Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: DI EN&V started by Wesley R. Elsberry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2011,10:32
The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog is < taking a step into uncharted territory >. They are permitting comments. Moderated, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 20 2011,10:38
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Emphasis in the original.
Having looked through the top 5 articles, I have not found one with comments allowed. We shall see.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,10:45
(reads)
(breaks out into sarcastic sniggering)
If I had an irony meter, it might have hit elevenses on that one. Can these yoiks possibly manage to avoid an own-goal with this stuff? Or are the deafened by the sound of so many points whizzing over their heads?
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 20 2011,10:49
uncivil = questions
ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions
foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman
threats = posting as anything but a crebot
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 21 2011,09:44
The simple fact of Kris being here attacking AtBC about its horrible moderation policy and not being moderated for doing so is ample evidence that his arguments are flawed.
And he's been offered a thread of his own, where he could go and discuss in a civilized way.
1 post from him there so far...
Kris; as long as you don't actually spam (look at Mabuse for a "how not to do it" chart), you won't be moderated. Restricted to the BW for a while if you start being really insulting, at worst.
But no one will ever silence you here for your opinions. Hell, I've had a few harsh disagreements with some folks here, and was never, ever silenced.
or Expelled©...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 21 2011,09:47
I've split out the concern trolling to its own thread. Please try to keep this topical to the DI EN&V comment experiment.
The "split" function apparently doesn't actually move comments, it copies them. So I'll be deleting from here till the move operation is finished.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,09:49
Moved to appropriate thread
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 21 2011,09:51
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you referring to swallows, here?
:)
And Wes: yes, good idea, thanks.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 21 2011,09:55
[Squashing the pagination bug.]
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,10:01
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 21 2011,04:51) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you referring to swallows, here?
:)
And Wes: yes, good idea, thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, missed that one. It was Lampyris noctiluca!
ETA Oops Sorry Wesley. Feel free to move to correct thread.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2011,00:50
Casey Luskin < doesn't like it > that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!
I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.
Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was < published after we submitted our essay to Synthese >. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 26 2011,00:54
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 26 2011,00:50) | Casey Luskin < doesn't like it > that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!
I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.
Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was < published after we submitted our essay to Synthese >. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No? Or is this a trick question?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 28 2011,23:29
At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 29 2011,00:32
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 28 2011,23:29) | At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can comment on the < the post on Flannery's book on Wallace > (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.
ETA < ENV's comment policy >:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Comment Policy
All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 29 2011,04:29
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2011,01:32) | You can comment on the < the post on Flannery's book on Wallace > (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.
ETA < ENV's comment policy >:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Comment Policy
All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have posted the following. Let's see if it appears:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- "It all sounds impressive until Pinker tries to actually make a case for any of this. The narrative quickly degenerates into a trivial recounting of what humans currently do and then into a collection of speculative scenarios about how certain primordial hominids "might have" done this or "perhaps" did that."
Wallace's claim too may be characterized as a recounting of what humans currently do coupled with the assertion that these capabilities cannot have arisen by gradations. The argument for this assertion inheres in characterizations of these activities, e.g. their level of abstraction, and the follow-on claim that lesser forms of such capabilities cannot have been useful to our hominid ancestors, and therefore cannot have arisen step-wise. This is a conceptual argument, not an empirical one - which is why it is characterized as a "paradox."
When a conceptual claim is made, a conceptual response may be sufficient to dispute that claim. Wallace - and now ID proponents - argue not that these things did not happen (broadly an empirical claim), but that they cannot have happened - that to assert otherwise is to invoke a paradox (a conceptual claim). To refute an argument of this kind all one need only show that such events can have happened - that the claim is not in fact paradoxical. That is the level of Pinker's argument (as you summarize it here). Qualifiers such as "may have been," "may serve as," "perhaps," "may connect" are appropriate when mounting a conceptual response to a conceptual claim.
That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable - a difficult proposition given that the hypothesized cognitive attainments occurred tens of thousands to millions of years in the past, and by their very nature can have left no physical traces other than cultural artifacts. The most interesting work in this field, which is far from new, draws not just upon characterizations of the skills in question but also upon predictions arising from a "triangulation" between findings in cognitive science, primatology, and human developmental psychology (ie. the unfolding of cognitive abilities in individual children). Perhaps we can never attain a high level of confidence regarding particular hypotheses. But a conceptual response alone can refute the bare conceptual claim that such hypotheses cannot be correct. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 29 2011,08:13
RB: My Spidey Sense says your comment will not see the light of day at EN & V:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comment is intelligent, to the point, makes sense, and therefore is a threat to ID...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 29 2011,16:35
My comment < has appeared. > I'm not sure when, as I was looking for it at the end of the comment list until I noticed that the most recent comments appear just under the OP.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 29 2011,16:53
Bwahaha!!!
Egnor chimes in:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet... >
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 29 2011,18:13
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53) | Bwahaha!!!
Egnor chimes in:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet... > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists. I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?
Posted by: Sol3a1 on Jan. 30 2011,07:29
Why is it the more I read of the tactics and personal of the DI the more I want to punch something?
Oh yes, really, really hard.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 30 2011,09:08
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,18:13) | Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53) | Bwahaha!!!
Egnor chimes in:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet... > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists. I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From their comment policy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess the egnoramus comments are considered civil, and not ad hominem. But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 30 2011,10:46
Egnor was the guy that said the brain was like a cell phone and God was ATT, or something along those lines.
He flounced away screaming like a little girl about "ad hominem, uncivil, viewpoint discrimination" when it was pointed out that his analogy was STUPID.
I mean, not even fucking STUPID, just regular STUPID. What a Nancy.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2011,16:48
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What if the venom is merely evolved saliva?
Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,17:56
The time has come to examine EN&V's initial < foray > into the wilds of open comments.
Following a flurry of pro-ID regulars discussing a point irrelevant to the OP, I posted a comment. Flannery responded by counting the ways in which my argument miscarried (4). I responded...
And that's it. Flannery didn't seem to have much stomach for defending his thesis once challenged, never responded further, and now the thread is closed.
And regretted, one expects, as I don't see any other threads in which comments are open.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,18:57
< Second comment >, cached:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Reciprocating Bill | January 30, 2011 7:11 PM Flannery -
Thank you for your response. I'll address your points in turn.
"Pinker is invoking the cognitive niche as an explanatory mechanism for the human mind, and as such it is surely reasonable to expect some empirical evidence on its behalf"
I agree. As I stated below, "That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable."
As I also stated below, some extremely interesting work is being done on these very difficult questions, for example at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and by researchers such as Tomasello, Call, Povinelli, Hare, and many others. Hard won specific, testable hypotheses regarding the nature and evolution of primate theory of mind (a pillar in the foundation of human cognition) are being addressed through thoroughly experimental means (see Brian Hare's elegant work on the distribution among primates of an understanding that one's conspecifics 'see' and act upon what they have seen). The results have unmistakeable importance for the evolution of social-cognitive intelligence and the foundations of many of the human capabilities we both admire. Further, the cross-fertilized work in developmental psychology stimulated by this perspective has yielded significant, unexpected discoveries regarding the unfolding of human cognition in infants, empirical findings that have unmistakable relevance to our understanding of human cognitive evolution. Whether or not you find that work "convincing," a large community of primatologists, developmental psychologists and cognitive scientists find it a fertile, productive and progressive area of empirical research, a framework that guides research in a way that has yielded important discoveries and posed additional researchable questions. I find it wholly inaccurate to characterize this work as "hand waving and hedges." Any reader who wishes may begin to judge for themselves by visiting
< http://www.eva.mpg.de/english/index.htm >
"Wallace never argued that humans couldnt acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection, he simply said that such an argument lacked evidence"
At the outset you quote, approvingly I gather, Wallace as characterizing the distance between human beings and other species as "unbridgeable," and that "nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man" (my emphasis). That statement precisely is a claim that human beings can't have acquired higher mental attributes by means of evolutionary mechanisms, and not an assertion regarding the evidence.
"Wallace pointed out that the uniquely human attributes of abstract reasoning, humor, mathematical ability, musical aptitude, artistic talent, etc. are inexplicable in terms of ordinary survival needs."
Of course, this again is a wholly conceptual claim, one that assumes it's conclusion. And, once again, it is a claim that "humans couldnt acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection," a argument you say Wallace never made.
Moreover, these abilities are at bottom elaborations of the powerful human capacity for representation, both as displayed by individuals and as deployed through the shared "distributed cognition" that characterizes our way of making a living. The capacious representational abilities that characterize human cognition have everything to do with the "survival needs" associated with the way human beings have made their living throughout their history. To say otherwise is tantamount to asserting that flight can't have evolved in birds because flight has nothing to do with basic survival needs.
That said, all of these skills have been hugely elaborated by means of cultural rather than biological evolution over the past several tens of thousands of years, and therefore do have many elaborate characteristics that are traceable to processes other than natural selection.
"The observational and experiential power of Wallaces position is underestimated."
Ultimately, again, the science lies in the very hard work of generating testable hypotheses concerning the origins of these abilities and devising empirical research (both experimental and field) capable of answering the questions posed. It is the experimental power of Wallace's ideas - or rather the lack of same - that should concern its advocates. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2011,20:25
< David Klinghoffer > at EN&V sustains a higher level of discourse in a post on Richard Dawkins entitled, Richard Dawkins, Worthless Bully. Some excerpts:
"What's really contemptible about Dawkins's article
"
"Nothing could be more shoddy and dishonest
"
"Dawkins showed his own blind cowardice in his most recent book
"
"The man is just a pathetic and worthless bully, nothing more."
Then we have the comment policy:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ... In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My emphasis.
Doesn't apply to OPs, or to Klinghoffer, apparently.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 03 2011,16:18
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2011,17:56) | The time has come to examine EN&V's initial < foray > into the wilds of open comments.
Following a flurry of pro-ID regulars discussing a point irrelevant to the OP, I posted a comment. Flannery responded by counting the ways in which my argument miscarried (4). I responded...
And that's it. Flannery didn't seem to have much stomach for defending his thesis once challenged, never responded further, and now the thread is closed.
And regretted, one expects, as I don't see any other threads in which comments are open. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, the wonderful world of facts! Speaks louder than the most vociferous creationist.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 04 2011,18:07
Hmm... Casey Luskin has put a new < post > up criticising the DI's latest favourite bogeyman, Stephen Hawking. (He complains about Hawking using fallacious logic - oh the ironing.) It ends with a question...
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What else would you expect from the guy that said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 04 2011,22:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No comment!!111!!eleven!!
Posted by: paragwinn on April 10 2011,08:51
I forgot to crosspost a comment I submitted to Nelson's OD II post which has been in moderation going on 24 hours now. (I guess nobody scans submissions on the weekends). I asked why Nelson decided to use "natural selection" as shorthand for the theory of [neo-Darwinian] evolution. I pointed out that such use makes it difficult to determine whether each of his arguments is referring to the process of NS or to the theory of evolution as a whole. I asked for clarification. Maybe I should have added "please with sugar on top"
Posted by: Sealawr on June 07 2011,18:14
Anybody hear anything about this?
Que pasa?
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....21.html >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2011,22:13
Casey invokes my name:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....61.html >
I was pleased that AML was responsive to David's letter. I have been less pleased that AML chose to issue an apology over a manuscript that is substantially a re-publication of stuff Sewell has done elsewhere. It's an issue that Casey (wisely) fails to take notice of, since it is hard to argue that re-publication is a good thing and the fact that Sewell had already published his stuff elsewhere would make it tougher to push the "censoring Darwinists" line like he does.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2011,22:15
Oh, yeah, and comments are not open on Casey's post. What's the matter, Casey?
Posted by: olegt on June 07 2011,22:26
After some huffing and puffing, Casey gets to the point of contention:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Dr. Sewell is fully aware of objections made to the classical version of the second law of thermodynamics argument, and that's why he is not offering the classical (unsophisticated) version of the argument. In particular, Sewell accepts as true the observation that entropy/disorder can decrease when energy is input from outside the system is true--but he argues that this fact is only relevant when the what is being input tends to create the type of order we're seeking to increase.
In the peer-reviewed article he wrote for Applied Mathematics Letters, Sewell argued that the basic principles underlying the second law of thermodynamics, when properly applied, might be a bar to Darwinian evolution after all. I'll further discuss Sewell's thesis in a second article later this week. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I look forward to the next installment. Casey does physics. This should be fun.
Posted by: Seversky on June 07 2011,22:31
The DI owes me a new irony meter for allowing Luskin to write
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I already know that Sewell would love to have this debate in the journals. But having a real scientific debate is the last thing the Darwin lobby wants. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
in an article for which comments are disabled.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2011,22:46
Casey Luskin, expert on everything:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's an old unsophisticated argument against Darwinian evolution that goes something like this: The second law of thermodynamics holds that entropy/disorder always decreases. Darwinian evolution holds that entropy/disorder has increased. Therefore, Darwinian evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Emphasis added.
Say what you will about Duane Gish, but at least Gish knew which way the 2LoT went.
But Casey inadvertently said something correct, which I highlighted in italics. Evolution means that entropy increases, as Brooks and Wiley discussed in their book, "Evolution As Entropy".
Casey does get the direction right in the next paragraph.
Posted by: sparc on June 07 2011,23:36
The < UTEP handbook of operating procedures > doesn't list re-publications as scientific misconduct. However, plagiarism, though not self-plagiarism, is listed.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 08 2011,06:01
The journal's listed standards puts self-plagiarism into a maybe-it-is, maybe-it-isn't light. If Sewell informed them up front that, oh, yeah, this manuscript is substantially the same thing that I published before, then it is up to editorial discretion as to whether they accept it on those terms. If he didn't inform them of that fact, though, that would be against the journal's policy.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 08 2011,06:48
My response:
< http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2011....ie.html >
Posted by: Bob O'H on June 08 2011,08:56
Has anyone heard from the journal about this?
Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.
I've tweeted Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and Reuters), hopefully he'll follow up.
Posted by: Sealawr on June 08 2011,11:45
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 08 2011,08:56) | Has anyone heard from the journal about this?
Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.
I've tweeted Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and Reuters), hopefully he'll follow up. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I stumbled across this yesterday when my Google Alert for "Intelligent Design" activated.
There was no other mention of this on the internet and the publication itself seems silent. Of course, I believe nothing from EN&V without independent verification from knowledgable and honest sources, but I've heard nothing so far.
I'm wondering if there had been a "nuisance settlement" and the DI let confidential terms out of the bag. Often such settlements are limited to a public announcement of "Neither side admits libaility, we did nothing wrong and we won't do it again."
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.
Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.
Posted by: olegt on June 08 2011,11:52
Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45) | It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.
Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 08 2011,12:10
Quote (olegt @ June 08 2011,11:52) | Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45) | It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.
Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Granville got something better than money. He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 08 2011,13:02
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 08 2011,12:10) | Quote (olegt @ June 08 2011,11:52) | Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45) | It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.
Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author. There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Granville got something better than money. He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Granville got something better than money. He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you are right. He should be in line for a lot of extra book / dvd sales, bad cookies and worse lemonade in church basements all over the USA.
And since ID is All About The Science, this could even move him up on the Rapture Scale!
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 08 2011,18:21
I'm a stupid son-of-a-bitch for missing a chance to snag a beautiful line written by that moron of morons, John West, on the DI site.
In his blather about Granville, West wrote something to the effect that "Smithsonian journal editor Richard Sternberg lost his job because he published Meyer's paper." I'm quoting what I remember not the actual text which I should have snagged, but didn't because I'm a StUpiD SoB!
I'm sure that's the way the DI views Sternberg but it was so wrong in all aspects that I spit my coffee OVER my screen.
It's been changed, now, and the original is probably lost to history. It was sweet while it lasted.
Posted by: olegt on June 09 2011,10:40
As promised, Casey takes up the defense of Sewell's argument from the second law. Behold! < Digging Into Granville Sewell's Peer-Reviewed Paper Challenging Darwinian Evolution >.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As I noted in a < previous article >, many have argued that the second law of thermodynamics is not a valid argument against Darwinian evolution since the law holds that order can increase in an open system, and the earth and its biosphere do not comprise a closed system. While that is correct, Granville Sewell, author of < In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design >, argues there is more to the story. Sewell's article written for Applied Mathematics Letters argues that the second law of thermodynamics may be a problem for Darwinian evolution after all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey makes some statements distancing himself from the second-law argument:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Now I am not personally convinced that the second law of thermodynamics is the right way to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution, and I prefer < Dembski's formulation >. But I think that Sewell's article makes interesting points that contribute to this discussion, and it certainly did not deserve to be withdrawn just because some Darwin lobbyists didn't like its conclusion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He defends Sewell nonetheless. (Why would a tenured professor of applied math need defending by a lawyer whose knowledge of physics ended with Physics 102?) Anyway, Casey does not advance any new arguments, just quotes a few passages from Sewell's manuscript. Here is the gist of it (emphasis mine):
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Sewell observes that materialists claim that a reduction in entropy in a part of the universe can occur if it is compensated by an increase in another part. As he quotes Peter Urone: "it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases." Sewell then argues that this "compensation" rejoinder fails:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is totally, completely wrong. It shows that Sewell does not understand thermodynamics. (Neither does Luskin, but that is hardly a surprise.)
Here is a simple counter example. Pour a glass of water and drop a cube of ice into it. The water will get colder. The motion of water molecules will slow down and its entropy will decrease. We can even calculate by how much. Suppose the temperature of water drops by 1 degree centigrade. 200 g of water gives off about Q = 0.8 joules of heat. That flow of heat takes away entropy S_w = -Q/T_w, where T_w is the absolute temperature of water. Let's say it is 27 degrees centigrade, or 300 K. Let's also convert the entropy to bits by dividing it by the < Boltzmann constant > k and the natural logarithm of 2:
S_w = -Q/(kT ln(2)) = -2.9 x 10^20 bits.
This is an enormously large decrease in entropy. The probability of that happening spontaneously is 2 to the power S_w, roughly one in 10^(88 000 000 000 000 000 000). This is very, very improbable. What gives?
Of course, the decrease in the entropy of water is more than compensated by an increase in the entropy of ice. Ice receives the same amount of heat but does so at a lower temperature T_i, 0 centigrade, or 273 K. Its entropy increase is S_i = +Q/T_i = 3.2 x 10^20 bits.
The total entropy change,
S_w + S_i = Q(1/T_i - 1/T_w) = 3 x 10^19 bits,
is positive because ice is colder than water, T_i < T_w.
So in this example, water goes into an incredibly less probable state as a result of cooling. That probability decrease is compensated, and then some, by the heating of ice. In fact, the full system (water + ice) ends up in a much more probable state as a result of the overcompensation.
Posted by: olegt on June 09 2011,11:03
Here is Sewell's silly paragraph again:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The premise is wrong. An extremely improbable event can be made less improbable if a compensating event happens nearby. The cooling of water by ice is an everyday example.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Posted by: Henry J on June 09 2011,11:07
But that explanation of the physics doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is after all a side effect of the reproductive process, which is observed, so T D can't prevent evolution without preventing reproduction, which even they know it doesn't do.
Henry
Posted by: Robin on June 09 2011,11:21
Quote (olegt @ June 09 2011,11:03) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.
Garbage in, garbage out. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation of the microscopic state of molecular distribution (disorder) in a give system and the macroscopic properties associated with the system. In effect, he's trying to imply that disorder as used to describe energy and molecular distribution is the same thing as disorder of a broken vase.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 09 2011,12:31
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that all of neoPaleyism is equivocation. It's all they have.
Posted by: Henry J on June 09 2011,13:24
So they aren't beyond the Paley?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 09 2011,13:29
Quote (Henry J @ June 09 2011,13:24) | So they aren't beyond the Paley? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is a nice play on words - succinct and truer than any fact would ever be.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 09 2011,16:39
< http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.discovery.org/ >
Posted by: Robin on June 10 2011,08:25
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 09 2011,12:31) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that all of neoPaleyism is equivocation. It's all they have. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good point.
Posted by: sparc on June 10 2011,15:41
A visualization of Sewell's self-plagiarism generated with < WCopyfind >. Identities are displayed in red
left = American spectator right = Applied Mathematics letter
left = Mathematical Intelligencer right = American Spectator
left = Mathematical Intelligencer right = Applied Mathematics letter
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on June 10 2011,16:02
Sparc, I think you have way too much time on your hands...
Still, delicious!
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 10 2011,18:05
Have you noticed on the EN&V site since they opened up comments (restrictedly) that
1. There are few comments. 2. What comments there are sounds like UD or Joe G's site or Ham's AIG.
No real commentary, just cheerleading from the socks.
Pathetic level of detail if you ask me.
Posted by: sparc on June 10 2011,22:59
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 10 2011,16:02) | Sparc, I think you have way too much time on your hands...
Still, delicious! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I was trying the program anyway becasue I am tired of getting protocols with only minor changes or verbatim quotes from Wikipedia from our students again and again. In the future I will check their writings before reading. In contrast to Dr. Sewell students caught red-handed will have to face consequences, though.
ETA pm me if you need the same with a higher resolution or pdfs.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on June 11 2011,10:00
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 10 2011,19:05) | Have you noticed on the EN&V site since they opened up comments (restrictedly) that
1. There are few comments. 2. What comments there are sounds like UD or Joe G's site or Ham's AIG.
No real commentary, just cheerleading from the socks.
Pathetic level of detail if you ask me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see ~five or six threads that allow comments, out of the hundreds posted since January.
ENV, if so timid, why bother at all?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 13 2011,10:19
Casey Luskin, science kibbutzer:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Despite the high levels of skepticism of claims of arsenophilic bacteria, Nature reports that few scientists have taken the initiative to attempt to experimentally reproduce the claims made in the original paper:
However, most labs seem too busy to spend time replicating work that they feel is fundamentally flawed and is not likely to be published in high-impact journals. So principal investigators are reluctant to spend their resources, and their students' time, replicating the work. "If you extended the results to show there is no detectable arsenic, where could you publish that?" asks Simon Silver of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who critiqued the work in FEMS Microbiology Letters in January and on 24 May at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans. "How could the young person who was asked to do that work ever get a job?" Refuting another scientist's work also takes time that scientists could be spending on their own research. For instance, Helmann says he is installing a highly sensitive mass spectrometer that can measure trace amounts of elements. But, he says, "I've got my own science to do."
Such admissions do not bode well for those who blindly believe in the perfectly objective, self-correcting nature of science. Indeed, in this case, it seems safe to experimentally critique these claims since so many respected scientists have already expressed vocal skepticism. Yet experiments are apparently not yet forthcoming. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually it bodes very well for science. Nobody is stopping Wolfe-Simon from further supporting their argument with more experiments (that is how you answer arguments, not with a verbal nuh-uh!). What this means is that the original paper was, how should I put it, lame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What about areas of science where scientists are not able to express their dissent freely? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Translation: fields where we IDiots can't get unsupported crap published very easily. Help, help, we're being expelled!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- For example, who would take time to experimentally critique claims that are central to neo-Darwinian theory, especially if doing so could be dangerous to one's career? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone who wants to make a big splash, like Wolfe-Simon? Jeez, an example on hand, yet Luskin ignores it with his IDiotic rhetorical question.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- One hopes that science will become more self-correcting when it comes to claims made in support of materialism. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, one hopes that Wolfe-Simon either backs up her claim, or admits the obvious - she is inadequate to the task. Like IDiots have already proven to be over how many years now?
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 13 2011,18:16
Yea, DI, more Hitler!
My son: Who's Hitler?
Posted by: noncarborundum on June 13 2011,18:23
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:16) | Yea, DI, more Hitler!
My son: Who's Hitler? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You say that like it's a good thing. It's not, you know, unless he's very young.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 13 2011,18:48
Well, you know, my son knows "Hitler" as an historical figure, although vaguely, but I know of Hitler from all the b/w war movies I saw as a child.
The DI is appealing to me and my parents, dead or shortly dead, as a "bad thing." Boomers like me remember the Hitler influence although we didn't experience it first hand. The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.
The likelihood that my son will contribute to the DI because of "Hitler" is zero. Hitler who?
Posted by: fnxtr on June 13 2011,20:43
I'm still flabbergasted when I meet someone who's never heard of The Dark Side of the Moon, but that's getting more and more common, too.
edit slash & typo
Posted by: Henry J on June 13 2011,21:57
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My son:??Who's Hitler? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He hasn't seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
Henry
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 13 2011,22:07
Tell your son that he was a Darwinist.
Be prepared for the next question: What is a Darwinist?
Posted by: noncarborundum on June 13 2011,22:12
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:48) | The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you couldn't prove it by my daughter. She's 15, and she's fascinated by the question of why people do evil things, to the point where she's taking an elective next year in school called "Facing History and Ourselves", one of the main topics of which is the Holocaust. I remember discussing Hitler and the Holocaust with her when she was maybe 8 or 9, and she read "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" in (I think) 6th grade. Hitler really does remain relevant.
(And not just because Nazis make great action movie heavies.)
Posted by: sparc on June 13 2011,23:34
According to < retraction watch > Applied Mathematics Letters has published an apology for retracting Granville Sewell's article "A second look at the second law". Judge yourself if Elsevier's move is in accordance with < their ethical guidelines for author's >.
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 14 2011,16:01
For those of you willing to sit through to the end of < http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm >
you can see a screen shot of Dr Rodin's letter to Dr Sewell, informing him of the decision to rescind the paper. That last sentence says it all.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 14 2011,16:12
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 14 2011,16:01) | For those of you willing to sit through to the end of < http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm >
you can see a screen shot of Dr Rodin's letter to Dr Sewell, informing him of the decision to rescind the paper. That last sentence says it all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He sounds like George W. Bush!
Posted by: csadams on June 16 2011,16:44
Oh, see.
Oh, see Casey.
Funny, funny Casey.
See funny Casey run.
Run, Casey, run.
See Casey < running away from the evidence >.
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 17 2011,07:54
Looks like Casey and Steve Matheson are mixing it up on the same thread.
Hey, DI, is Luskin the Gerbil the best you have to explain "intelligent design" creationism? I hope the little boy gets paid by the word!
< Luskin at bat. >
Posted by: Amadan on June 17 2011,19:06
Casey preaches to the converted:
Posted by: J-Dog on June 17 2011,20:31
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06) | Casey preaches to the converted:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...
Posted by: fnxtr on June 17 2011,23:32
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31) | Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06) | Casey preaches to the converted:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
`twas probably in the craigslist personals.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 18 2011,07:33
Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32) | Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31) | Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06) | Casey preaches to the converted:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
`twas probably in the craigslist personals. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?
Posted by: dvunkannon on June 20 2011,11:15
Continuing to poke Granville with a stick -
< http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416514 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 20 2011,11:18
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 18 2011,07:33) | Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32) | Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31) | Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06) | Casey preaches to the converted:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
`twas probably in the craigslist personals. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's in the picture.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 20 2011,20:11
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 20 2011,09:18) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 18 2011,07:33) | Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32) | Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31) | Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06) | Casey preaches to the converted:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
`twas probably in the craigslist personals. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's in the picture. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the far right (of course), in blue. This is like a fairy version of the cover of "Satanic Majesty's Request" or "Sgt. Pepper".
Posted by: olegt on June 21 2011,07:55
Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog < Egnorance >. Srsly.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Welcome!
This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.
I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".
My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.
This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.
Welcome. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Quack on June 21 2011,08:36
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55) | Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog < Egnorance >. Srsly.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Welcome!
This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.
I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".
My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.
This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.
Welcome. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The least they could do would be to understand that whatever questions they think may be raised because there is a scientific, well founded theory of evolution, it is completely irrelevant WRT what they think and claim are secondary effects of the existence of the theory.
That is, the question of whether evolution is true or not is a different question from questions about whatever influence the theory may have on people and society.
If the theory is true, maybe our approach should comprise some reorientation among the religiously overconfident people?
But the theory is obviously true, the belief that something did something somewhere sometimes (in addition to the obvious effects of natural forces at play as we are able to show that they really are even today) , until now has not generated any evidence to support that faith.
The fact that Egnor doesn't know or doesn't want to acknowledge that acceptance of the ToE does not equate with atheism reflects rather unfavourably on his integrity.
His religion is not everybody's religion, far from it. It just confirms what we already know, ID is religious creationism.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 21 2011,13:28
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55) | Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog < Egnorance >. Srsly.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Welcome!
This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.
I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".
My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.
This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.
Welcome. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me guess: Faux News talking points!
ETA: Checked and sure enough I was right!
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 21 2011,18:12
I checked out Egnor's site and he has nothing to say.
The guy's another opinionated moron of which the Blogosphere is full.
I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance. Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs. Behe could be Weasel Words and Dembski could be Coward's Corner. The Gerbil Tube for Luskin. The mind boggles.
I'll wager 100 quatloos that Egnor doesn't get even a snarky comment in a year, and 200 quatloos that his site is moribund in 3 months.
Unless ... unless he starts blogging about food. Who knows, he might corner the Blogosphere with tripe recipes.
Posted by: Louis on June 21 2011,19:43
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance. Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks....wait.....is that actually a compliment?
Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on June 21 2011,22:13
My kind of compliment goes like this:
"The flesh of your buttocks ripples nicely to the tip of my whip."
Like the French say, no grain no pain.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2011,10:04
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 21 2011,23:13) | My kind of compliment goes like this:
"The flesh of your buttocks ripples nicely to the tip of my whip."
Like the French say, no grain no pain. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
whoa that is seriously focked. i dig it
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,09:50
< Jonathan M on OOL >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Edited to complete the quote
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 17 2011,09:55
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,07:50) | < Jonathan M on OOL >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that settles it, then. Everybody go home.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 17 2011,10:15
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,09:50) | < Jonathan M on OOL >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Edited to complete the quote ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Their information is uniformly associated with intelligent causes.
However, the rest of the world is perfectly capable of showing their intelligence to be somewhat less than that of termites (Hi Joe!).
It's truly amazing that these people can't even see that information does not equal meaning and that information can come from random events.
Morton's demon indeed.
I won't even bother trying to correct him. The evidence is persuasive enough, ID proponents will never see it.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,10:30
I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.
1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. 2. A is information. 3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.
I think my wording is a bit clearer.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 17 2011,10:35
Information is data that has been collected by an intelligence.
The phenomena that is the subject of that data isn't affected by whether some intelligence has collected information about it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2011,10:37
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,10:30) | I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.
1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. 2. A is information. 3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.
I think my wording is a bit clearer. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem of induction and all that.
1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. (In our very limited experience). And for the level of information required (does not the sound of the wind whistling through the trees tell me its windy?) we can safely replace 'Intelligence" with "man", which is both more honest and precise, but removes their opportunity for analogy wankery.
If they were to try and robustly define 'information' and 'intelligence', one suspects there are a flock of black swans waiting to pounce.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,10:50
The problem is one of equivocation.
First you abstract biochemistry as "information."
(Isn't that reductionism? I get so confused.)
Then you reason backward, assigning limits to chemistry based on the formal properties of "information."
(Isn't that some form of circular reasoning? I get so confused.)
It's a bit like asserting that people have two eyes showing in profile because Picasso painted people.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2011,11:14
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 17 2011,11:42
Of course, in ALL of that and ID and UD (and similar groups)
Information is equal to meaning
Which is, of course, 100% incorrect.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2011,12:11
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Information is equal to meaning ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?
Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:
1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer 2. Evolution produces CSI 3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.
This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 17 2011,12:15
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,12:11) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Information is equal to meaning ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?
Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:
1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer 2. Evolution produces CSI 3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.
This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yeah, I've been saying for months.
Joe just doesn't understand the concept. Which is odd...
the ID types refuse to speculate on the designer, but they KNOW the designer isn't a natural process.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 17 2011,12:58
I guess circular reasoning is their way of avoiding going off on a tangent?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 01 2011,09:19
ENV seems to have returned to the policy of blocking comments.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 08 2011,19:20
Casey goes to bat again:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.
Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?
< Link >
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 08 2011,22:45
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20) | Casey goes to bat again:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.
Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?
< Link > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.
Posted by: rossum on Sep. 09 2011,06:35
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,22:45) | Mighty Casey has struck out. Again. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A hit, a hit, my kingdom for a hit!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzl6LEfouEE">Shakespearian Baseball</a>
rossum
Posted by: Lowell on Sep. 09 2011,10:38
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,19:20) | Casey goes to bat again:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.
Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?
< Link > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.
E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.
If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 09 2011,11:37
Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.
Posted by: Lowell on Sep. 09 2011,14:01
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,11:37) | Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Sep. 09 2011,14:08
Quote (Lowell @ Sep. 09 2011,10:38) | Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.
E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.
If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genesis. God's eyewitness testimony, dictated to Moses.
Cross-examination's going to be a bit of a problem, I'll admit.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 09 2011,14:10
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.
Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.
Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 09 2011,16:34
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20) | Casey goes to bat again:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.
Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?
< Link > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alas, no joy in Udville.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 09 2011,18:11
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Casey is not stupid. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No way, José! Luskin the Attack Gerbil is quite stupid, quite possibly mentally deficient. I'm sure he's paid in nickels because he's been told that they're bigger than dimes.
Although he managed to pass the low bar in California and possibly Washington, which is like the Arkansas of the northwest, Luskin has never "worked" as a lawyer, does not represent the DI or anyone as counsel and demonstrates the barest understanding of, well, anything.
If it weren't for the DI paying him in nickels his most frequently uttered phrase would be "May I take your order, please."
Not stupid? Casey????? Please, pull the other one!
p.s. That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI. But, that's because viciousness requires cunning which Luskin lacks in spades. He's just a poor, dumb foot soldier. I wonder how many times in staff meetings Luskin blurts out, "I like bowling!"
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 09 2011,18:44
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,22:34) | Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20) | Casey goes to bat again:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.
Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?
< Link > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alas, no joy in Udville. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fexache Bill!
Courtesy of this discussion I had just discovered the gem of Americana that is Thayer's opus major, and was about to spend my evening writing a parody of it featuring monobrows and unresolved sexuality, the whole pivoting on a witty pun on 'Mudville'.
And you stole first base, so to speak.
Bitch.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 09 2011,19:23
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10) | Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.
Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.
Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 09 2011,19:43
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2011,10:23) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10) | Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.
Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.
Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 09 2011,22:06
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23) | Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.
Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.
He thought it was a real 'score.'
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 10 2011,18:17
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23) | Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.
Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.
He thought it was a real 'score.' ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 10 2011,22:01
Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,16:11) | That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yeah? Wait until he starts < forgiving you >.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 11 2011,01:25
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 10 2011,18:17) | Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23) | Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.
Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.
He thought it was a real 'score.' ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, the handout in response to Wells was authored by Nick as "Nic Tamzek". Nick stopped using the pseudonym shortly after that, IIRC.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 16 2011,21:13
< Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing >
He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 17 2011,08:18
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 16 2011,21:13) | < Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing >
He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casey is unfamiliar with the concept of a < preprint >. In the good old days, preprints were circulated by mail prior to publication. More recently, they are put on the web for people to comment.
Here is < a case > where the preprint and the published paper were 6 years apart. Both are highly cited and no one complains of self-plagiarism.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 18 2011,11:25
I left a link to my blog via the < Discovery Institute Facebook page >.
Should we have a pool concerning when a DI flunky will turn up to delete it?
Given that it is Sunday, I'll take a guess of about 2:30 PM PDT.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 19 2011,21:00
According to the DI, the butterfly is the new (cue radio voice) ICON OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (/cue radio voice)!
Yes, the flagellum of the bacteria, let's face it, is not very photogenic. How about a nice butterfly? Ohhhhh, look at the wings, the eyes, the throax and the little hooky feet! Must have been DESIGNED because Charles Darwin couldn't make a butterfly!
DUH!
And which better scientists to decry the design of the butterfly and talk about all it's biological parts than Paul "I'm not a scientists nor do I play one on TV" Nelson and Ann "What, me science?" Gauger.
Seriously, I hope the DI realizes eventually that their ultimate mascot is the shark since they've jumped it so many times.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2011,21:08
Well. the flagellum is am icon of Intestinal Dysentery, not to mention, reducible.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2011,23:06
Aren't butterflies just a kind of moth?
Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 21 2011,17:46
Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say "fuck 'em."
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 21 2011,18:46
Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 21 2011,17:46) | Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say "fuck 'em." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The first rule of decorum is to insult your guests before they even arrive.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 22 2011,08:35
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I say "fuck 'em." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, they're not my type.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 25 2011,11:35
Google Alerts tells me EN&V has another post up trying to make the Granville Sewell thing all about me.
Posted by: paragwinn on Sep. 25 2011,18:26
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 25 2011,09:35) | Google Alerts tells me EN&V has another post up trying to make the Granville Sewell thing all about me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Luskin is practically frothing at the mouth in that post. < Link >
Some revealing quotes indicating his awareness of the issue:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Early in his response, titled "Educating Casey on Publishing," Dr. Elsberry concedes my point that he self-plagiarized his recent paper in Synthese. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Apparently, since Granville Sewell has published his arguments in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and then tried to republish some prior material in his now-withdrawn Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) paper, Sewell is supposedly guilty of some grave sin that Elsberry hasn't committed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- As for the "gaming the system" accusations, whatever that means I see no evidence that Granville Sewell did it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
eta: as per SOP, no commenting allowed
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 26 2011,16:59
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....51.html >
I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.
At least he has JoeG on his side.
Posted by: paragwinn on Sep. 26 2011,22:28
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2011,14:59) | < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......51.html >
I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.
At least he has JoeG on his side. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Careful, if he gets too close, JoeG might decide to send in some intelligent agents like termites to probe Luskin's eyebrows for signs of design.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2011,11:43
He needs to protect his prose from termites.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 27 2011,11:53
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2011,16:59) | < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......51.html >
I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.
At least he has JoeG on his side. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would like to quote from a document that Casey's employers(?) produced some years back.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To replace materialistic explanation with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder what happened to 'we must defeat scientific materialism'?
These guys flop around more than a bass in the bottom of a boat.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 28 2011,17:15
Casey at bat again:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....1404051 >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 28 2011,20:35
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,17:15) | Casey at bat again:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is going to be no joy in UDville!
Posted by: raguel on Sep. 28 2011,21:41
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Problem 1: The first problem is that the examples Venema offers did not demonstrate new genetic information arising in the form of, as Meyer asks for it, fundamentally new genes and proteins. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's dangerously close to "homology disproves evolution". Or is there a more fair interpretation? Apparently not, since teh gerbil failed to provide one.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 28 2011,22:28
Why not ask him why the relative absence of new genes and proteins in, say mammals, doesn't render the new information argument moot?
If evolution didn't need to invent a lot of new proteins to make men different from mice, doesn't that reduce the improbability factor?
It a genuine question. I would like to hear from someone who knows more than I do.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 28 2011,23:40
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There is going to be no joy in UDville! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where's an UDmpire when you need one?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 29 2011,08:25
Case swings:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So SELEX experiments do not demonstrate that selection can occur prior to the origin of life. Rather, they show that in the absence of natural selection, intelligence is the only other selective agent. Since there was no natural selection prior to the origin of life, this doesn't leave many options for the materialist.
Thanks.
Casey ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 29 2011,10:16
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15) | Casey at bat again:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Swingggggggg and a miss!
Louis
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 29 2011,11:31
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2011,10:16) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15) | Casey at bat again:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Swingggggggg and a miss!
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seems Casey is unfamiliar with the phrase "Teaching old genes new tricks."
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 29 2011,11:53
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 29 2011,17:31) | Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2011,10:16) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15) | Casey at bat again:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Swingggggggg and a miss!
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seems Casey is unfamiliar with the phrase "Teaching old genes new tricks." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that ain't the only thing Casey is unfamiliar with...
Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 29 2011,11:53
The shorter Casey:
Anything Darwinists have done is not good enough.
All experiments are evidence of intelligent design by definition.
Cambrian Explosion.
QID
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 05 2011,20:31
Behe weighs in:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 05 2011,20:46
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:31) | Behe weighs in:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A TADL tale?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 05 2011,20:52
Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 06 2011,19:18
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 05 2011,20:46) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:31) | Behe weighs in:
< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A TADL tale? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, does Behe mean Tiktaalik or something more recent?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- For example, whales do not re-evolve gills, even though they are aquatic creatures who descended from fish, because gills are a lost, complex trait in that lineage. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 07 2011,00:10
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:52) | Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me more of this new science...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2011,02:45
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 07 2011,00:10) | Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:52) | Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me more of this new science... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Retrospective astonishment is a term employed by the Sensuous Curmudgeon. I don't know if he invented it.
It roughly means that the odds against any specific thing happening are so high that it couldn't possibly have happened, except by magic.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2011,09:35
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It roughly means that the odds against any specific thing happening are so high that it couldn't possibly have happened, except by magic. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And never mind that the number of specific things that might happen is so large that there isn't any one specific thing that doesn't have enormous odds against it. Yet something has to happen.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2011,12:00
I've decided to call Behe's new law Time Asymmetric Reality Denial.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2011,19:15
Retrospective astonishment:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Finally, Behe erroneously equates evolving non-deterministically with impossible to evolve. He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom....hornton >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 07 2011,21:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|