAO5501 which has enzyme 1 developed but not enzyme 2.  THEN PAO5501 mutates to form PAO5502 which now has both enzyme 1 AND enzyme 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course it might be possible - but is it the case? Do we know that 5501 had the first enzyme? And if it did, what contribution did it have so as to preserve it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

PAO5501 had the step1 mutation as indicated in my verbose prose above.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this pathway a possiblility?  And shouldn't Spetner examine the development of enzyme 1 instead of discarding it with a non-sequitor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It isn't that he dismissed it. He just concentrated on the probability of the other enzyme, and then mentions that the existence of the need for two enzymes and more steps decreases the probability further.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again, Spetner doesn't look at the this experiment so cannot make conclusions without at least looking at ALL the evidence.  Remember, this experiment was published seven years before Spetner's comments.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, why should there be a built-in capability to metabolize nylon, which did not exist until 1937 or so? The answer is there shouldn't be. But there could have been a built-in capability to metabolize some other substrate. Kinoshita et al. (1981) tested enzyme 2 against 50 possible substrates and found no activity, but that does not mean that it doesn't have activity on some substrate not tested. The activity of enzyme 2 was small, but enabled the bacteria to metabolize the nylon waste.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And we finish with an argument from personal increduality.  Without supporting evidence on WHY the increduality is even valid.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I would not call this an argument from Personal Incredulity (blessed be It's name) but that he thinks bugs are already prewired to deal with environmental stressors such as the natural penicillin that occurs in bread mold.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Again (and again and again with Spetner it seems) this experiment flys in the face of his conclusions.  As I stated above, the experiment laid out a supporting basis of findings to support the stated conclusions.  Spetner doesn't deal with the supporting evidence at all.

And it also seems that Spetner is being a bit hypocritical by "ignoring" enzyme1 development (while then calling it improbable) while at the same time criticising an experiment because "50 tests were not enough so they ignored some other capability.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Avo,
Are you referring to the second-to-last paragraph in the nylon bug article where it states...  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not directly, but rather from my memory of what I have read in a few different places about organisms being able to turn on a high mutation rate under certain conditions and which apply only to certain parts of the genome, and which gets turned off again when appropriate. And that, really, is the only point I had about all this. That it is a controlled skill which directs the mutations in these cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I pointed out in my last post about the supporting claim in previous experiments of increased mutation rate due to starvation.  I have to reread your statement above because semantic mix-ups while discussing this are easy to make.
You are insinuating in your reply that the bug actively chooses to increase mutations when faced with environmental conditions.
I would say that the mutation rate is increased (not sure how without reading the referenced papers that claim this) when the bug finds itself in a starvation condition.  And the only way to "shut down" the high mutation rate is to either adapt (mutate) or find food (or die of course).  There is nothing about choice in the experimenters conclusions so insinuating choice in your response is confusing.
Also, I would like to see a reference on the "apply only to certain parts of the genome" claim you made.  I would disagree to this point at present.

Mike PSS

p.s. Remember, I also admitted something about the experiment.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guess what, someone else could run this experiment again and set up a sampling regime to actually test and measure the molecular changes from generation to generation of this bug to see what actual mechanism occurs.  Maybe if I go back to school and pursue a biology doctorate this could be my thesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[it's all about me]There, I just gave this board some juicy research idea that some PhD reading this will go out and accomplish.  I want honorable mention from any of you pointy heads that steal my idea and get it published.  I did the hard part in coming up with the idea in the first place.[/it's all about me]
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 02 2007,23:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! And I know you can't hear me, can't believe me, can't examine yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do you know what projection means?

just wonderin.
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,00:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it drivel? Someone responds to the idea of other dimensions as if they were a magical idea, and I point out that if they exist, they are invisible to us. As you mentioned yourself, it is a part of string theory. If the string theorists are right, then those other dimensions are the bedrock of what we call reality, and yet we can't perceive those dimensions. We already know that there is a world of the unseen - life forms, molecules, atoms. We know that we can perceive but a small band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and yet people perist in always thinking that the latest discovery is the final and last. That we have already uncovered so much of the unseen, should instead have the opposite effect.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I had a vision of Zeno's Paradox blended with Olber's Paradox when I read this. It also appears to be leading away from what is known, to delve into what is unknown and thus blur the known because of it - make sense?

For example, the usage of Super String - which works on a map of space in relation to a string, and that strings coordinates on that map. It is quantum fielding. Having said that, many tend to think that quantum mechanics is this mystical side of physics when its not. Hence computation is the basis behind predictions of Superstring.

Making appeals to science because of incomplete data does not substantiate anything except researchers in science - and that they have more work to do.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Feb. 03 2007,00:37

Avo,
    Clearly what we have here is a failure to communicate.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You ask for my scientific arguments for ID, and you insist that unless the game is played on your terms, I can be dismissed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the fact that you at least acknowledge my request is heartening.  This business about 'the game' though is wierd.  I'm trying to have a discussion with you, like an adult.
When I went to university, my professor said to me "Hey Cedric, read this book and then argue about it".
So I'd read the book, form an opinion and then proceed to defend my opinion in tutorials with other students.
Having read  the book and saying that you like the book or found it convincing is a totally useless thing to say UNLESS you are then going to make an argument to defend your position.  Otherwise, what's the point???
You read a book? (Congratulations.  What do you want, a medal?)
Oh, you like the book?  (Isn't that cute. Yes the pictures are pretty.)
Ah, you found the arguments convincing?  ***Talk is cheap.  Prove it to me.***
You're happy to wax lyrical about your special metaphysical relationship with Life, the Universe and Everything.  (Actually, it's almost impossible to stop you!!) And yet...and yet...when I ask you about your version of a scientific argument for ID, you become all defensive and juvenile with your "I doan wanna play your silly game".
You came here to discuss ID and exchange ideas, yeah?
So, discuss them already.  Like grown-ups do.
If you don't actually have a scientific argument for ID, then do us all a favour and just say so.  I'll promise never to bring the subject up again.
If you like I'll provide you with some escape phrases.
"Can't do it because I'm too busy"
"Can't do it because I"m tired"
"Can't do it because I'm thirsy"
"Can't do it because I have a bus to catch"
"Can't do it because you are secretly in league with the Crab People"
"Can't do it beause there's something good on TV"
Don't worry, I'll be able to connect the dots from here.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cedric,
For you to dismiss Denton's arguments in Nature's Destiny and Crisis as unscientific is idiotic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I dismiss him if we haven't even discussed him yet?  Make an argument for crying out loud!  Use him as a resource.  In fact, please do if you you think it will support your argument.
I have not dismissed Denton.  OK?
Because we have not had an argument. OK?
We have not had an argument about ID (or Denton). OK?
Now, the red carpet is laid out for you.  Argue.  Make it interesting.

(Waits...whistles "Born Free" in quiet, tuneless sort of way...and waits....)

Oh I forgot.
What was I I'm waiting for?
Avo's list of 'My Favourite Books"? Umm..no.
Avo's explanation of "Where she's coming from?" Umm..no.
How about Avo's special recipe for blueberry pie?  Umm..no. I don't think that was it...
Give me a second. I'll remember eventually.

....Born free...as free...as...the...wind...blows...
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 03 2007,00:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I doan wanna play your silly game".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



translated into Dembskispeak:

"We don't need your pathetic level of detail."
Posted by: argystokes on Feb. 03 2007,00:58

Mike,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say that the mutation rate is increased (not sure how without reading the referenced papers that claim this) when the bug finds itself in a starvation condition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chris Hyland posted this image on another thread back in August; it might be helpful for discussion on hypermutation events.

Posted by: demallien on Feb. 03 2007,04:05

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 02 2007,18:10)
Demallion,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,14:09)
It (rapid mutation) gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.
***********
Ahhh, OK, there's the disconnect! For you, God is in there fiddling with the mutations that occur so that our bacteria can adapt to it's new environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well wow and double wow. I mean, where did you ever come up with that? How can you just make up stuff that is so completely at odds with everything I said? Are you that desperate to have me say what you think a 'creationist' would say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avocationist,

OK, you've got me.  I'm trying to figure out where the logic derails in your thought process.  It's not an easy task, trying to guess where the irrationality lies.  Apparently, I guessed wrong.

Let me recap where we were at:

Me -

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You describe in detail the mutation (a frame shift).  You acknowledge that the gene that has been frame-shifted was in fact originally used for other purposes.  You acknowledge that with further point mutations to this gene we could arrive at a highly specialised organism that is apparently (according to the measures "defined" by Behe) irreducibly complex, yet arrived at by simple random mutation and natural selection.  In your own words, you have just completely invalidated ID, showing that irreducibly complex organisms can evolve naturally.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, now from my point of view, you've had just admitted that the whole of the theory of evolution is correct.  But unless we have all gone barking up the wrong tree, you don't think that evolution describes how life on this planet got to where it is today.  Correct?  If so, could you please explain why the process listed above isn't sufficient?
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,04:49

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2007,15:55)
I think it is accurate to say, without exaggeration, that no being has ever been exposed to such emasculating, dehumanizing mockery as I was when not only was I forced to read k.e say "gerbils" but I was then assaulted by the terrifying visage of Dieter.

I am crying as I write this because this is the same Dieter whose demonic posturings and contortions are shown to millions of callow youths as he prances and capers like Satan himself across the graves of countless innocents.

I am crying because my shaking fear now knows no bounds since others have seen fit to torture my senses with their pixels of furious hate.

I am crying because now mankind itself is endangered.

I am crying because now my life has lost all meaning and I stand at the precipice of madness, staring into the dark abyss of nihilistic suicide.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 03 2007,05:04

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:49)
Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mon chéri... à moins qu'il soit moins homme qu'on a cru ;-)
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,05:13

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,00:04)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:49)
Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mon chéri... à moins qu'il soit moins homme qu'on a cru ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peut etre je demanderai pardon en avance pour ce commentaire hahaha. Votre conflit n'est pas la mine mais si vous voulez etre plus d'un homme qu'il est, alors etre mon invite  :p
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,05:17

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,00:13)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,00:04)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:49)
Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mon chéri... à moins qu'il soit moins homme qu'on a cru ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peut etre je demanderai pardon en avance pour ce commentaire hahaha. Votre conflit n'est pas la mine mais si vous voulez etre plus d'un homme qu'il est, alors etre mon invite  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Votre correction de cher a ete note, a ete catalogue.

Naku noa, Deadman,

Kei pakeha korero tutai tenei.

Poi marie, taku tane hoa.

Jo
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,05:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don't actually have a scientific argument for ID, then do us all a favour and just say so.  I'll promise never to bring the subject up again.
If you like I'll provide you with some escape phrases.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll directly cite off GodandScience Website:

Characteristics of a Successful ID Model

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

< Full Transcript Here. >
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 03 2007,12:59

Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 03 2007,01:58)
Mike,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say that the mutation rate is increased (not sure how without reading the referenced papers that claim this) when the bug finds itself in a starvation condition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chris Hyland posted this image on another thread back in August; it might be helpful for discussion on hypermutation events.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you argy.
Y-u-u-u-u-p-y-u-u-p-y-u-pyupyupupupupup (food for your avatar)

This explains (a little) the point Avo was making about genes selected for mutation too.  I guess we were talking along parallel tracks but each had different information.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 03 2007,13:05

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,06:17)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,00:13)
 
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,00:04)
 
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:49)
Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mon chéri... à moins qu'il soit moins homme qu'on a cru ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peut etre je demanderai pardon en avance pour ce commentaire hahaha. Votre conflit n'est pas la mine mais si vous voulez etre plus d'un homme qu'il est, alors etre mon invite  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Votre correction de cher a ete note, a ete catalogue.

Naku noa, Deadman,

Kei pakeha korero tutai tenei.

Poi marie, taku tane hoa.

Jo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Need I say more?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 03 2007,13:41

Lissen up: you people should learn American and use it like normal human beings: if it was good enough for the Jesus and the Bible, it's good enough for me.
Damm furriners. - dt

Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,15:42

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 04 2007,08:05)
Need I say more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Je crache dans votre visage!!!!
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 03 2007,15:44

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 04 2007,08:41)
Lissen up: you people should learn American and use it like normal human beings: if it was good enough for the Jesus and the Bible, it's good enough for me.
Damm furriners. - dt

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Je dis ceci avec l'amour - me mordre  :)
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 03 2007,16:57

Re "since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA"

Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared? ;)

Henry
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 03 2007,17:19

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,15:42)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 04 2007,08:05)
Need I say more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Je crache dans votre visage!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We would say "je vous crache à la gueule", which is not very kind, to say the least.

Nice frog, BTW.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 03 2007,17:52

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 03 2007,16:57)
Re "since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA"

Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared? ;)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not mentioning that the coalescent is much more ancient for autosomal regions.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 03 2007,18:46

Hello Steve's Sibling Mike,

Things are quite confusing so I'll have to try to clarify a bit. You say that "the experimenters created an environment where a bug that produced the first product of nylon digestion would thrive (they called this bug PAO5501) whereas the PAO1 bug would starve."
So this means that it was done in such a way that there was an artifically created survival island. What conditions could that have been? What did the bugs eat ? Then, "The experimenters then took this PAO5501 bug and placed it into an environment that only a bug that produced the second product of nylon digestion would thrive."  Hmmm...but Spetner is talking about the probability of whichever bug that survives on nylon that he was aware of. If there is a newer set - I do not know how much it does or does not relate to his older set.

Yes, I know 5501 had the first enzyme mutation. What I am wondering is what did that allow it to do so that  it to survived and generated the next level of mutation?

It sounds like they knew what they were going for in advance? And perhaps that is because they were trying to recreate earlier nylon eating bugs? So if they created them stepwise, then it is already a bit intelligently designed, no?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I explained clearly in the last post WHY it was a bit disingenuous because of the detailed analysis of comparitive experiments whose results speak directly to this experiment. THIS is why you can't just say "Their guessing so it's no good".  You have to show WHY the guess is no good by investigating the past precedence evidence and find flaws in reasoning or judgement to "break" the links of the present experimental conclusions with any supporting evidence.  This is not meant to be onerous to the challanger but a necessary step to have any factual or logical basis to challange the experimental conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But what did they guess? What I saw in the article was that they stated they didn't really know how it happened, except that it was the result of stress, with which I agree. And I never said their guess was no good, I simply said we don't understand the mechanisms by which bugs seem to come up with just what they need when they need it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Spetner never referenced (so I suspect was not aware) this experiment.  If Spetner saw the experimental results then what he claimed (his calculation of a small probability of two alterations) would require a bit of rework in the mathematical assumptions.  Because the process happened from scratch (pure PAO1 bug) in three months.  I know I wouldn't carry on with my improbability claims if someone showed me what I was claiming had actually occurred in three months.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So it appears that Spetner was talking about an earlier experiment, not this one. But your emphasis that it happened in a very short time only decreases the probabilities. Spetner isn't doubting that it happens, what he is doubting is that it is a process with no direction. He thinks random processes would not just happen to come up with such focused mutations at the right time.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had told you that there are TWO different bugs already identified before this experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now I thought you said they had to create the first one.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I stated above, the experiment laid out a supporting basis of findings to support the stated conclusions.  Spetner doesn't deal with the supporting evidence at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 What conclusions does Spetner disagree with?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it also seems that Spetner is being a bit hypocritical by "ignoring" enzyme1 development (while then calling it improbable) while at the same time criticising an experiment because "50 tests were not enough so they ignored some other capability.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the bit which confused me before. Spetner's point about the two separate mutations is that it is even more unlikely to have two lucky chances occur than one. What's the 50 experiments comment about?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say that the mutation rate is increased  when the bug finds itself in a starvation condition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but other conditions cause it, too, or we wouldn't have antibiotic resistance.

Yes, I should look for some reference on this, although I generally have a hard time finding what I'm looking for. I guess I have lousy googling skills as well.

Ichthyic,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do you know what projection means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I do, and I find it a particularly useful concept. Projection is what k.e. did in his shocking post, and that is why I said we had gotten a picture of his inner world.

Or, maybe he is right and I am an insane theofascist who must be stopped.

Serendipity,

You do love to talk over my head. I never said that science would accept other dimensions without proof, or at least clues to their existence. I merely mentioned other dimensions for reasons I have long since forgotten, and got a response from somebody, as though it were a silly or magical idea. And my point was that IF there are other dimensions, they will be just as real and just as much part of our reality as the three or four we currently approve of. And they came back with the problem that we can't see them. So then my point was, don't let that be such a barrier, in light of what we have already discovered that was unseen or dreamt of a mere 2 or 3 or so hundred years ago.

As to whether there is anything smaller than quanta, I am not sure. A quanta is the smallest unit of energy? If it is the smallest unit, then by definition there is nothing smaller. Where do the proposed strings fit into this picture? By the way, the book I mentioned reading is called Beyond The Big Bang.

At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it? If I would look for ancient wisdom as regards cosmology or human history,  I'd probably look at Hindu sources.

I find the Biblical Genesis creation mythos rather nice, and reasonably compatible with science, and open to many different possible interpretations.

OK, Cedric, I'll give your question a try. But I don't even know how a scientific model is properly presented, so I'll go to wiki or something. As to whether ID has one, I don't know. As to whether ID is a theory or just an inference, I don't know. Probably I should know, since I am sure I've seen it discussed. But I don't find that question all that important.

Demallion,

You ask how I can explain why the process listed above isn't sufficient. First off, there is no process listed above, except that that author of that quote (and I have stressed this twice now that it wasn't me) believes that further mutations could accomplish an IC system. An unspecified IC system. So somebody says that he sees no reason why more mutations couldn't accomplish an IC system.

So what you are asking is why don't I think the mechanism of NDE, which is really random mutation, isn't sufficient. I hope you realize it's a pretty big question.

Of course, finding it insufficient, I then have to wonder - so what the heck did happen? Wouldn't we all like to know.

Let me point out that the scepticism over NDE isn't that small adjustments like that don't happen, but that they can lead to new body plans, or IC systems.

Henry,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So do the evolutionists have a theory to account for this oddity? And please don't let this comment be mistaken for my subscribing to a Noah's ark history of the human race. I'm just wonderin'.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 03 2007,18:57

Oh, wait, I missed this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Characteristics of a Successful ID Model

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this what I should use?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 03 2007,19:00

don't you know?

as a suggestion, perhaps rather than examining things you don't have a clue about, like how a theory is constructed, or how a testable model is produced, it seems to me your real issue is incredulity over how evolution could have produced structures deemed "irreducibly complex" by the ID crowd.

semantics aside (the term IC is patently vacuous to begin with), have you looked at any specific proposed "IC" system to see what the current research is on its evolution?

have you looked at research on eye evolution, for example?

the eye was the classic example used to start the whole "IC" phenomenon.

would you like links to the history of research showing how far we have come in elucidating the evolution of the eye in both vertebrates and invertebrates?

perhaps you would like to examine the thinking of Darwin himself on the issue, long before any of the research was ever done?

If it were me, and I didn't have any background in science, that's where I would at least start; then I would ask questions about the specific research papers to fill in the gaps in my own knowledge, rather than apply my own gut instincts.

...or have we already been there, done that?  I don't find the effort warranted to scan back and see.

but hey, you struggle with it however you like, and feel free to keep on projecting your own incredulity on to the rest of us.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 03 2007,19:34

Re Henry "Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared?"

Re acocationist "So do the evolutionists have a theory to account for this oddity? And please don't let this comment be mistaken for my subscribing to a Noah's ark history of the human race. I'm just wonderin'. "

I don't see an oddity there. Afaik there's no particular reason why the last dad-only parental line last common ancestor, and the last mom-only parental line last common ancestor, should have similar time spans.

Henry
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 03 2007,22:55

Avo,
I'll answer the questions quickly but start to direct the discussion away from Spetner and the experimenters conclusions but continue to use this as a factual reference.  We can carry on a long time about what someone meant or how they felt when they wrote, but we can spend a much shorter time just looking at the facts of the experiment (and the lack of any in Spetner's diatribe).
***************
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2007,19:46)
So this means that it was done in such a way that there was an artifically created survival island. What conditions could that have been? What did the bugs eat ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The conditions are outlined in the paper.  A bit technical but clearly laid out.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I am wondering is what did that allow it to do so that  it to survived and generated the next level of mutation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The agar plates where the PAO5501 bug was found were spiked with a food that only an enzyme1 modified bug would thrive.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It sounds like they knew what they were going for in advance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, most experiments tend to have a conclusion in mind.  So why carry out the experiment in the first place?  Hmmmm.....
(An obvious stick appears and hits me over the head)
Because the results may NOT be what the experimenters assume.  And THIS is what leads to discovery.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And perhaps that is because they were trying to recreate earlier nylon eating bugs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the experiment abstract states they are trying to create a similar functionality from a new bug strain.  Therefore a new bug.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if they created them stepwise, then it is already a bit intelligently designed, no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHAHAHAHAHA*****(choke)*****(cough)*****(ahem)*****
Refer to my redirection of the discussion below.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But what did they guess? What I saw in the article was that they stated they didn't really know how it happened, except that it was the result of stress, with which I agree. And I never said their guess was no good, I simply said we don't understand the mechanisms by which bugs seem to come up with just what they need when they need it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I agree that we don't know the mechanism for the mutations.  And the bottom of my last post outlines this.  There is a doctoral level thesis in this type of study I'm sure.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it appears that Spetner was talking about an earlier experiment, not this one. But your emphasis that it happened in a very short time only decreases the probabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How?  Show me the math.  Otherwise your handwaving here.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Spetner isn't doubting that it happens, what he is doubting is that it is a process with no direction. He thinks random processes would not just happen to come up with such focused mutations at the right time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The original nylon bugs were found in the nylon factory IIRC.  In fact, they were found in the factory effluent where there were reactants, intermediaries, and products all mixed up nicely in a soup of solvents and reagents.  Spetner is correct in saying that a nylon eating bug that eats nylon strands in your car needs both mutations to survive BUT HE IS INCORRECT IN RELATING THAT POINT BACK TO THE SOUP WHERE THE BUGS WERE ORIGINALLY FOUND.  He has no clue about how the first mutation for enzyme1 interacted with all the messy intermediaries in the chemical ooze.  I think you can infer a lot more information when you start to find out the facts of the origination of this organism.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I thought you said they had to create the first one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read the paper.  The two original bugs are referenced.  They started with a bug called PAO1 that had no nylon eating characteristics at all.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What conclusions does Spetner disagree with?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See below again.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is the bit which confused me before. Spetner's point about the two separate mutations is that it is even more unlikely to have two lucky chances occur than one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luck plays no part in THIS game.  And what do his calculated probablilities REALLY mean?  What part of the whole bug creation process, in light of the PAO5502 experiment is Spetner speaking too?  See below again.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's the 50 experiments comment about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A bit of Spetner Sputum when he read Kimura and pooh-poohed some testing regime in the Kimura paper.  Read the Spetner article.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, but other conditions cause it, too, or we wouldn't have antibiotic resistance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the expermenters didn't consider the mechanism your referring to as relevant.  So either they ignored it because it;
a) Didn't fit the model of the bug alteration/adaptation
b) They weren't aware of it
c) If they included it in their write-up it would introduce a contradictory result in their conclusions so they had to hide any type of linkage with "antibiotic resistance mechanisms"

I choose a) but who knows.  c) has a certain allure, and who can "trust" the Japanese after WWII anyway.

Anyway, on to my redirection statement.
***************************
I'm through with Spetner as a viable counter-pointer.  His ideas were shown to be incomplete when faced with the factual evidence of the nylon bug.  He may raise some philisophical questions but his science, to say the least, sucks.

Your statement on "intelligent designed" experiment is revealing.  Here's some questions based upon the experiment.  The questions should be answered with your (admittedly) limited understanding of some of the subjects.  Feelings or vague explanations are fine.  Ignore the experimenters conclusions but look at the facts.  The experimental set-up, the process of feeding the bugs, the measuring and identification methods, and the measured results.

1)  What part of the experimental results (NOTE: not the expermenters conclusions) were the result of intelligence/intelligent design/purposeful direction/etc...?

2)  What is the estimated probability (rough WAG) of this experimental result being repeated by another lab?

3)  Could another experiment use a totally different starting bug and still end up with a nylon eating bug at the end?


Looking at the facts can be revealing at times.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 04 2007,00:04

Hello, Avocationist.

Below is the chronology of our discussion (if it can be called that):

< Found here is: >"Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension. That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?"

< My response here is: >"Anyway, heading towards a more reductionist view (it seems) how would Planck and Classical Quantum (Gauge Field) be divided into smaller microstats?"

< Followed here with your: >"could you clarify your question?"

< Followed with my: >"I honestly have forgotten what it specifically related too except some vague memory of "beyond quantum". That being said (and my being rather lazy at the moment to go back through the thread to recheck) - is there anything smaller than quanta?"

Which has eventually lead us to < this >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do love to talk over my head. I never said that science would accept other dimensions without proof, or at least clues to their existence. I merely mentioned other dimensions for reasons I have long since forgotten, and got a response from somebody, as though it were a silly or magical idea. And my point was that IF there are other dimensions, they will be just as real and just as much part of our reality as the three or four we currently approve of. And they came back with the problem that we can't see them. So then my point was, don't let that be such a barrier, in light of what we have already discovered that was unseen or dreamt of a mere 2 or 3 or so hundred years ago.

As to whether there is anything smaller than quanta, I am not sure. A quanta is the smallest unit of energy? If it is the smallest unit, then by definition there is nothing smaller. Where do the proposed strings fit into this picture? By the way, the book I mentioned reading is called Beyond The Big Bang.

At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it? If I would look for ancient wisdom as regards cosmology or human history,  I'd probably look at Hindu sources.

I find the Biblical Genesis creation mythos rather nice, and reasonably compatible with science, and open to many different possible interpretations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are obviously confusing discussions. I answered a post made about Superstrings - but it was not in this direct dialogue (view above). You mentioned sub-quanta and sub-Planck So I suppose we should look at what "sub" means in this context:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
sub-
pref.

Below; under; beneath: subcutaneous.
Subordinate; secondary: subinfection.
Subdivision: subkingdom.
Less than completely or normally; nearly; almost: subfertility.

sub. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved February 03, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sub
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is below or beneath quanta and planck?

That would be the easiest way of of addressing that.
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 04 2007,00:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was responding to someone else, However its not so much the biblical content of it - its that it tries to employ scientific methodology.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 04 2007,00:30

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2007,18:46)
Demallion,

You ask how I can explain why the process listed above isn't sufficient. First off, there is no process listed above, except that that author of that quote (and I have stressed this twice now that it wasn't me) believes that further mutations could accomplish an IC system. An unspecified IC system. So somebody says that he sees no reason why more mutations couldn't accomplish an IC system.

So what you are asking is why don't I think the mechanism of NDE, which is really random mutation, isn't sufficient. I hope you realize it's a pretty big question.

Of course, finding it insufficient, I then have to wonder - so what the heck did happen? Wouldn't we all like to know.

Let me point out that the scepticism over NDE isn't that small adjustments like that don't happen, but that they can lead to new body plans, or IC systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avocationist,

OK, so your two objections are speciation and irreducible complexity?  I ask, because this statement was made in the passive voice in your last comment.

Anyway, assuming that these are in fact your objections (why raise them if not?), I'll try to address them.

Firstly, speciation (again, your phrase was "new body plan", but I assume that we are actually talking about speciation, correct me if I'm wrong).  From a ToE perspective, speciation is just two populations that are reproductively seperated accumulating mutations up to the point where the two populations can no longer interbreed - at which point you have a new species.

You are aware of course that major changes can be caused to a "body plan" by simple one off mutations, aren't you?  Look up 'homeobox' on wikipedia for a good discussion.  Of course, most mutations of this type produce non-functional body parts, but once the base change to the body plan has been obtained, I'm hopeful that you would agree that standard evolution could add in incremental functionality bit by bit.

I'm happy to go into further detail on this if you wish, but in general, my point is that changes to body plan can change dramatically in response to point mutations.  That, plus speciation as I have described above is all that is necessary to go from a 6 legged insect for example, to an 8 legged arachnid...

As for IC, what can I say but bah humbug.  This canard has been refuted so many times that I don't understand how it can still be getting discussed. Basically, imagine the following hypothetical:  There is a function performed by a cell-level machine, and this machine requires 20 separate components.  Through mutation the cellulaire machine acquires a new capability which is far more advantageous than the capability of the old machine - the organism can eat a wider range of foods for example.

But the thing is, all of those parts that were there for the original function just aren't needed for the new function, which only needs 13 parts to be functional.  So those unneeded are quietly dropped by evolution, one by one, inthe interest of efficiency (the energy used to build unneeded machine parts could be used elsewhere).  Eventually, we arrive at a point where only the needed 13 parts are left in the machine.

A human observer that arrives at this point may be left wondering how such a machine, which apparently would need all 13 parts to be developed at once, could possibly have evolved.  That is pretty much the argument for IC.  ID theory holds that something which is IC is proof against evolution.  As my hypothetical machine described above demonstrates however, this is not true.  To invalidate evolution, you would actually have to show that there is no step by step evolutionary pathway to arrive at the IC system.  No-one has ever successfully been able to do this.

You may like to ask yourself why ID researchers aren't actively trying to nail down such a system.  It's an obvious avenue of research, and as a bonus, it would actually be scientific refutation of the theory of evolution.  But, despite having had this flaw in IC explained to them over and over again, they haven't even changed from IC to "Non-incremental pathways".  Apparently even the ID movement itself doesn't take IC seriously enough to bother researching it.  I suggest you do the same and throw IC out the window as an idea.

PS: there's no 'o' in my pseudo...
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 04 2007,00:42

Avocationist,

"Beyond the Big Bang" is that by Odenwald or La Violette? Or some other person?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 04 2007,01:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may like to ask yourself why ID researchers aren't actively trying to nail down such a system.  It's an obvious avenue of research, and as a bonus, it would actually be scientific refutation of the theory of evolution.  But, despite having had this flaw in IC explained to them over and over again, they haven't even changed from IC to "Non-incremental pathways".  Apparently even the ID movement itself doesn't take IC seriously enough to bother researching it.  I suggest you do the same and throw IC out the window as an idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



why, it's because they don't need to of course, Behe just magically waives his hands and pronounces a system like the immune system, IC.  then, the stone tablet of IC pronouncement is passed down to the ID masses as law.  Moreover, stone tablets weigh more than a thousand actual research papers that completely negate the pronouncement, so any follower of ID can safely ignore any relevant research contrary to a Behe pronouncement.

see how simple and efficient it is?  no wasted tax dollars on research.

it just obviously IS.  why bother to research the fact that the sky is blue?

It's just BLUE.

duh.

;)

p.s.  (glad to see you have moved on)
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 04 2007,01:16

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,00:42)
Avocationist,

"Beyond the Big Bang" is that by Odenwald or La Violette? Or some other person?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you've been following the Dilbert/Pharyngula wars lately, you might conclude it was written by Scott Adams.

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....arn.php >
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 04 2007,03:42

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 04 2007,01:12)
p.s.  (glad to see you have moved on)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh :-)  But then, my point has always been that this discussion with Avocationist would be better if it was a bit more civilised...
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 04 2007,05:09

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 04 2007,20:16)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,00:42)
Avocationist,

"Beyond the Big Bang" is that by Odenwald or La Violette? Or some other person?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you've been following the Dilbert/Pharyngula wars lately, you might conclude it was written by Scott Adams.

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....arn.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds like it fell out of the 1987 pages of Odenwald  ???
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 04 2007,07:54

Dudes, this is like discussing Einsteinian relativity with your parakeet.

(shrug)
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 04 2007,12:11

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 05 2007,02:54)
Dudes, this is like discussing Einsteinian relativity with your parakeet.

(shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Parakeets are cute until they become repititious and you have to blow its head off *sighs*
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 04 2007,14:30

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 04 2007,08:54)
Dudes, this is like discussing Einsteinian relativity with your parakeet.

(shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Lenny.  Some of us enjoy the subtle give-and-take instead of the amphetiemine driven drive-by or the drunken brawl.

For example from my last post.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (Avo @ Yesterday)
It sounds like they (the experimenters) knew what they were going for in advance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, most experiments tend to have a conclusion in mind.  So why carry out the experiment in the first place?  Hmmmm.....
(An obvious stick appears and hits me over the head)
Because the results may NOT be what the experimenters assume.  And THIS is what leads to discovery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not saying the question was stupid, or ignorant, or silly.  I'm just saying that the answer is obvious, if you understand the scientific method.  That's all.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 04 2007,15:19

Avocationist--

Please keep in mind that if you cite mathematical arguments against evolutionary mechanisms, you must show both the assumptions and the derivations behind the calculations. It's not enough to say, "Well, Spetner claims that this change is very unlikely" unless we know how Spetner calculated the probability. This is particularly important when someone shows an experimental result that achieves what Spetner says is very unlikely, as Mike PSS has done. According to Spetner, evolution of the second enzyme would be nearly impossible under a three month period unless Something was guiding the mutation process, yet the second enzyme was produced by tweaking the selective environment, and not tweaking the response to that environment. The scientists did not guide the bacteria's response to that environment. This suggests that at least one of Spetner's assumptions is very flawed.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2007,15:33

Serendipity,

The Biblical site you quote seems to be saying they are superior to ID in that they have a more detailed presentation. Well, sure they do, since they have revealed text to go on. In a similar way, NDE, which I see as the other side of the coin to Biblical creationism - has a more complete theory - not much evidence to prove it but a nice, detailed theory. Lots of times I see the objection that someone or other wants to believe one theory over another because it has a fuller explanation. Never mind whether it holds water. But few have the intestinal fortitude to maintain the "I don't know" position when appropriate. This is one reason I find ID the most rational and scientific of the three competitors. They work with what they've got, not their imagination.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is below or beneath quanta and planck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seem to remember when reading up a bit on string theory and quantum mechanics the use of the term subquantum, and that planck length was a sort of natural behavioral divide, and much talk of quantum weirdness. Since string theory proposes tiny dimensions, it occured to me that the onset of quantum weirdness might signal entry into a smaller dimension, and perhaps planck length is where it begins.
The author is La Violette.

Ichthyic,

No, I've never been in a position to present a scientific model. and no, I don't need endless links to a lot of technical papers. I rather prefer to read the ideas as summarized by the experts on both sides, and see what each side has to say to the other. Now, if you have some particular point from a particular paper, cut and paste it.

And may I remind you and others that I did not come here to convince you of ID or any other particular agenda. I came to the Uncommonly Dense thread, in which there is the occasional good point dispersed with utter inanity as though you were boasting about how impervious you (plural) can be no matter the evidence - in a spirit of friendliness to let you know I disagree with the moderation policy of UD. Which I am beginning to rethink. At which point the hungry jackals here began to accost me with questions about how in the world I can walk and chew gum and ascribe to ID. So I try to answer and am told that I am dishonest and horribly disrespectful for daring to disagree with certain experts. Such appeals for submission to authority only increase the dismality of this whole thread.

Demallien,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a ToE perspective, speciation is just two populations that are reproductively seperated accumulating mutations up to the point where the two populations can no longer interbreed - at which point you have a new species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, but have you noticed how undetailed that is? Have you read any of the objections to it? Where have we ever seen any interesting new incipient species arising these past few thousand years?  I conservatively estimate 4 new species a year. And I don't mean species like fruit flies that can't be told apart or mice that may or may not still breed with each other.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You are aware of course that major changes can be caused to a "body plan" by simple one off mutations, aren't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, there was that pro-evolution film that Disco Institute was in an uproar about two years ago or so. How come all the evidence that they could come up with was a fruit fly with disability? How come all the human efforts at causing mutation couldn't come up with anything interesting or useful or different?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but once the base change to the body plan has been obtained, I'm hopeful that you would agree that standard evolution could add in incremental functionality bit by bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No I am not able to agree because there isn't any evidence for it, and what NDE has to say about that is that we can't watch it. So evidence is forever lost. The amount of rewiring and restructuring that would have to go on to add each and every new body part is staggering. Highly coordinated. Unknown vast number of changes to the DNA. And maybe not only DNA but epigenetic factors we are only now slowly becoming aware of. I believe I atually have a copy of Meyer's paper somewhere on this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for IC, what can I say but bah humbug.  This canard has been refuted so many times that I don't understand how it can still be getting discussed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Now that is news. I'd like to see just one.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Basically, imagine the following hypothetical:  There is a function performed by a cell-level machine, and this machine requires 20 separate components.  Through mutation the cellulaire machine acquires a new capability which is far more advantageous than the capability of the old machine - the organism can eat a wider range of foods for example.

But the thing is, all of those parts that were there for the original function just aren't needed for the new function, which only needs 13 parts to be functional.  So those unneeded are quietly dropped by evolution, one by one, inthe interest of efficiency (the energy used to build unneeded machine parts could be used elsewhere).  Eventually, we arrive at a point where only the needed 13 parts are left in the machine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha! I've got your number! You're actually on my side! You are posing as anti-ID but you're really kidding, right? In case you're not...no, surely you jest.

So that means that the explanation of the flagellum with it's 40 proteins and several interrelated parts is that it is a degeneration from a BIGGER machine with pehaps 50 or 60 parts, and that explains how it got here!! Neat.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To invalidate evolution, you would actually have to show that there is no step by step evolutionary pathway to arrive at the IC system.  No-one has ever successfully been able to do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Contrariwise, it would be necessary in order to pose that no need for any intelligent input into manifestly complex systems is required, to show how such a step-by-step pathway could happen.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may like to ask yourself why ID researchers aren't actively trying to nail down such a system.  It's an obvious avenue of research, and as a bonus, it would actually be scientific refutation of the theory of evolution.  But, despite having had this flaw in IC explained to them over and over again, they haven't even changed from IC to "Non-incremental pathways".  Apparently even the ID movement itself doesn't take IC seriously enough to bother researching it.  I suggest you do the same and throw IC out the window as an idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course they have attempted this very thing to their utmost, but I don't think it is considered possible to prove a negative. It is possible to show that it is logically indefensible to rely on something with so little probability, and that not just once here or there, but thousands and millions of times in the course of evolution.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 04 2007,15:48

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,15:33)
Demallien,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a ToE perspective, speciation is just two populations that are reproductively seperated accumulating mutations up to the point where the two populations can no longer interbreed - at which point you have a new species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, but have you noticed how undetailed that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a joke?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read any of the objections to it? Where have we ever seen any interesting new incipient species arising these past few thousand years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are thousands articles and dozens of books on speciation, they examine both mathematical and biological models.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I conservatively estimate 4 new species a year
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did you get that estimation?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 04 2007,16:00

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,16:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may like to ask yourself why ID researchers aren't actively trying to nail down such a system.  It's an obvious avenue of research, and as a bonus, it would actually be scientific refutation of the theory of evolution.  But, despite having had this flaw in IC explained to them over and over again, they haven't even changed from IC to "Non-incremental pathways".  Apparently even the ID movement itself doesn't take IC seriously enough to bother researching it.  I suggest you do the same and throw IC out the window as an idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course they have attempted this very thing to their utmost, but I don't think it is considered possible to prove a negative. It is possible to show that it is logically indefensible to rely on something with so little probability, and that not just once here or there, but thousands and millions of times in the course of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The probabilistic arguments against evolution are trivially false. But what strikes me as funny here is the whole 'you can't prove a negative' business.

Avocationist: There's a dinosaur in your underpants!
Steve: (looks) There is no dinosaur in my underpants.
Avocationist: Aha! That's a negative, you can't prove a negative!
Steve: Do you by any chance know AFDave?
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2007,16:12

Mike,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, most experiments tend to have a conclusion in mind.  So why carry out the experiment in the first place?  Hmmmm...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, of course I realize they were trying to induce mutations to allow the bug to eat nylon. My surprise was that they seemed to know about the need for the first enzyme mutation, and they artificially supported the two tier process to providing food for the middle step, indicating that they didn't expect success if they simply put the bug on the nylon. No doubt, in the original strain at the factory dump, the fact that there were multiple substrates available, took care of the problem. Nonetheless, in order to recreate it, they did indeed engage in some human assistance, intelligently applied.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it appears that Spetner was talking about an earlier experiment, not this one. But your emphasis that it happened in a very short time only decreases the probabilities.
How?  Show me the math.  Otherwise your handwaving here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Speaking of things which are obvious...I don't know how to calculate probabilities, but that won't be necessary. Let's say you need a mutation, and your chances of hitting it are one in a thousand. Would you be more likely to be successful if you have 3 months or three years?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Spetner is correct in saying that a nylon eating bug that eats nylon strands in your car needs both mutations to survive BUT HE IS INCORRECT IN RELATING THAT POINT BACK TO THE SOUP WHERE THE BUGS WERE ORIGINALLY FOUND.  He has no clue about how the first mutation for enzyme1 interacted with all the messy intermediaries in the chemical ooze.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK, but is he wrong that the two mutations occured? His calculations involve the full thirty years of time. His point was merely that two separate mutations events were required.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The two original bugs are referenced.  They started with a bug called PAO1 that had no nylon eating characteristics at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, I stated that wrong. When I said first, I meant 5501, the first of the mutant strains.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Luck plays no part in THIS game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So it's a determined process?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But the expermenters didn't consider the mechanism your referring to as relevant...
I choose a) but who knows.  c) has a certain allure, and who can "trust" the Japanese after WWII anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Point being, there begins to be some interesting things turning up about how these one-celled organisms deal with various stressors, that they seem to have yet another confoundingly organized and convenient way of knowing when and how to solve problems by altering their genomes in a controlled way. I do realize that antibiotics were not a factor in this particular experiment.

It's not only that the ceaseless hostility is hard to take and takes the fun out, but worse, it lets me know that I am not in a rational environment.

1)  What part of the experimental results (NOTE: not the expermenters conclusions) were the result of intelligence/intelligent design/purposeful direction/etc...?

The part where they set up the parameters of the experiment itself and the part where they carefully supported the first mutants so they would not die until they became the second mutants. And perhaps also, the one-celled organisms themselves, and their ability to direct mutations uncannily at the right time.

2)  What is the estimated probability (rough WAG) of this experimental result being repeated by another lab?

I'd say it is extremely high.

3)  Could another experiment use a totally different starting bug and still end up with a nylon eating bug at the end?
I have no idea but I can only suppose that at least several could do it. There must be reasons why some organisms are closer to that talent than others.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2007,16:58

Cedric,

1. The intelligent Designer is identified

This has been beaten to death so many times and I just can't believe it still gets bandied about. No, naming the designer is not necessary to the design inference. ID is the science of design detection. That's it. ID proposes that certain features of the universe and biota are indicitive of intelligent causation. A complete worldview it is not. A solution to your existential angst it is not. At least not at this time. The reason this particular webiste boasts naming the designer is because they are annoyed with ID for stepping outside of circular reasoning, i.e., sticking to what they know.

2. The model is detailed
Certainly the paragraph presented to me at the end of Darwin's book was quite undetailed. He said the natural variation would be acted upon by natural laws to produce all the life forms. Denton, too, thinks the whole cosmos is governed by natural laws which operate evolutionarily. I tend to gravitate toward this idea too.


3. The model can be refined

I think it will be. Our knowledge right now is just too low. Of course, that supposes that ID, which is the SCIENCE OF DESIGN DETECTION AND THAT'S IT will be expanded upon or indeed become just one pillar of a larger theorem about origins. Over at sites like Uncommon Descent and Telic Thoughts, which you guys are too defended to read objectively, I see them combing the literature constantly and finding new ideas, researches and factos ripe for furtheration.

4. The model is testable and falsifiable.

People are constantly claiming it has been refuted. ID, IC and all the rest. Now tell me how Darwinism is testable and falsifiable.


5. The model can make predictions

Like I said, I have seen numerous comments at UD (I never claimed I was a person qualified or even particularly good at defending ID) in response to news items that this or that would make a good lead for research, or that certain research might be more fruitful with an ID bias. I've also seen several people propose their personal predictions. Here's some stuff I rooted around on google for:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA"

Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.

My personal prediction is that epigentics and evo devo will prove that there are barriers between species; if those barriers are passable at all it will not be via undirected mutation.

*****************Dembski
Testability as well covers confirmation, predictability, and explanatory power. At the heart of testability is the idea that our scientific theories must make contact with and be sensitive to what's happening in nature. What's happening in nature must be able to affect our scientific theories not only in form and content but also in the degree of credence we attach to or withhold from them. For a theory to be immune to evidence from nature is a sure sign that we're not dealing with a scientific theory.


Falsifiability

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after Darwin's Black Box appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution."

The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it.
The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism.
What about positive evidence for intelligent design and Darwinism? From the design theorist's perspective,...It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism.

Yes, there is positive evidence for Darwinism, but the strength and relevance of that evidence on behalf of large-scale evolution is very much under dispute,

Interestingly, the biological community regularly sings the praises of natural selection and the wonders it has wrought while admitting that it has no comprehension of how those wonders were wrought.

The only reason to insist on looking for non-telic explanations to explain the complex specified structures in biology is because of prior commitment to naturalism that perforce excludes unembodied designers. It is illegitimate, scientifically and rationally, to claim on a priori grounds that such entities do not exist, or if they do exist that they can have no conceivable relevance to what happens in the world. Do such entities exist? Can they have empirical consequences? Are they relevant to what happens in the world? Such questions cannot be prejudged except on metaphysical grounds. To prejudge these questions the way Eugenie Scott does is therefore to make certain metaphysical commitments about what there is and what has the capacity to influence events in the world. Such commitments are utterly gratuitous to the practice of science. Specified complexity confirms design regardless whether the designer responsible for it is embodied or unembodied.

Darwin's theory has virtually no predictive power. Insofar as it offers predictions, they are either extremely general, concerning the broad sweep of natural history and in that respect quite questionable (Why else would Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge need to introduce punctuated equilibria if the fossil record were such an overwhelming vindication of Darwinism?); and when the predictions are not extremely general they are extremely specific and picayune, dealing with small-scale adaptive changes. Newton was able to predict the path that a planet traces out. Darwin's disciples can neither predict nor retrodict the pathways that organisms trace out in the course of natural history.

Demski concedes predictability: (But would he do so today? I think he made a mistake here. He considered predictability as describing what a designer would do, but not in the sense of what we should find if ID is true, as in the several predictions above.)

But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability. But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 04 2007,17:48

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,17:58)
The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll let other deconstruct the rest of what you said, since I've already deconstructed it last time you had a thread and it seems to have gone in one ear and out the other.

< Flagellum model >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 04 2007,18:01

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,16:58)
I never claimed I was a person qualified or even particularly good at defending ID
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to prevent you from endlessly pontificating your opinions about it anyway . . .

Since, as you admit, you don't know what you are talking about, why, again, should anyone listen to anything you say on the topic . . . . ?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 04 2007,18:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I try to answer and am told that I am dishonest and horribly disrespectful for daring to disagree with certain experts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



this is simply not the case.

you are derided for twisting the results of various experts to fit your own preconceptions, and stating absolutely ridiculous things like you've never seen a counter to the argument for IC, which you of course have, and things like this:

"Darwin's theory has virtually no predictive power. "

which is utter nonsense.  No scientific theory EVER maintains itself if it has no predictive power.  it is immediately abandoned for something that does.

150 years, and we have found the ToE to have more predictive power than just about any other theory ever conceptualized.

In fact, i currently am working on a college-level course curriculum that traces the history of the predictive power of this theory (which, BTW, is the main reason lamarckism was dumped in favor).

it even gets so specific, we can use the theory to predict exactly where (in what rock formations) and what (their exact appearance) a given fossil will look like, then go out and find it.

a great recent example you seem to have blocked out of your mind is Tiktalik (just do a search on PT for it - you'll see it there).

Moreover, without the wonderful and exact predictive nature of the ToE, immunology as we know it simply wouldn't exist.  research to understand how cancer can be cured?  nope, none of that would exist either.

really, you flaunt your ignorance with such ready abandon, it IS a wonder you can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Well, of course we've never actually met you, so maybe you really can't.  It sure wouldn't surprise me.

;this is where you get the label of "dishonest".

NONE of us here (I doubt even demallien), really think you are approaching this discussion with an honest intention of actually understanding the material.

hence, why  I don't see the reason to spend any more time on you.

you simply are not interested in seeing who did the research and why, and what the results were, you are only interested in soundbites and quotemines.

good luck finding "the truth" with that approach; it will endlessly elude you.

I hope others will find something productive to discuss with you, but I think they, as Lenny says, are fooling themselves.

really, you have no business being here, if you aren't either:

trying to convince us of your position (you repeatedly have said you are not)

nor have shown any willingness to actually learn anything.

nope, you are here to try to rationalize and justify your own gut preconceptions in order to NOT have to toss your worldview by the wayside.

it's unfortunate that you have tied your worldview so tightly with something so irrational, but only you and your therapist can work that out.  We can't help you there.
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 04 2007,18:54

Avocationist


You are living proof that you and your ilk  and Dembski et al deserve each other.

The cunningly deceitful leading the blind or the irrelevant leading the inconsolable.

Procreate and go forth.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 04 2007,18:58

no, please don't encourage breeding in the irrationally intractable.

it might be a heritable trait.

< http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/stupid.wav >

...ohhh I do believe this one's gonna get tossed

:D
Posted by: don_quixote on Feb. 04 2007,19:15

"Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second." --- Avo

Calling < AFDave >!

(Are you related?)
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2007,21:14

Ghost,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please keep in mind that if you cite mathematical arguments against evolutionary mechanisms, you must show both the assumptions and the derivations behind the calculations. It's not enough to say, "Well, Spetner claims that this change is very unlikely" unless we know how Spetner calculated the probability. This is particularly important when someone shows an experimental result that achieves what Spetner says is very unlikely, as Mike PSS has done. According to Spetner, evolution of the second enzyme would be nearly impossible under a three month period unless Something was guiding the mutation process, yet the second enzyme was produced by tweaking the selective environment, and not tweaking the response to that environment. The scientists did not guide the bacteria's response to that environment. This suggests that at least one of Spetner's assumptions is very flawed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In this case I was not discussing the specifics of Spetner's calculations, but made the point that more than one mutation being necessary to the digestion of nylon made the mutation pathway less likely to be successful. Although it now appears that Spetner was not discussing the same case of nylonase development, and that may be somewhat pertinent, I don't know that Spetner said it was unlikely in that it indeed happened. Rather, he says it is unlikely to have been a truly random process. Again, that the one Spetner seems to have been discussing took perhapas 30 years, and this 3 months, does not make NDE look more likely, but directed mutation more likely.  No one said the sicentists guided the actual mutations, but they did in this case strongly assist in the two step process by specifically supporting the 5501 group with food, perhaps in a semistarved state so that they still had motive to search for the ability to digest the nylon as well.

Here are some more thoughts and/or articles on directed mutation.

Johnny B on the nylon bug:
“The proteins used to metabolize different compounds have been shown to come about by simple frame shifts”. Frame shifts of what? Do any frameshifts work? No. Does it have to be of specific existing enzymes? Yes. Is the bacteria frameshifting every gene in its genome? No. This is clearly an assisted, not blind, search. Thus, teleology enters the picture.
A couple of articles:

Genetica. 1999;107(1-3):181-7. Related Articles, Links
   Click here to read
   Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli.

   Hall BG.

   Biology Department, University of Rochester, NY 14627, USA. drbh@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

   The concept of transposable elements (TEs) as purely selfish elements is being challenged as we have begun to appreciate the extent to which TEs contribute to allelic diversity, genome building, etc. Despite these long-term evolutionary contributions, there are few examples of TEs that make a direct, positive contribution to adaptive fitness. In E. coli cryptic (silent) catabolic operons can be activated by small TEs called insertion sequences (IS elements). Not only do IS elements make a direct contribution to fitness by activating cryptic operons, they do so in a regulated manner, transposing at a higher rate in starving cells than in growing cells. In at least one case, IS elements activate an operon during starvation only if the substrate for that operon is present in the environment. It appears that E. coli has managed to take advantage of IS elements for its own benefit.

*****************
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution
Barbara E. Wright*

Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana


   INTRODUCTION
Top
Introduction
Conclusion
References

As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published his remarkable and courageous theory in 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating "The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by `chance' and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye."

The most primitive kinds of cells, called progenotes by Woese (108), were undoubtedly very simple biochemically with only a few central anabolic and catabolic pathways. Wächterhäuser (103) theorizes that the earliest metabolic pathway was a reductive citric acid cycle by which carbon fixation occurred (64). At that point in time, some four billion years ago, how did the additional, more complex metabolic pathways found in even the simplest prokaryotes evolve? For that matter, how are they evolving today? As pointed out by Oparin (79), it is inconceivable that a self-reproducing unit as complicated as a nucleoprotein could suddenly arise by chance; a period of evolution through the natural selection of organic substances of ever-increasing degrees of complexity must intervene. Horowitz (40) suggests a plausible scheme by which biosynthetic pathways can evolve from the successive depletion and interconversion of related metabolites in a primitive environment, as the rich supply of organic molecules is consumed by a burgeoning population of heterotrophs. Thus, a possible scenario begins with the starvation of a self-replicating unit for its precursor, metabolite A, utilized by enzyme 1 encoded by gene 1. When metabolite A is depleted, a mutation in a copy of gene 1 gives rise to gene 2 and allows enzyme 2 to use metabolite B by converting it to metabolite A. Then metabolite B is depleted, obtained from metabolite C, and so on, as an increasingly complex biochemical pathway evolves. In fact, there are examples in which a similar series of events can actually be observed in the laboratory, for example, involving enzymes that are "borrowed" from existing pathways, via regulatory mutations, to establish new pathways (75).

The starvation conditions that may initiate a series of events such as those described above target the most relevant genes for increased rates of transcription, which in turn increase rates of mutation (111). Transcriptional activation can result from the addition of a substrate or from the removal of a repressor or an end product inhibitor. The latter mechanism, called derepression, occurs in response to starvation for an essential substrate or for an end product that represses its own synthesis by feedback inhibition. Since evolution usually occurs in response to stress (41), transcriptional activation via derepression is the main focus of this minireview.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2007,21:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Are you related?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've never read a word he's written.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 04 2007,21:50

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,21:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(Are you related?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've never read a word he's written.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or anything else, apparently.

But, like my five year old nephew, you do apparently have the ability to brainlessly cut-and-paste long Googled tracts that you're too uneducated to actually understand yourself.

Listening to you talk about science is a lot like listening to my nephew talk about sex.  He knows all the words -- but he hasn't a clue what any of them mean.


Sorry if that offends the Politeness Policeman . . . .
Posted by: k.e on Feb. 04 2007,22:23

At least AFD was able to quotemine.

And draw conclusions showing some ability to distill an understanding, albeit revealing the mostly hilarious workings of his neurons;  each of which was programmed to support his fantasy.

Avo. and AFD do however have the same high regard for  their own opinions. I would hate to be their plumber.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 04 2007,23:47

[quote=avocationist,Feb. 04 2007,15:33][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, but have you noticed how undetailed that is? Have you read any of the objections to it? Where have we ever seen any interesting new incipient species arising these past few thousand years?  I conservatively estimate 4 new species a year. And I don't mean species like fruit flies that can't be told apart or mice that may or may not still breed with each other.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<giggle>.  Oh dear, you actually think that we haven't observed speciation events!  You really should try Google before entering into this type of debate.  Have a read of this < TalkOrigins FAQ >.  It's the first hit if you Google "observed speciation".  Anyway, thanks for brightening my morning :-)  And I'd love you to give us the calculations behind your 4 species a year figure, Or did you just pluck that one out of God's nostril?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I am not able to agree because there isn't any evidence for it, and what NDE has to say about that is that we can't watch it. So evidence is forever lost. The amount of rewiring and restructuring that would have to go on to add each and every new body part is staggering. Highly coordinated. Unknown vast number of changes to the DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No no no. That's not how the game is played.  We have demonstrated that on reasonable lab timescales that evolution is observed.  It is up to you to explain why this observed process won't continue indefinately until enough changes have been accumulated that you have effectively an entirely new creature.  By suggesting that it won't, you are in fact postulating that there is another effect that we haven't taken into account that is going to invalidate evolution. Behe tried to propose such a mechanism with his IC idea, which has since been torn to shreds.  What are you proposing as the mechanism that stops evolution from continuing?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ha! I've got your number! You're actually on my side! You are posing as anti-ID but you're really kidding, right? In case you're not...no, surely you jest.

So that means that the explanation of the flagellum with it's 40 proteins and several interrelated parts is that it is a degeneration from a BIGGER machine with pehaps 50 or 60 parts, and that explains how it got here!! Neat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<sigh>  Fools mock what they don't understand.  Here, let me give you a helping hand.  There is a critical difference between the large machine and the smaller, IC machine.  That difference is that the larger machine isn't IC at all, and can be created step by step, as evolution requires.  Then the evolutionary process can shed unnecessary pieces one by one, until we arrive at an IC machine.  Geddit?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrariwise, it would be necessary in order to pose that no need for any intelligent input into manifestly complex systems is required, to show how such a step-by-step pathway could happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Got a specific IC system in mind?  Each time you guys suggest that a system is IC, we shoot it down by proposing a plausible evolutionary pathway.  But I'm really fascinated to know whic system you're going to choose.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course they have attempted this very thing to their utmost, but I don't think it is considered possible to prove a negative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but I promise you that if an ID researcher tried (and documented)a lot of different ways of arriving at an IC solution, and couldn't find any solutions, we'd at least feel the need to have a look at the case a bit closer.  It would after all be a great scientific victory to overturn (or even smear with doubt) evolution, and there would be many a young scientist happy to give it a whirl if they thought it at all likely to end up with a result.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is possible to show that it is logically indefensible to rely on something with so little probability, and that not just once here or there, but thousands and millions of times in the course of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is?!?!?  My Flying Spaghetti Monster!  Why didn't you just say so right from the beginning, and give us the logical proof!  It would have saved us all this tiresome discussion! Unless, you're, um, making that bit up?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 04 2007,23:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, of course I realize they were trying to induce mutations to allow the bug to eat nylon. My surprise was that they seemed to know about the need for the first enzyme mutation,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The need for both enzymes is noted in the experiment paper.  Just like in the Spetner paper.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...and they artificially supported the two tier process to providing food for the middle step, indicating that they didn't expect success if they simply put the bug on the nylon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The experimenters recognized that nylon polymer didn't offer an advantageous substrate that could be successful since two mutations would be required to occur to a bug in that substrate for success.  However, they DID crudely duplicate the origination environment for the original nylon bugs.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No doubt, in the original strain at the factory dump, the fact that there were multiple substrates available, took care of the problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which means that a bug with enzyme1 could then go on to mutate and form enzyme2 without leaving or alterring its environment since nylon (and its precursers, reagents, solvents, etc.) were readily available.          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nonetheless, in order to recreate it, they did indeed engage in some human assistance, intelligently applied.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did human assistance CAUSE the mutation to take place in the first place?
How did human assistance SELECT the correct mutation to occur?
How did human assistance PROMOTE the growth of bug colonies after a mutation occured?

The ONLY thing the humans did was to stick bugs on a spiked agar plate and measure what happens.  If all the bugs died, they died.  If some bugs survived, then the experiment continues to the planned next step.  I didn't read about any human intervention during the mutation process.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of things which are obvious...I don't know how to calculate probabilities, but that won't be necessary. Let's say you need a mutation, and your chances of hitting it are one in a thousand. Would you be more likely to be successful if you have 3 months or three years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your honesty on this point should stop you from continuing with your next question.  I'll give you a straight forward answer.
If I'm 100% successful in 3 months then I'll be equally successful in 3 years.
You never indicated population size, time between mutation events, generation timing, environmental influence, etc....  In other words, the probabilities need a mathematical definition to be meaningful.  Otherwise they are so much poll numbers without a basis.  
Five out of six dentists reccomended my toothpaste according to the advertising on the package.  If I ask MY dentist do I really have an 83.3% chance that he'll reccomend it too?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, but is he wrong that the two mutations occured?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he isn't wrong that two mutations occurred for this bug to eat nylon in your car.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His calculations involve the full thirty years of time. His point was merely that two separate mutations events were required.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So go back to where the bugs originated and do the probability calculations based upon that fact.  Not some made up conditions based on point mutation counting thirty years after the fact.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Luck plays no part in THIS game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So it's a determined process?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Semantics.  Wonderful.
Is "determined" the "absence of Luck"?
Or do you want to explain and explore this a bit more.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Point being, there begins to be some interesting things turning up about how these one-celled organisms deal with various stressors, that they seem to have yet another confoundingly organized and convenient way of knowing when and how to solve problems by altering their genomes in a controlled way. I do realize that antibiotics were not a factor in this particular experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems your a bit hung up on assigning decision making methodology to the bugs.
Any reason for this?
Any measurement for this?
If the bugs are making the decisions then HOW are they deciding?
We know WHO (the bugs) WHAT (had mutations) WHEN (during the 3 months) WHERE (on the mutated gene) and WHY (during environmental/starvation stress) but not the HOW.  I would answer the HOW (via random mutation), but you choose to finish the story with HOW (via an internal decision making process yet to be identified).

Thus my confusion and subsequent questions.
You also notice that the game of Clue is a good learning tool for young investigators to make sure all the questions are answered before you win.  And guesses are valid if they are shown to be correct with the evidence.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not only that the ceaseless hostility is hard to take and takes the fun out, but worse, it lets me know that I am not in a rational environment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this directed toward me or a general comment.  I can't tell since the wording is general but the post is specific to me.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1)  What part of the experimental results (NOTE: not the expermenters conclusions) were the result of intelligence/intelligent design/purposeful direction/etc...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The part where they set up the parameters of the experiment itself and the part where they carefully supported the first mutants so they would not die until they became the second mutants. And perhaps also, the one-celled organisms themselves, and their ability to direct mutations uncannily at the right time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I addressed the first two parts above with some pointed questions.  The second-half of the third part was answered just before this with some more pointed questions.  I think the only point I haven't addressed is the actual capabilities of the PAO1 bug in particular.  I haven't investigated this aspect to see if PAO1 is a special heavy hitter when it comes to adaptation to new environments.  Maybe I'll investigate this further.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2)  What is the estimated probability (rough WAG) of this experimental result being repeated by another lab?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd say it is extremely high.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the experiment is valid and should stand the test of time.  At the same time, given the environmental conditions in this experiment we can infer that similar environmental conditions should support mutations in bugs that have a capability to adapt to this environment.  So this means that if we discover environmental conditions from the past that are similar we could state that mutated bugs could be present.  You start to see where I'm going with this I hope.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3)  Could another experiment use a totally different starting bug and still end up with a nylon eating bug at the end?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no idea but I can only suppose that at least several could do it. There must be reasons why some organisms are closer to that talent than others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good statement.  I think we should be able to identify the internal bug factors that help or hinder the bugs adaptation ability.  But also, we can link this with question 2) and see that we could have not only environmental conditions to support mutated bug development but also a variety of bugs available to form a nylon eating bug.  This broadens our horizens.
********
Although my reply has some questions, the most pointed one in my mind is where you assign some internal decision making process to the bug.

We know the bug mutated.
We know the original conditions were crudely duplicated in the lab.
We know we can create new nylon bugs from a bug without a history of nylon eating.
These are hard and fast facts.  Now for the major inference of the whole experiment.  The HOW question from above.

What you seem to think is that there is some internal decision and feedback loop contained within the bug that "directs" mutations to occur to adapt to the new environment.
I would counter that the process of mutation (through several different mechanisms, not sure which one yet although Spetner comments on this) is what provides the bug with the enzyme ability that is able to thrive in the new environment.  RM+NS+other factors certainly looks the part in this case.

Maybe you have some different explanation, I'm just interpreting this conclusion from your statements above.
Mike PSS
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 05 2007,00:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Semantics.  Wonderful.
Is "determined" the "absence of Luck"?
Or do you want to explain and explore this a bit more.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



deterministic?

stochastic?

is there really a point to discuss the finer points of what consitutes the meaning of "random" and what a probability distribution is with Avo?

demallien:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe tried to propose such a mechanism with his IC idea, which has since been torn to shreds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not according to Avo, did you miss that?  Avo has said she literally has never seen legitimate criticism of IC.

from the previous page:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for IC, what can I say but bah humbug.  This canard has been refuted so many times that I don't understand how it can still be getting discussed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Now that is news. I'd like to see just one.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Feb. 05 2007,00:53

Avocationist, there's a number of things occurring here that I find unusual and mutually contradictory. I haven't been insulting to you, but I haven't gotten any real responses out of you that even address the issues raised.

I find it unusual that in one post , you'll admit to not knowing about multiple topics and then in a following post, you'll paste up boilerplate renditions of the standard ID line that you admitted to not knowing about.

Let me be concise and direct, Avocationist.

You're not here to learn anything or actually engage in meaningful debate, so far as I can see. If you were interested in exploring the issues, you could have done so on your own long ago -- reading standard evolutionary texts just as you read the ID books.

But you didn't read BOTH sides of the issues so far as I can tell. YOu have an appalling lack of familiarity with the terms or ideas ...which is really apparent in your parroting common creationist/ID canards...like "Darwinism isn't falsifiable"

Do you even have a clue what Popper and others meant by falsifiability?  Do you even have a clue about observed speciation events that constitute macroevolution , regardless of the cartoon version of "macro " that creationists/ID-ers present?
Your view that "macroevolution" has to show "new body plans " means you haven't read anything by Mayr, or Gould or Lewontin or Dawkins or a dozen other authors that you SHOULD have read BEFORE you pretended to have any real knowledge of BOTH sides of the issues.

If I actually wanted to point out all the data available on African cichlids, there would be no way that you could deal with it, because it comprises  fossil, geologic, genetic, and comparative biological/anatomical data that you'd actually have to have SOME personal understanding of in order to TRY to refute it....and you don't HAVE any personal knowledge so far as I can see...all your posts are nothing more than repeating the opinions and ideas of others ...ideas that YOU know so little about that you can't even discuss them at any depth at all.
 
I personally believe that you are here to make points with the ID crowd that YOU think might be reading this thread -- because they essentially rejected your fuzzy-mindedness as well. And that is not an insult, it is simply fact that you have amorphous, nebulous ideas about relevant issues.  

That's all I will have to say to you, ever...because your opinion is not informed enough to mean much to me. That may change in the future, if you put some work into it, but at this point, you're little different than an idiot-savant with typing skills, but no knowledge of the words and underlying ideas that you are typing/pasting.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 05 2007,01:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you're little different than an idiot-savant with typing skills
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



is it just the prodigious typing that reflects the 'savant' part?

as in, a complete idiot, but able to prodigiously type readable words (even if the meaning is gibberish)?

or did i miss something?
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 05 2007,01:44

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 05 2007,00:52)
demallien:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe tried to propose such a mechanism with his IC idea, which has since been torn to shreds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not according to Avo, did you miss that?  Avo has said she literally has never seen legitimate criticism of IC.

from the previous page:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for IC, what can I say but bah humbug.  This canard has been refuted so many times that I don't understand how it can still be getting discussed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Now that is news. I'd like to see just one.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I didn't miss it :-(  If you look at my post, the next paragraph explains again why IC is just not even logically sound.  Originally I had the two paragraphs in the opposite order...  Anyway, one can always hope that with enough repetition the idea will sink into Avocationist's brain :-)  Repeat after me children: "IC is bollocks!!!!"
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 05 2007,01:54

well, i guess your description will have to do, since Avo is patently unwilling to actually use links to go to more detailed reviews on the subject.

It's funny, she won't take our word for anything, but also won't go and see the basis for our conclusions in the peer reviewed literature for herself.

what does that leave, exactly?
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 05 2007,04:41

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 04 2007,15:33)
Demallien,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a ToE perspective, speciation is just two populations that are reproductively seperated accumulating mutations up to the point where the two populations can no longer interbreed - at which point you have a new species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, but have you noticed how undetailed that is? Have you read any of the objections to it? Where have we ever seen any interesting new incipient species arising these past few thousand years?  I conservatively estimate 4 new species a year. And I don't mean species like fruit flies that can't be told apart or mice that may or may not still breed with each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been thinking about this comment a bit more.  You know as well as eveyone else here that major evolutions have not been observed.  ToE predicts that it can't be observed, because for major changes to species, requiring many mutations, the process will take a long time.

Please note that this is yet another example of how you could falsify ToE.  Show us a system that evolves far faster than would be expected according to ToE!  Brilliant!  Glad you thought of it! I imagine there must be scores of secret labs filled by ID researchers doing exactly this experiment as we speak, right?  Silently sitting around watching cages filled with mice, waiting for the Intelligent Designer to bequeath a pair of wings on one so that he can eat the cheese sitting on the high perch! No?  I'm disappointed!

On the other hand, I would have expected that we would be seeing this type of thing all of the time if an Intelligent Designer was involved.  The fact that we don't see rapid major changes in the genomes of organisms is rather an argument for ToE and against ID, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 05 2007,06:18

Good evening, Avocationist.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Serendipity,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<<snipped>>
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a similar way, NDE, which I see as the other side of the coin to Biblical creationism - has a more complete theory - not much evidence to prove it but a nice, detailed theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an oxymoronic statement.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lots of times I see the objection that someone or other wants to believe one theory over another because it has a fuller explanation. Never mind whether it holds water
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thus the crux of biological evolution when faced with Intelligent Design. The objective is not to solidify the Intelligent Design Model, but to denigrate [Sic] science where possible, based upon incredulity [Sic].
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But few have the intestinal fortitude to maintain the "I don't know" position when appropriate. This is one reason I find ID the most rational and scientific of the three competitors. They work with what they've got, not their imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note also that the website I cited, used the bible as it sole evidence. That aside, Intelligent Design is neither rational or scientific. If it were rational and scientific, you'd have presented your model long ago. Behe would have presented his model long ago. Dembski would of presented his model long ago.

Behe relies on his model of irreducible complexity, where he creates a system where if that system has parts detracted from it, that system is no longer workable. He uses a mouse trap in order to do this (anology). However, his model is to show that science can't be correct, but somehow he must be.

Dembski uses a refined model of irreducible complexity, that being Specified Complexity, and bacterial flagellum (e. coli). He, like Behe, creates a system not to substantiate Intelligent Design but to degenerate biological evolution, relying on Intelligent Design to be the result if biological evolution fails.

You yourself, attempt the same as both Behe and Dembski. Its not a promotion of Intelligent Design, but an attack against biological evolution based upon increduality of the process of biological evolution. In all, this is neither rational or scientific.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I seem to remember when reading up a bit on string theory and quantum mechanics the use of the term subquantum, and that planck length was a sort of natural behavioral divide, and much talk of quantum weirdness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


La Violette wrote a book called Subquantum Kinetics. It is based upon nonequilibrium thermodynamics and systems theory. It is based upon the notion of transmutation, incorporating a mystical approach in the wake of scientific terms. In all, it offers a contradictive paradigm to what is already thought to have occurred with quantum mechanics (contradictive to Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, and so on). For example, if you take Kaluza-Klein quantum field, you are looking at a topological field of designated charged polygonal particles of space-time (fibre bundles), La Violette would propose that attaining a relationship between homeomorphisms or transformations of the fibre bundle would inevitably not surrender anything more of the field than an inconceivable break-down of that field, in fact a probable transmutation of that field.

However, I find that outside the field of physics, quantum weirdness is taken from a predominantly Einsteinian perspective (correct me if I am wrong). That ghostly spooky action at a distance. In the split beam experiment, it has seemed to have become a mystified version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, where from the point of entry into the beam splitter, until the photon's connect with the detector, there must be something occurring between point A and point B. Or a perceived event between point A and point B. Which invariably becomes mystified - well at least by La Violette.

However I may be detracting from your statement. Planck's Length is a mathematical equation 1.6×10^-35 (or a factor of 10^-35) in comparison to a quark of 10^-18. Therefore Planck's length relates to "string" *nods nods* - however is that an open or closed string?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since string theory proposes tiny dimensions, it occured to me that the onset of quantum weirdness might signal entry into a smaller dimension, and perhaps planck length is where it begins.
The author is La Violette.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


String proposes one dimension as opposed to an elementary particle of 0 dimension. The accumulation of dimensions in a system is based on the string - covered by D-Branes, such as D0 being a line, D1 being a plane and on until D24 or D25 where we have the Bosonic proposition of M Theory. However that being said, there is nothing beyond 10^-35 (Plancks' Length) if there were, what would be the proposed dimenion beyond that string? If finding one, what would be its proposed mechanism in that system? Even more importantly how would it be detectable?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 05 2007,07:21

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,23:47)
<sigh>  Fools mock what they don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, did you just refer to Avo as a "fool"?

Didn't you just spend the last week shaking your fist and stamping your feet over OTHER people calling her a "fool"?

Your post has offended me.  I ask that it be banished to the Wall forthwith.
Posted by: demallien on Feb. 05 2007,07:41

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 05 2007,07:21)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,23:47)
<sigh>  Fools mock what they don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, did you just refer to Avo as a "fool"?

Didn't you just spend the last week shaking your fist and stamping your feet over OTHER people calling her a "fool"?

Your post has offended me.  I ask that it be banished to the Wall forthwith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you still sulking Lenny?  

Anyway to make it clear, there's an implicit "so don't do it" after the "Fools mock what they don't understand", ie, it's advice, not an insult.  My apologies to Avocationist if the implicit end of the phrase isn't so implicit after all...
Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Feb. 05 2007,10:20

Avocationist,
                                                               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cedric,

1. The intelligent Designer is identified

This has been beaten to death so many times and I just can't believe it still gets bandied about. No, naming the designer is not necessary to the design inference. ID is the science of design detection. That's it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wonderful, so Dempski does not think that the designer is "You Know Who"?  The rest of the happy campers at the Disco Institute have never entertained the thought that the designer is "You Know Who"?
Hmmm, you believe this? Seriously? Okayyyyyyyyy...
Oh, by the way, exactly how does ID go about scientifically "detecting design"?  What has been detected as "designed" and what has been detected as "not designed"?  Some examples please. :)
                                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A solution to your existential angst it is not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Leave my angst alone. It's sensitive!
                                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. The model is detailed
Certainly the paragraph presented to me at the end of Darwin's book was quite undetailed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot to mention that Darwin's book is also far too heavy and cannot be set to hip-hop music!  Seriously, let's focus on your argument for the scientific theory for ID, shall we?  The model is detailed? Splendid.  Details please. :)

(...sound of crickets chirping...)
                                       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

3. The model can be refined

I think it will be. Our knowledge right now is just too low.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think it will be?  You THINK it will be? YOU think it WILL be?  Huh??  Let's save "what you think" for another discussion, OK?  Scientific Theory for ID, please!
                                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 I see them combing the literature constantly and finding new ideas, researches and factos ripe for furtheration.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's save the fascinating discussion of "what you see" "them doing" for another discussion at some unspecified time in the future OK?
Scientific theory for ID please!
                                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. The model is testable and falsifiable.

People are constantly claiming it has been refuted. ID, IC and all the rest. Now tell me how Darwinism is testable and falsifiable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey I've got a better idea.
  How about YOU get off your lazy ass and argue that ID really is testable and falsifiable?
If you want to present a scientific theory for ID, that's kinda a must, ya know? :(
                               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


5. The model can make predictions

Here's some stuff I rooted around on google for:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, NO!  I don't care what google has or does not have.  I'm sure it's utterly fascinating.  Do you want to use that stuff in support your argument for ID?  Then... make...an...argument.
Don't dump on me any old crap you find off the Internet!  I don't want to do your reading for you.
 Present your argument as ****YOUR ARGUMENT****. :(
                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Behe makes a "prediction".
He presents no evidence FOR his "prediction".
And then he asks real scientists to disprove his "prediction".
Wow.  Just wow.
Imagine if all science could be done this easily.  No need to do research.  No need to spend time in a laboratory.  No need to any hard work.  Just watch other people do your work for you.  Golly, the "real science" of ID is just so easy, huh? Tell me, do you think other theories do the same thing?  Plate Tectonics, maybe?  Germ Theory?  Is that how we got penicillin?
Is that how real science is done?
REALLY?
Maybe we should get Behe a Nobel Prize or something! Possibly two!!
Would two be enough?
                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My personal prediction is that epigentics and evo devo will prove that there are barriers between species; if those barriers are passable at all it will not be via undirected mutation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? Care to beak that down into English? And then explain how you connect your dots?  What do you mean by "undirected mutation"?  How can a scientist differentiate between "undirected mutation" and "directed mutation".  Details please.  Barriers?  What will these barriers look like. How could they possibly work?  How will we know them if we see them?  How does a team of scientists eagerly test your prediction?
(NB: This is truely, madly, deeply NOT an opportunity for you to give me a reading list or go off and google-hunt something.  It's your prediction.  You spell it out.)
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Falsifiability

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define specified complexity.  How does a scientist recognise "specified complexity" when they peer down a miroscope or something?
"Wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated..."

(Gee, you left out cute and fluffy) :D :D :D

What are you talking about?  Do snowflakes count in this description?  Are they "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated."
How about the human brain?  Does that work?
A banana?
Your left hand?
A tree?
Give me an example of something that truely is "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated" and something that truely is NOT "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated", THEN explain how you made your choices.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism, blah, blah Darwinism, blah, blah, Darwinism, blah, blah, Darwinism, blah, blah..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo, keep your other hand firmly in your pocket.

{Cerdic quietly passes a secret note to Avo while continuing to talk to her normally}

The secret note reads...

      I don't "trust Darwinism" either but I'm afraid of the Darwinist thought police snatching me in their black CIA 'copters and giving me a medical probe deep into my rear, so let's save our fascinating talk about your understanding of how weak the Darwinism thing is for another time, ok?

I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.
Any chance of you making a scientific argument for ID at anytime this century?

{Tuneless whistling is heard. The melody is crude yet faintly recognisable}

...Born free...as..free........as the...wind...blows...
Posted by: Mike PSS on Feb. 05 2007,10:52

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 05 2007,07:18)
La Violette wrote a book called Subquantum Kinetics. peasandcarrotts nonequilibrium thermodynamics peasandcarrots systems theory. peasandcarrots peasandcarrots transmutation, peasandcarrots mystical approach peasandcarrots.  Peasandcarrots contradictive paradigm peasandcarrots peasandcarrots quantum mechanics (mashedpotatos Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, mashedpotatos). Peasandcarrots, peasandcarrots Kaluza-Klein quantum field, peasandcarrots topological field peasandcarrots polygonal particles of space-time (mashedpotatos), La Violette peasandcarrots peasandcarrots between homeomorphisms or transformations peasandcarrots fibre bundle peasandcarrots peasandcarrots inconceivable break-down peasandcarrots probable transmutation peasandcarrots.

However,

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... (kick)
"Huh?"
"Oh, please go on.  But first I need some strychnine more punch."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remind me to let you talk to my brother at the next mixer.  You and him would get along swimingly.
[/snark]

Mike PSS
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 05 2007,11:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo's recipe for blueberry pie would likely consist solely of long-refuted criticisms of your blueberry pie recipe.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 05 2007,11:28

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 05 2007,11:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo's recipe for blueberry pie would likely consist solely of long-refuted criticisms of your blueberry pie recipe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming from Avo, wouldn't her recipe for blueberry pie consist soley of long- refuted criticisms of apple pie?[B]
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 05 2007,12:06

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 05 2007,12:28)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 05 2007,11:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Avo's recipe for blueberry pie would likely consist solely of long-refuted criticisms of your blueberry pie recipe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming from Avo, wouldn't her recipe for blueberry pie consist soley of long- refuted criticisms of apple pie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That might have to be my new sig.
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 05 2007,15:11

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 06 2007,05:52)
Remind me to let you talk to my brother at the next mixer.  You and him would get along swimingly.
[/snark]

Mike PSS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Besides nothing being wrong with peas and carrots.. umm *face palm!*
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 05 2007,15:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Coming from Avo, wouldn't her recipe for blueberry pie consist soley of long- refuted criticisms of apple pie?[
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm, given that if this were baseball, she would come to the plate with a hockey stick and wearing a motorcycle helmet (and facing the opposite direction), I'd more think her blueberry pie recipe would consist of a roll of toilet paper.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 05 2007,15:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does the T.O.'s Index of Creationist Claims have an entry for that set of predictions?

Henry
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 05 2007,16:14

some logical and factual corrections:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



should read:

"High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be rationalized as needed, after each previous example is clearly shown to be evolvable instead."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



should read:

"We will construe the appearance of fossils that look different from previous ones as having no precursors, and thus say they poofed into being.".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Genes and 'functional parts' (?) will be re-used, and we will decide what consitutes an unrelated organism in order to say there is no evidence of common descent.  Concurrently, we will patently ignore any and all evidence of similar 'functional parts' arising from completely different developmental pathways."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"We don't know what "junk" DNA means, but we sure would like to apply the term "junk" to the ToE, youbetchya!"
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 05 2007,16:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My impression here is that
1) and 2) don't disagree with current theory, so can't be used to distinguish the proposed "model".
4) is not a logical consequence of the premise, so refuting it wouldn't refute the premise. (Assuming here that the premise is that life or some aspect of it was deliberately engineered.)
3) is a positive claim contradicted by the presently available evidence.

However, I'm not sure that #3 is actually implied by the premise any more than #4 is, since without knowledge of the engineer(s) involved, we can't really be sure they'd do things the way human engineers probably would (i.e., freely borrowing technology from one technology for use in another). In one case it's contradicted by current evidence, and in the other it doesn't distinguish the proposed model from the current theory. Far as I can tell neither way produces anything scientifically useful.

Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 05 2007,17:05

< Here are > a few < articles > I'll dicuss later. < This paper is very technical >, but valuable.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Feb. 05 2007,17:57

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 05 2007,17:05)
Here are[/URL] a few < articles > I'll dicuss later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't wait.

(yawn)
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 05 2007,18:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plenty of good questions. Where I disagree with you is that they have to be answered before anyone can approach origins with other than mindless chance as the assumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They don't have to be answered before people can approach origins from a telic perspective, in fact answering them would be approaching origins from a telic perspective. My point is that you have to answer them if you want to say there is a theory of intelligent design that is better at explaining life than the theory of evolution. Reseach has to be done to answer these questions if anyone wants to claim that ID is science.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 05 2007,20:46

Avocationist:

Here's a few preliminary comments on your post.

1) Be suspicious about any claims about mathematicians proving neodarwinism "impossible". Most of these claims can be traced back to the < Wistar Institute symposia during the 60's. > These papers didn't account for < Ohno's pivotal discussion > of the importance of gene duplication in the evolutionary process.

2) Don't take Spetner's claims at face value. < This paper, for instance, > argues that double mutations might be more likely than experimenters previously realised:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The probability of one or more double mutants in a particular colony by day 10 is 5.7 x 10-8, but the probability increases to 0.0028 by day 30. Fig 1 depicts the time course of the process, which bears a striking resemblance to actual experimental data (HALL 1991 , Figure 1B).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



3) Are you certain that your sources say what you think they do? For example, < Wright > provides several naturalistic mechanisms that create the appearance of "directed" mutations:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A number of events initiated by carbon source starvation can facilitate the evolution of a new catabolic pathway. Under these circumstances, cells with gene duplication and higher enzyme levels have a selective advantage (87, 95). In some systems, duplicated segments are specifically subject to higher mutation rates (93), providing ideal and expendable material for mutations representing minor modifications of existing genes (58). These new genes can encode modified enzymes catalyzing reactions closely related and/or complementary to those in existence (56). An additional consequence of starvation is the removal of feedback controls, resulting in the derepression of genes previously inhibited by the now absent metabolite. Increased rates of mutation in these derepressed genes increase the probability of creating a new gene-enzyme system. A number of examples exist in which derepression of a gene has enabled an enzyme to use a new substrate. For example, altros-galactoside can be used by â-galactosidase after it is derepressed (53); other examples are â-glycerolphosphate via alkaline phosphatase (100), putrescine via diamine-á-ketoglutarate transaminase (44), and d-mannitol via d-arabitol dehydrogenase (55).
[....]
Presumably, feedback mechanisms existing today evolved in the past to prevent unnecessary and wasteful metabolic activities by coordinating these activities with the presence or absence of nutrients in the environment. High mutation rates in derepressed genes prepare cells to respond rapidly to new challenges should the stress become more severe. As will become apparent, genetic derepression may be the only mechanism by which particular environmental conditions of stress target specific regions of the genome for higher mutation rates (hypermutation). Although this direct avenue for increasing variability is probably not available to multicellular organisms in which germ cells and somatic cells are separated, the derepression of biosynthetic pathways is essential to increased longevity in mammals subjected to caloric restriction (54), and amino acid limitation in rats can also induce gene expression (9).
[all bolding mine -- Paley]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nonrandom? Certainly. Directed? Perhaps, but by purely mechanistic feedback loops, as environmental changes relax regulatory controls on certain genes, causing higher transcription rates and thereby higher mutation rates. Note the importance of gene duplication, because duplicated sections of the genome are more likely to mutate, partly due to relaxed selection pressures caused by functional redundancy*.

< Here's another paper: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mechanisms of evolution have been the subject of many controversies and speculations for some 200 years (1, 2). Clearly, selection of the fittest occurs, but does the environment also play a role in generating the fittest? Do all of the variants selected result from mutations that are completely “random”? Background mutations are loosely referred to as random even though they do not occur with equal probability, but at different and characteristic rates because of DNA context and variables such as the intrinsic instability of cytosine, giving rise to the (most frequent) C-to-T transition mutations (3, 4) or the presence of tandem repeats, resulting in frameshift mutations (5). Moreover, environmental conditions such as thymidine starvation can selectively increase the rate of particular kinds of mutation (6). However, in an evolutionary context, “random” has a very specific meaning: Neo-Darwinism holds that the spectrum of background mutations and the frequency with which they occur are random (undirected) with respect to selective conditions of the environment. Another ambiguous word, “mechanism,” can mean one thing when applied to evolution and another when applied to mutations. There are mechanisms by which particular kinds of mutations occur (e.g., base substitution, deletion, frameshift), and there are mechanisms by which the rates of many kinds of background mutations are stimulated (e.g., replication, UV irradiation, defective repair, transcription). It is the latter sort of mechanism that applies to evolution because stimulating mutation rates increases the availability of variants on which evolution depends. Our data indicate that transcription (starvation-induced derepression) is unique in augmenting variant availability in a specific manner, i.e., by stimulating rates of transcription (and associated phenomena such as RNA polymerase pausing) in targeted operons, thereby increasing the concentration of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), which is more vulnerable to mutations than double-stranded DNA. Although the mutations per se are random, as described above for background mutations, the mechanisms that target operons for increased rates of transcription are highly specific. This specificity is not compatible with current neo-Darwinian dogma. And yet, evidence in the literature supports the two major assumptions on which our hypothesis is based: (i) ssDNA is more vulnerable to mutagenesis than double-stranded DNA; increased rates of transcription will, therefore, increase rates of mutation; and (ii) derepression and activation of an amino acid biosynthetic operon occur specifically in response to starvation for that amino acid.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More later.

*[Edit -- I don't think that's quite right.....relaxed selection pressures would lead to higher fixation of mutations...but the paralogues produced from gene duplications are more likely to duplicate again. So the process can feed on itself, leading to < gene families. >]
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 06 2007,01:01

Has Avocationist gone on holiday?

Has she taken Louis with her?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Feb. 06 2007,04:45

I do believe Louis has gone on a bit of a sulk.

He promises me he'll be back.

hope so.
Posted by: Fractatious on Feb. 06 2007,05:20

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 06 2007,23:45)
I do believe Louis has gone on a bit of a sulk.

He promises me he'll be back.

hope so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sulking is only good if you can take victims with you. However, pouting men are cute too.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Feb. 06 2007,06:44

I can do that.  And puppy eyes.    :)
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.