RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (27) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2013,23:11   

In his earlier EN&V piece on Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey complained about legal issues:
Quote
At this point, many might wonder why the authors didn't sue. They almost did. But there was a major unjust barrier to a lawsuit: Springer-Verlag is based in Germany, and a boilerplate clause in the contract said that in the case of a dispute, "The courts of Berlin, Germany shall have the exclusive jurisdiction." This meant that the authors, who are academics of limited financial means, found that it would have been financially unfeasible and extremely difficult to pursue a potentially long, costly, and drawn-out lawsuit in Germany. Justice isn't cheap, or easily obtained, and unfortunately the authors simply couldn't afford going to Germany to get it.

IANAL but IMO all above is lame excuses:
Why is it unjust if a German publisher choses his Germany as the place of jurisdiction? In addition, one of the authors, Werner Gitt, is a German citizen who lives in Braunschweig, Germany. He doesn't have to go to Germny because he is already there. And law suit costs are usually much lower in Germany than in the US. One might add that it appears unlikely that any of the authors would be left alone financially if the case would have gone to a US court.

Come on Casey. You didn't have a chance but you still have to sell the story to your audience. BTW, you may not have realized yet that Germany has free speech laws and special laws to prevent censorship. Thus, you or Gitt could try to sue Springer in Germany or bring your case to the EU court of human rights. Good luck with that.

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

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2013,23:25   

Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at Theology Web.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)

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

- William Dembski -

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2013,01:54   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:25)
Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at Theology Web.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)

How does it compare to the earlier account documented further up in this thread?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2013,02:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2013,01:54)
 
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:25)
Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at Theology Web.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)

How does it compare to the earlier account documented further up in this thread?

Not much. In the beginning he cites Luskin's EN&V posts. Later you will find things like:  
Quote
Since I am not a native English speaker, perhaps I have a language misunderstanding (?).

When does
   " ... holding a symposium at Cornell University ..."
mean the same thing as
   " ... Cornell is sponsoring our Symposium ...".

Suppose I held my birthday party at ***** Hotel, a famous 5-star hotel. I invite friends and family. My invitation says, "My party is being held at the ***** Hotel." Does that mean the same as, "The ***** Hotel is sponsoring my party?" IS the ***** Hotel sponsoring my party?

Get REAL, Sammy-boy.

Jorge

I guess he will not disclose the reviewers or Dembski's contact at Springer.

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

- William Dembski -

   
fusilier



Posts: 247
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2013,09:13   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 21 2013,03:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2013,01:54)
   
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:25)
Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at Theology Web.
(cross posted on the BI:NP thread)

How does it compare to the earlier account documented further up in this thread?

Not much. In the beginning he cites Luskin's EN&V posts. Later you will find things like:    
Quote
Since I am not a native English speaker, perhaps I have a language misunderstanding (?).

When does
   " ... holding a symposium at Cornell University ..."
mean the same thing as
   " ... Cornell is sponsoring our Symposium ...".

Suppose I held my birthday party at ***** Hotel, a famous 5-star hotel. I invite friends and family. My invitation says, "My party is being held at the ***** Hotel." Does that mean the same as, "The ***** Hotel is sponsoring my party?" IS the ***** Hotel sponsoring my party?

Get REAL, Sammy-boy.

Jorge

I guess he will not disclose the reviewers or Dembski's contact at Springer.

Jorge wrote that?

It almost smacks of honesty.  (Therefore, I expect it to be disappeared.)

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2013,22:20   

Quote
In BIO-Complexity and Biological Information: New Perspectives, Granville Sewell Defends his Arguments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics
again. Looking forwar to his next Youtube video.

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

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2190
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,09:48   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:11)
In his earlier EN&V piece on Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey complained about legal issues:  
Quote
At this point, many might wonder why the authors didn't sue. They almost did. But there was a major unjust barrier to a lawsuit: Springer-Verlag is based in Germany, and a boilerplate clause in the contract said that in the case of a dispute, "The courts of Berlin, Germany shall have the exclusive jurisdiction." This meant that the authors, who are academics of limited financial means, found that it would have been financially unfeasible and extremely difficult to pursue a potentially long, costly, and drawn-out lawsuit in Germany. Justice isn't cheap, or easily obtained, and unfortunately the authors simply couldn't afford going to Germany to get it.

IANAL but IMO all above is lame excuses:
Why is it unjust if a German publisher choses his Germany as the place of jurisdiction? In addition, one of the authors, Werner Gitt, is a German citizen who lives in Braunschweig, Germany. He doesn't have to go to Germny because he is already there. And law suit costs are usually much lower in Germany than in the US. One might add that it appears unlikely that any of the authors would be left alone financially if the case would have gone to a US court.

Come on Casey. You didn't have a chance but you still have to sell the story to your audience. BTW, you may not have realized yet that Germany has free speech laws and special laws to prevent censorship. Thus, you or Gitt could try to sue Springer in Germany or bring your case to the EU court of human rights. Good luck with that.

I noticed that. It's a pity Dembski et al. didn't notice it before they signed the contract.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,11:47   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 26 2013,09:48)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2013,23:11)
In his earlier EN&V piece on Biological Information: New Perspectives Casey complained about legal issues:  
Quote
At this point, many might wonder why the authors didn't sue. They almost did. But there was a major unjust barrier to a lawsuit: Springer-Verlag is based in Germany, and a boilerplate clause in the contract said that in the case of a dispute, "The courts of Berlin, Germany shall have the exclusive jurisdiction." This meant that the authors, who are academics of limited financial means, found that it would have been financially unfeasible and extremely difficult to pursue a potentially long, costly, and drawn-out lawsuit in Germany. Justice isn't cheap, or easily obtained, and unfortunately the authors simply couldn't afford going to Germany to get it.

IANAL but IMO all above is lame excuses:
Why is it unjust if a German publisher choses his Germany as the place of jurisdiction? In addition, one of the authors, Werner Gitt, is a German citizen who lives in Braunschweig, Germany. He doesn't have to go to Germny because he is already there. And law suit costs are usually much lower in Germany than in the US. One might add that it appears unlikely that any of the authors would be left alone financially if the case would have gone to a US court.

Come on Casey. You didn't have a chance but you still have to sell the story to your audience. BTW, you may not have realized yet that Germany has free speech laws and special laws to prevent censorship. Thus, you or Gitt could try to sue Springer in Germany or bring your case to the EU court of human rights. Good luck with that.

I noticed that. It's a pity Dembski et al. didn't notice it before they signed the contract.

Or even get competent legal counsel to look it over before signing.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,12:47   

What if competent legal counsel have better things to do than work for con artists?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,14:17   

In a stunning new piece (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/douglas_axe_and075601.html) Luskin decimates evolution and replaces it with wishful thinking.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,14:23   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 26 2013,14:17)
In a stunning new piece (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/douglas_axe_and075601.html) Luskin decimates evolution and replaces it with wishful thinking.

Perhaps the authors will favor us with an instance of or example of design done without using or emulating evolution.

A nice bit of irreducible biological complexity produced using design theory rather than trial and error.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,15:25   

Their side has gone to trial several times, and they've got errors coming out their kazoo, so they've got "trial and error" down pat!

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2013,15:39   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 26 2013,15:25)
Their side has gone to trial several times, and they've got errors coming out their kazoo, so they've got "trial and error" down pat!

Okay, but I am not trying to be cute.

I think before ID replaces any part of biology theory, it needs a proof of concept demonstration.

Just show us how you anticipate emergent biochemical properties. Show us by demonstration that that there is a grammar and syntax to coding and regulatory sequences that allows construction of words and sentences without unguided mutation and selection.

Demonstrate that guidance is possible.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2013,08:12   

I don't think you need worry MWT. The title of their "study" pretty much nails the coffin shut on any credibility they might gain from going through the publishing motion:

Quote
Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism Versus Design


I've read a good deal of scientific literature in my day and a fair amount of political/PR items as well. This sounds like the latter right out of the box. Why would a study compare two approaches to explaining a phenomenon. If your hypothesis (dare I say "theory") can provide an explanation, just provide it and show the test that either supports or demonstrates further issues. This doesn't even provide any support for the supposed "design" and laughably, no one needs to read far into the essay to see that.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2013,16:46   

Quote (Robin @ Aug. 27 2013,08:12)
I don't think you need worry MWT. The title of their "study" pretty much nails the coffin shut on any credibility they might gain from going through the publishing motion:

   
Quote
Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism Versus Design


I've read a good deal of scientific literature in my day and a fair amount of political/PR items as well. This sounds like the latter right out of the box. Why would a study compare two approaches to explaining a phenomenon. If your hypothesis (dare I say "theory") can provide an explanation, just provide it and show the test that either supports or demonstrates further issues. This doesn't even provide any support for the supposed "design" and laughably, no one needs to read far into the essay to see that.

This is a feature IDC inherited from its intellectual lineage of deceptive creationism. (Deceptive creationism being the clade of all creationisms that rely upon calling the existing body of antievolution arguments or a subset thereof "science" for the purpose of trying to insert them into USA public school science classrooms.) Part of the argumentation is the "oppositional dualism" noted by Judge Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas case: it is asserted that either evolution or creation is true, thus anything that puts evolution in doubt counts as evidence for creation. IDC is fully on board with the oppositional dualism seen in creation science.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
rossum



Posts: 236
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2013,03:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2013,16:46)
This is a feature IDC inherited from its intellectual lineage of deceptive creationism. (Deceptive creationism being the clade of all creationisms that rely upon calling the existing body of antievolution arguments or a subset thereof "science" for the purpose of trying to insert them into USA public school science classrooms.) Part of the argumentation is the "oppositional dualism" noted by Judge Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas case: it is asserted that either evolution or creation is true, thus anything that puts evolution in doubt counts as evidence for creation. IDC is fully on board with the oppositional dualism seen in creation science.

Oppositional Dualism immediately puts IDC and the others outside science, since in science there is always a third option, "We don't know."  Dembski's 'Explanatory Filter' fell down on this point.  It always produced a definite answer by assuming a default.  If there is a default, then it should be, "We don't know".

$0.02

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

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2013,09:50   

Dr. Jennifer Raff (full disclosure--my girlfriend, and awesome) recently started a blog aimed at communicating scientific issues to laypeople. After the anti-vaxxers deluged one of her early posts with "but we have research on our side!" comments, she put up a guide for laypeople on how to read scientific papers. Scientists and educators love it, and it's going to be required reading in some classes this year.

She advised readers to note the institutional affiliations of a paper's authors before reading it. "Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g. the Discovery Institute) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven. Tip: google 'Discovery Institute' to see why you don’t want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory."

The DI is. Not. Amused. Casey Luskin is incensed that someone might think that the Discovery Institute's agenda could be relevant to its credibility. He devoted a post to misrepresenting her and implying aspersions against her character, and followed up today with a podcast continuing the attack.

I find their distress quite encouraging.

  
hotshoe



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2013,13:13   

You're right, Dr. Jennifer Raff is awesome.

I bookmarked the post for my own edification and will strongly suggest our teenage read it - they spend so much time reading textbooks (necessary, I suppose) but no one ever gets around to showing them what a primary source look like or how to read one.

Thanks.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2013,17:03   

Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 05 2013,09:50)
Dr. Jennifer Raff (full disclosure--my girlfriend, and awesome) recently started a blog aimed at communicating scientific issues to laypeople. After the anti-vaxxers deluged one of her early posts with "but we have research on our side!" comments, she put up a guide for laypeople on how to read scientific papers. Scientists and educators love it, and it's going to be required reading in some classes this year.

She advised readers to note the institutional affiliations of a paper's authors before reading it. "Some institutions (e.g. University of Texas) are well-respected; others (e.g. the Discovery Institute) may appear to be legitimate research institutions but are actually agenda-driven. Tip: google 'Discovery Institute' to see why you don’t want to use it as a scientific authority on evolutionary theory."

The DI is. Not. Amused. Casey Luskin is incensed that someone might think that the Discovery Institute's agenda could be relevant to its credibility. He devoted a post to misrepresenting her and implying aspersions against her character, and followed up today with a podcast continuing the attack.

I find their distress quite encouraging.

I put up a link to her post on that on my blog.  Tell her thanks, I was going to do something like that, but now I don't have to.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2013,12:50   

The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013....11.html

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

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

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2013,17:46   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2013,12:50)
The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......11.html

I like how they actually named the book, and discussed what was in the NON science course.  Or not.  You guess.

Edited by Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 10 2013,17:53

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

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

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2013,19:40   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 10 2013,17:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2013,12:50)
The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......11.html

I like how they actually named the book, and discussed what was in the NON science course.  Or not.  You guess.

Quote
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.


--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2013,20:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2013,01:40)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 10 2013,17:46)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2013,12:50)
The Discotute "demands" that Ball State U. investigates the anti-religious course using Richard Dawkins books:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013.......11.html

I like how they actually named the book, and discussed what was in the NON science course.  Or not.  You guess.

   
Quote
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

It seems the DI have quoted from What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable selectively.

AFAICT, the book's entire content is on the edge.org website. (Teachers who save students buying books should be commended.)

Contributor David G Myers is a Christian writer.

Scott Atran's dangerous idea is "Science encourages religion in the long run (and vice versa)." He  says "Religion thrives because it addresses people's deepest emotional yearnings and society's foundational moral needs, perhaps even more so in complex and mobile societies that are increasingly divorced from nurturing family settings and long familiar environments."

Rodney A Brooks says his dangerous idea will drive us "back towards religion as our salve."

Stephen M. Kosslyn seems to describe a form of pantheism.

Jordan Pollack advocates "a new open-source spiritual and moral movement. I think a new, greener religion, based on faith in the Gaia Hypothesis and an 11th commandment to "Protect the Earth" could catch on, especially if welcoming to existing communities of faith."

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2013,01:42   

After sumerizing the work of real scientists on splicing Jonathan M concludes
 
Quote
The spliceosome is truly one of the most remarkable molecular machines in the cell. My purpose here was only to offer readers a small glimpse of this elegant work of nanotechnology, leaving out, of course, much important detail. As I venture deeper and deeper into the hidden world of the cell, the more I am filled with a tremendous sense of awe at the sheer genius and beauty of the design. If such engineering sophistication were encountered in any other realm of inquiry, it would immediately be attributed to intelligence. If biological systems give every appearance of having been designed, are we not justified -- in the absence of a viable alternative explanation -- in inferring that they most likely are the product of design?

The only problem with the splicosome is that it is far from being as highly ordered as it appears to Jonathan. E.g., Intrinsic Disorder in the Human Spliceosomal Proteome actually seem to be required to allow for splicing of all the different introns present in mammalian genomes.

Edited by sparc on Sep. 12 2013,01:43

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

- William Dembski -

   
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2013,12:37   

Quote
If such engineering sophistication were encountered in any other realm of inquiry, it would immediately be attributed to intelligence.

Of course. That's because no other field of inquiry (that I know of) has the sort of mechanisms that would do things like that. (Cycles of variation and selection, sometimes in a positive feedback loop.)

  
k.e..



Posts: 3868
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2013,02:05   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 12 2013,20:37)
Quote
If such engineering sophistication were encountered in any other realm of inquiry, it would immediately be attributed to intelligence.

Of course. That's because no other field of inquiry (that I know of) has the sort of mechanisms that would do things like that. (Cycles of variation and selection, sometimes in a positive feedback loop.)

I'd like to see Johnny hatch himself as a turtle and see which direction he takes before a seagull gets him. Then as he's being carried away in it's beak he can rhetorically ask the great engineer in teh sky the same question.

Maybe the ghost of Paley will give him the answer.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2013,13:08   

Bizarre:
Quote
Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt

It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.

There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.
(emphasis mine)

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

- William Dembski -

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2576
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2013,13:16   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2013,11:08)
Bizarre:
Quote
Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt

It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.

There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.
(emphasis mine)

When asked about it, everyone said, "Meyer who?"

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

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2013,14:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 24 2013,13:16)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2013,11:08)
Bizarre:  
Quote
Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt

It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.

There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.
(emphasis mine)

When asked about it, everyone said, "Meyer who?"

negnored - not even ignored

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

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1977
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2013,13:49   

EN&V in all seriousness  
Quote
If it weren't important, why would cells work so hard to translate it?

Dark Matter

A new study at Penn State looked into the "dark matter" of the human genome. Like cosmologists, evolutionary geneticists call anything they don't understand "dark." In this case, though, they saw some light: scads of molecular machines busily translating "non-coding RNA." (sic!)
 
Quote
A duo of scientists at Penn State University has achieved a major milestone in understanding how genomic "dark matter" originates. This "dark matter" -- called non-coding RNA -- does not contain the blueprint for making proteins and yet it comprises more than 95 percent of the human genome. The researchers have discovered that essentially all coding and non-coding RNA originates at the same types of locations along the human genome. (Emphasis added.)
There's no difference in the way molecular machines seek out the coded (sic!) parts and the non-protein-coding parts, in other words.

When they went looking for the "initiation machines" that translate DNA, B. Franklin Pugh and Bryan Venters were in for a shock ...


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

- William Dembski -

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

Pages: (27) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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