Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Uri Geller of Information Theory

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:10    I recently began reading comments on Bill Dembski's uncommondescent blog and posted the odd comment myself. I soon noticed comments were rapidly deleted and registration cancelled. As I don't have a fixed IP address, he couldn't ban it. Others noticed the practice and there was dicussion on PT and elsewhere about the lack of integrity it demonstrated. There then followed  a period where dissenting posts were tolerated. But there was a new development; unwelcome posts remained on view to the poster, but became invisible to others. I assumed I was being ignored, but, no, I was invisible! I believe this speaks volumes for the integrity of William Dembski

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:52    Quote I recently began reading comments on Bill Dembski's uncommondescent blog and posted the odd comment myself. I soon noticed comments were rapidly deleted and registration cancelled. As I don't have a fixed IP address, he couldn't ban it. Others noticed the practice and there was dicussion on PT and elsewhere about the lack of integrity it demonstrated. There then followed  a period where dissenting posts were tolerated. But there was a new development; unwelcome posts remained on view to the poster, but became invisible to others. I assumed I was being ignored, but, no, I was invisible! I believe this speaks volumes for the integrity of William Dembski Based on the naive, dubious assumption you are telling the truth-- Since evolutionists do not believe in the ninth commandment, or the other nine for that matter, there is no reason to trust their word.--Dembski is merely "censoring" already refuted evolutionist idiocy. There is no need for such a great scientist to cope with Darwinian drivel. He and his colleagues have research to do. To wit, he is preventing you and those like you from exposing your own stupidity out of a sense of Christian mercy! -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:54    Ah so Bill is religiously motivated. Thanks for the confirmation. So much for the claim that ID is science and not religion.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,06:00    Quote He and his colleagues have research to do. ROTFL What? Where? Bill Dembski is a pedestrian mathematician and demonstrably dishonest.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:09    Quote Ah so Bill is religiously motivated. Thanks for the confirmation. So much for the claim that ID is science and not religion. Ad hominem! Fox seems to think citing a man's personal faith refutes his arguments, but his own Darwinian religion should be exempt from such critique. Well, he is right. Whether a man believes in Jesus Christ or Charles Darwin is irrelevant to the strength of his arguments! Quote ROTFL What? Where? Bill Dembski is a pedestrian mathematician and demonstrably dishonest. Thorough, cogent refutations of Darwinian "science" are not dishonest. They are truthful. As believers in the ninth commandment, both Dembski and I defend truth. What do Darwinians believe in beyond selfish acquisition of power? I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms. The data has clearly demonstrted intron loss occurs randomly and not in a nested heirarchy as common ancestry predicts. This has been reported in a paper published by Oxford journals--this is the same organization that employs Richard Dawkins, the Pope of Darwinism himself! (Notice that Christians like myself accept data from evolutionary sources, we do not reject their writings on a priori grounds.) Since you evolutionists have such poor reading comprehension skills, at the bottom is a link to the chart showing the data explicitly. Now, I hope you evolutionists will start arguing like the scientists you claim to be instead of Sunday morning pundits. Chart -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

rimby Posts: 15 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,13:12    Alan Fox: Just read your first post. You told me all I need to know about this Dembski fellow. I took a glance at his blog. I don't see why anyone but a trained seal would visit it, but I admire your perseverance.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,16:11    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 12 2005,16:09) Quote Ah so Bill is religiously motivated. Thanks for the confirmation. So much for the claim that ID is science and not religion. Ad hominem! Fox seems to think citing a man's personal faith refutes his arguments, but his own Darwinian religion should be exempt from such critique. Well, he is right. Whether a man believes in Jesus Christ or Charles Darwin is irrelevant to the strength of his arguments! Quote ROTFL What? Where? Bill Dembski is a pedestrian mathematician and demonstrably dishonest. Thorough, cogent refutations of Darwinian "science" are not dishonest. They are truthful. As believers in the ninth commandment, both Dembski and I defend truth. What do Darwinians believe in beyond selfish acquisition of power? I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms. The data has clearly demonstrted intron loss occurs randomly and not in a nested heirarchy as common ancestry predicts. This has been reported in a paper published by Oxford journals--this is the same organization that employs Richard Dawkins, the Pope of Darwinism himself! (Notice that Christians like myself accept data from evolutionary sources, we do not reject their writings on a priori grounds.) Since you evolutionists have such poor reading comprehension skills, at the bottom is a link to the chart showing the data explicitly. Now, I hope you evolutionists will start arguing like the scientists you claim to be instead of Sunday morning pundits. Chart From the quoted paper "We believe that intron indels can offer valuable insights into evolutionary history" What is that horrid word "evolutionary doing in there?   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,21:54    Paley I read the paper and alsoa more recent paper which cites your earlier (2002) paper. The evolving nature of genuine scientific research is well illustrated. There are problems with cladistic relationships depending on the method of analysis. So the science is improved and theories are adapted as knowledge develops. This seems an eminently reasonable approach.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,22:00    Rimby Ad hominem! I am not a trained seal

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,22:30    Paley writes Quote Fox seems to think citing a man's personal faith refutes his arguments In the case of Dembski, I think it is his ego, not his faith, that is the real driving force. As to the quality of his arguments... Where does one start. David Wolpert has made mincemeat of Dembski's NFL theorems here. Mark Perakh has published much material demolishing Dembski's stuff for example here Wesley Elsberry, Matt Young, Jeffrey Shallitt have all shown Dembski's work to be worthless. Dembski never responds to critics, slyly corrrects errors without acknowledgement and continues to collect royalties form his scientifically vacuous books. Paley says Quote I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms. I hope you don't rely too much on Dembski's ideas or you may not get too far. Whilst agnostic myself, I don't presume to advise others on their personal beliefs, but when  creationists attempt to force their beliefs into schools, that must be resisted.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:35    Mr. Fox:    The link appears to be broken....... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,10:11    Sorry about that. Try here.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,07:46    Nice Paper! A few preliminary comments:     1) As with other studies, the urchin is absurdly grouped.     2) Widely and randomly distributed indels are hypothesized to come form an unknown ancestor. Could be true, but who knows?     3)  This study supports the Coelomata hypothesis, which has been questioned my several recent whole genome studies. The alternative Ecdysozoa hypothesis is also buttressed by signature Hox sequences. Two richly supported speculations that flatly contradict one another. Which marker should we trust?     4) Myriapods + Chilicerates, although indicated in some molecular research, is a grouping that will surprise most morphologists. Which line o' evidence should be trusted? Both lines have high levels of support. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,09:30    Here is my source for point (2): Quote Fourteen intron locations appear to be ancestral within eIF2 genes, as determined by their common occurrence in at least two highly divergent lineages of animals, fungi, plants, or protists.  The authors discuss their reasons for removing six of them, but not all. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,11:41    As you intend to post more later, I won't preempt you. Just a small point. I missed the reference to echinodermata in Kooijman & Hengeveld (2005). Could you point me to it?

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,14:47    Quote Just a small point. I missed the reference to echinodermata in Kooijman & Hengeveld (2005). Could you point me to it?  It's in Figure 4, buried in the branch just under the Deuterostomia species. Its name is Strongylocentrotus. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,09:49    Following up on my comments, I see this amusing quotation from the Krauss et al. paper: Quote The following cases of nested intron distributions are particularly informative. First, intron 212-1 was found in several species of animals, fungi, and protists. The nearby intron position 212-0 was identified only in angiosperm plants and may demarcate a monophyletic group of plants, because the intron 212-1 had been very likely lost before an intron 212-0 was evolved. Second, intron 127-2 was detected in protists, in some animals, and in one fungi (the basidiomycet Cryptococcus).[Paley's emphases]  Notice, however, that Figure 5 assumes/posits intron positions 127-2 and 212-1 as ancestral to all species in its clade. It appears that wild conjectures serve as the phylogenetic equivalent of plaster of Paris. This collapses most of the nested hierarchy, as once again I demonstrate scientists's lust for proving evolution by assuming evolution. But I'm sure your response will be more na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Darwin!  It's nice to see algae and nematodes grouped together: this supports my model. For the insect grouping that does appear to support Darwinism, this probably arose to the tight geographic sampling: Quote Species trapped in the vicinity of Leipzig (Sachsen, Germany) were Lithobius forficatus (centipede), Oniscus asellus (woodlouse), Enallagma cyathigerum (damselfly), Forficula auricularia (earwig). and Aphis sambuci (aphid). Arthropods captured around Ruhla (Thüringen, Germany) were Araneus quadratus (spider), Cercopis vulnerata (cicada), and Scoliopterix libatrix (butterfly). Allacma fusca (springtail) was trapped near Ilsenburg (Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany), and Lepismachilis spp. (bristletail) was found in the vicinity of Pfarrwerfen (Salzburg, Austria).  Wow, no chance for gene transfer there.  One last thing: notice the sparse taxon sampling.   So in summary, the paper fails to achieve its goal due to circular reasoning, probable horizontal transfer, and goofy relationships. Better luck next time....... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,17:12    @ghost: "I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms." uh, you are aware that dembski has stated his support for common descent, yes?  will you now say that debski is "unenlightened" put yourself up to the mirror and see your own hypocrisy. the folks you hold up as models of enlightened thought are mere poster boys for political groups. get a clue and move on.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,07:25    Quote uh, you are aware that dembski has stated his support for common descent, yes?  will you now say that debski is "unenlightened" put yourself up to the mirror and see your own hypocrisy. the folks you hold up as models of enlightened thought are mere poster boys for political groups. get a clue and move on.  My, how....responsive. What you interpret as support for CD is merely openmindedness to contrary hypotheses (have Peachy explain this concept to you, although you might have to donate the extra glue, glitter and crayons). -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,15:14    wrong.  would you like to view the actual tv interview where dembski clearly states his support for the theory of common descent?  now if he supports the theory of common descent, how is that just being "open minded", eh?  how can one say he supports one scientific theory and claim to support another "theory" which is supposed to be an direct alternative to it in the same breath? I'm sure i can dig up the link for you should you wish, and if not, actually have the video clip on my hard drive for you to take a gander at.  otherwise i'm sure it shouldn't be too hard for you to find.  or, i could even quote directly from the video if you prefer? now, once you have seen what he has to say, we can argue about WHY he says it.  however, he is very clear on stating his support for common descent. Now, I suspect you actually know WHY he states support for common descent, but if you don't, i would be pretty shocked.  I would also be absolutely convinced you don't know ID conceptualizations half as well as you claim to. look at this as a test, if you will.  if you already know the answer, you'd gain at least some credibility in my book, if not.... but, i'm sure you really don't care about credibility one way or the other. so maybe my test is pointless to you.  I'll leave it to you to decide.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,15:33    Quote wrong.  would you like to view the actual tv interview where dembski clearly states his support for the theory of common descent?  If it's not too much trouble. Quote now, once you have seen what he has to say, we can argue about WHY he says it.  however, he is very clear on stating his support for common descent.  If he is clear, I'll retract my statement. But many people (Behe, for example) are often assumed to be fully in line with CD when their real stance is more equivocal. Often a single statement is mindlessly copied from one site to another until it assumes urban legend status. But I'll hear you out. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,16:17    awww, now i am disappointed.  you should know the answer already. The interview was done on a nightline special a few months back. here's one of the sites that still has a link to the video clip: http://philbio.typepad.com/philoso....sk.html let me know if you have problems with the link or download.  i could email you the vid; it should be about 15mb or less compressed, if your email can handle that, or i'd be happy to post it on my own ftp server if you prefer. IIRC, it's about 11 minutes or so in, after a commercial break, where dembski clearly responds in the affirmative when questioned about his support for CD. *edit* actually, my version of the clip starts later, and his statement is about 1:30 in.  so you might find it far earlier.  In either case, if you haven't seen it, you might find the interview interesting (i found it rather boring, actually) so you might as well watch the whole thing. once you watch it, you should have an obvious response as to why he responds in the affirmative, but again, i am dissapointed you didn't already know, and you have lost serious cred in my book.  boo-hoo, right? However, if you want to play this game, you need to know ALL the angles.  To be honest, it surprised me that he said that as well, until the qualifiers became clear. I hope you now have one more tool in your arsenal of crap to thow at those YOU wish to test. oh, and good luck with that.  I personally think you are wasting your time, either way.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,11:09    Quote The interview was done on a nightline special a few months back. here's one of the sites that still has a link to the video clip:  Thanks for the link. I can't watch it yet (have to hook up my speakers first) but I promise I'll see it later today. You're a man of your word, and that counts for something in my book (if not on this board). Quote once you watch it, you should have an obvious response as to why he responds in the affirmative, but again, i am dissapointed you didn't already know, and you have lost serious cred in my book.  boo-hoo, right?  Now, it's normally a given that a man posting under the moniker "Sir Toejam" is usually been engaged in a long and bitter feud with common sense, and you haven't exactly done anything to reverse that impression with posts that are almost as orthogonal to reality as they are to the thread topic. But I will admit to a certain silent amazement that you bring so much more to the fight:  1) muddle-headed psychobabble  2) funhouse, white-knuckled paranoia  3) the reading comprehension of a faeces-flinging primate  I mean, how many people would post an elliptical post proposing a poorly-defined test and then treat a response for more information as an excuse to engage in tired carnie blather. Yah, it must be tough when all the Lenny Bruce concerts are checked out at Blockbusters and the only thing left are a couple of dog-eared Margaret Cho tapes that you can't check out anyway 'cause the clerks made you clean the last ones you rented. But don't take it out on me, hoss, as I don't give a toss.  Since I haven't seen the clip yet, I'm probably setting myself up for a pratfall, but I would guess that Dembski is proposing some sort of privileged-planet style frontloading as a possible explanation for life's origins. Like Behe, he has been partial to such a hypothesis in the past, but I've always treated it as the frivolous speculation that it undoubtedly is. I seem to remember Dembski expressing some skepticism about the ape-man link, but I could be confusing him with Behe. In any case, I'm willing to admit a mistake if, in fact, your interpretations prove correct. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,12:32    ahhh, if only your logic was as sharp as your wit. Actually, as I intimated earlier, your initial lack of knowledge regarding ID constructs as proposed by Dembski allows me to easily dismiss your current persona as nothing more than a feeble attempt at intellectual masturbation. again, good luck with that.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,13:54    Quote Actually, as I intimated earlier, your initial lack of knowledge regarding ID constructs as proposed by Dembski allows me to easily dismiss your current persona as nothing more than a feeble attempt at intellectual masturbation.  If you're implying that either frontloading or CD is inherent in Dembski's formal model, then your complaint about my logic would have merit. Obviously, I should have seen the implications swimming in his maths. But assuming that's the case, then why were you initially surprised by his confession? And if you are complaining about my lack of awareness of his metaphysics, again, where do you get that idea? From a request to provide information? Your phrase Quote your initial lack of knowledge implies the latter. I'm really confused by what you're saying, by the way. Perhaps a peek of the tape would help. In any case, don't assume that I'm fooled by all these attempts to dismiss my "persona": it's sure a heck of lot easier than dismissing my arguments with evidence, clear reasoning, etc. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,14:43    Well, I've seen the clip. My thoughts:  1) No mention of front loading. Actually, that topic's too complex for T.V., so I should have anticipated that.  2) Says CD has "good evidence", doesn't say he agrees with it. But close enough to an endorsement.  3) Surprisingly strong slam against Special Creation. So you're right and I'm wrong, he's no metaphysical ally of ours. I knew about Henry Morris's complaint, but please understand that Morris does not represent the full spectrum of fundamentalist thought.   In short, you're correct. But you missed a crucial point: nowhere does Dembski imply that ID is necessarily incompatible with Special Creation, only that his personal beliefs aren't. And I knew that Dembski wasn't a committed fundamentalist; I just misjudged the level of his antipathy towards fundamentalism. Again, you admit that you were initially surprised by his support for CD. So why should I have been aware of it necessarily? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,18:52    I'll give you that he has a terrible name Paley, but yours isn't much better. If you post under a ridiculous pseudonym, you put a barrier up to anyone who wants to quote some particularly cogent thing you might say. Not that you have to worry about that, but S.T. does.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,09:50    Oh, Sir Toejam has a lot more to worry about than his name. Like coherent logic , evidence, and relevant posts. Oh, by the way, "Sir Toe", if yer gonna fret over anyone's lack of knowledge, you should start with evolutionists's total ignorance about optics. Maybe then you can avoid being Nilsson's mark in the future. And tell Nicky to find his expert; the Master's bored and wants to administer another spanking. And Commentary's readers will appreciate it as well - they love seeing your atheist hides get flayed in public. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Dean Morrison Posts: 216 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2005,12:13    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 12 2005,16<!--emo&) Thorough, cogent refutations of Darwinian "science" are not dishonest. They are truthful. As believers in the ninth commandment, both Dembski and I defend truth. What do Darwinians believe in beyond selfish acquisition of power? I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms. The data has clearly demonstrted intron loss occurs randomly and not in a nested heirarchy as common ancestry predicts. This has been reported in a paper published by Oxford journals--this is the same organization that employs Richard Dawkins, the Pope of Darwinism himself! (Notice that Christians like myself accept data from evolutionary sources, we do not reject their writings on a priori grounds.) Since you evolutionists have such poor reading comprehension skills, at the bottom is a link to the chart showing the data explicitly. Now, I hope you evolutionists will start arguing like the scientists you claim to be instead of Sunday morning pundits. Chart Okay I followed the link - Ghost of Paley is representing research by a "Jaroslaw Krzywinski" as being somehow related to some project of his own. Since Jaroslaw Krzywinski has also published a paper entitled "Evolution of Mitochondrial and Ribosomal Gene Sequences in Anophelinae (Diptera: Culicidae): Implications for Phylogeny Reconstruction" -which I have read - it is clear that he is an evloutionary biologist, and no supporter of ID or creationism. Ambiguous wording suggests that Ghost of Paley has a paper published by Oxford journals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and shameless of Paley Ghostey to do this as a self-professed "Defender of the Truth". Why then would his work attract the interest of an old racist like "Ghost of Paley"? Well if you type "white" and "gene" into Google - then you'll pick up the paper in the top ten replies. Seems to me that Whitey Paley Ghostey is not really interested in the phylogenetics of Drosophila, but something much darker. When is your Information Theory paper coming out Whiter Shadey of Paley? - and why do you hide behind that ridiculous avatar??

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2005,07:52    Quote Since Jaroslaw Krzywinski has also published a paper entitled "Evolution of Mitochondrial and Ribosomal Gene Sequences in Anophelinae (Diptera: Culicidae): Implications for Phylogeny Reconstruction" -which I have read - it is clear that he is an evloutionary biologist, and no supporter of ID or creationism.  Which makes his conclusions even more interesting, of course. Quote Ambiguous wording suggests that Ghost of Paley has a paper published by Oxford journals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and shameless of Paley Ghostey to do this as a self-professed "Defender of the Truth".  No, it's your sloppy and overwrought reading of my posts that causes this confusion. Say, does my quoting of an evo paper make me a closet evolutionist? It should, by your "reasoning". Quote Why then would his work attract the interest of an old racist like "Ghost of Paley"? Well if you type "white" and "gene" into Google - then you'll pick up the paper in the top ten replies.    Believe it or not, I followed the Yenta's advice here. I suggest that all lurkers do likewise, although their faith in the Yenta's reasoning skills might be tarnished thereby. By the way, was the Walrus really Paul, Dean? This being your area of expertise and all..... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard