RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   
  Topic: BIO-Complexity, the shiny new ID journal< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,16:37   

Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 29 2014,12:19)
Has anyone read BIO-Complexity's only "research article" for 2013: †Active Information in Metabiology? It was published last month...

That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "fascinating intellectual romp" in a peer reviewed paper before.

Of course, when one's peers are morons...

--------------
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: Jan. 31 2014,01:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 29 2014,14:37)
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 29 2014,12:19)
Has anyone read BIO-Complexity's only "research article" for 2013: †Active Information in Metabiology? It was published last month...

That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "fascinating intellectual romp" in a peer reviewed paper before.

Of course, when one's peers are morons...

Wow. The entire abstract is a word fest.

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

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2014,23:16   

No new articles. Still, D. Klinghoffer is celbrating Bio-Complexity's 4th birthday

[mibad--meant to reply but hit Edit instead. -Steve]

Edited by stevestory on Feb. 13 2014,11:00

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

- William Dembski -

   
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2014,08:10   

Tard to ass resuscitation....where's Joe?

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2014,10:00   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 13 2014,00:16)
No new articles. Still, D. Klinghoffer is celbrating Bio-Complexity's 4th birthday

[mibad--meant to reply but hit Edit instead. -Steve]

Quote
Happy Darwin Day! To Celebrate, Go Review Four Years of BIO-Complexity
David Klinghoffer February 12, 2014 3:34 AM

Why not? It sure won't take long  :p

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2014,16:32   

Wonder what happened to the follow-up on this one:

Quote
These translation products, called vector proteins, are functionless unless they form legible Chinese characters, in which case they serve the real function of writing. This coupling of artificial genetic causation to the real world of language makes evolutionary experimentation possible in a context where innovation can have a richness of variety and a depth of causal complexity that at least hints at what is needed to explain the complexity of bacterial proteomes. In order for this possibility to be realized, we here provide a complete Stylus genome as an experimental starting point.


Kinda goofy, but they built a 70,000 word genome. Not a small amount of work. This was done and written up by May 2011. And then, did they try to 'evolve' it?

Guesses:
1) They did, it works, shhh....
2) DI gets into a fight: providing a fitness landscape is "smuggling information" in even though that is exactly what the environment does in evolution, crap our analogy defeats our point...shh
3) The Chinese speaker bailed
4) The bug evolved into the prolific writings of VJTorley, translated and dumped onto UD for us.

Link

Edited by REC on Feb. 13 2014,16:32

  
DiEb



Posts: 271
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,15:13   

Winston Ewert wrote the first paper of 2014: Digital Irreducible Complexity: A Survey of Irreducible Complexity in Computer Simulations. I've just started to read it and I already have a problem with the last paragraph of his section on "Avida" (p. 3):
Quote
The parts in Avida are the individual steps in the process. If any of the steps in the process are missing, Avida will fail to calculate the EQU function. In this sense Pennock is correct, but we will discuss whether he is correct with respect to the other terms of Beheís definition.

Isn't the EQU function the irreducibly complex system, and Avida just the environment in which it dwells?

   
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,16:25   

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 13 2014,08:10)
Tard to ass resuscitation....where's Joe?

Here

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,17:32   

Joe was much smarter when he was dead.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2014,19:22   

Quote
Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedinís geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedinís model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

-
xposted from uncommon thread


--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
DiEb



Posts: 271
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2014,06:19   

Quote (Zachriel @ April 09 2014,01:22)
Quote
Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedinís geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedinís model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

-
xposted from uncommon thread

Winston Ewert started a thread on his article at Sal Cordova's Creation Evolution University: Digital Irreducible Complexity - Author Thread

   
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2014,07:21   

Quote (DiEb @ April 11 2014,06:19)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 09 2014,01:22)
Quote
Ewert 2014: The largest model considered here, Avida, uses approximately fifty million digital organisms [14]. The smallest model considered, Sadedinís geometric model, uses fifty thousand digital organisms [17]. The individual components should be improbable enough that the average guessing time exceeds these numbers. We can determine this probability by taking one over the cube root of the number of digital organisms in the model. We are taking the cube root because we are assuming the minimal number of parts to be three. The actual system may have more parts, but we are interested in the level of complexity that would make it impossible to produce any system of several parts. Making this calculation gives us minimal required levels for complexity of approximately 1/368 for Avida and 1/37 for Sadedinís model.

If you want to know the probability of calculating the random assembly of a specific sequence of three with an alphabet of 26, it is 1/(26^3) = 1/17576.

If there is a population of random sequences of 50 million, then it is virtually certain to occur. However, if the specific sequence has a length of nineteen, then the probability is 1/(26^19) = 1/7e26, which is virtually impossible in 50 million trials, or even 50 million trials a million million times.

-
xposted from uncommon thread

Winston Ewert started a thread on his article at Sal Cordova's Creation Evolution University: Digital Irreducible Complexity - Author Thread

Why did he chose the pages of this not-even-intelligent-design-proponent-YEC? He could have offered you some of the space available for online comments in Bio-Complexity.

--------------
"[...] 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: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2014,07:33   

Here's a link to a google search for all comments ever left at Bio-Complexity: "Reader comments" site:bio-complexity.org

ETA: Judge yourself.

Edited by sparc on April 11 2014,07:34

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2014,21:19   

I see Bio-Complexity has posted their 3rd! (review) article of 2014, by David Snoke. As in "Behe and Snoke." Champagne corks popping!!!!

What is odd to me is that it seemed to get 0 fanfare, from UD, DI news, ENV.... at least that I saw or can find by google.

True, the subject is genuinely embarrassing: "Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design." Snoke went to a conference that featured Systems Biology, declares it springs from ID.

But why the silence?

Quote
..in 2001 I wrote:
A theory of design can in principle be predictive and
quantitative. For example, a computer chip manufacturer,
which takes apart a chip made by a rival
company, proceeds on the assumption that the circuits
are well designed; this does not lead them to
end their investigation, but rather, drives their study
of the chip. The good-design assumption leads to
specific predictions and applications, e.g., the prediction
that it is unlikely to find wires which take up
metal and space but serve no purpose, so that there
should be few wires which are dead ends, with the
application that studying any particular wire is likely
to be useful. A bad-design assumption (e.g. that the
chip maker made many random circuits and then
just picked out the ones that worked) would give
very different predictions.


Hmm.... so "bad design" isn't a religious statement. The ID design inference is, and has been, to good design only.

Lots of "there is no junk" and the that the language "design or function or mechanism"="Designed Functions and God's Machines."

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2014,17:04   

Actually there is an evolved circuit that works better than most designed circuits and has stuff that goes nowhere.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2014,10:42   

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 12 2014,16:04)
Actually there is an evolved circuit that works better than most designed circuits and has stuff that goes nowhere.

Is that from its EM field affecting other circuits, or is it a quantum effect? (Not that I'd understand the details, but anyway.)

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2014,06:11   

Rather old.

http://www.genetic-programming.com/publish....96.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki....ardware

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,23:08   

Jeffrey Shallit has done us the great favor of reviewing the contributions to the 2014 volume of Bio-Complexity (reprinted at PT):
Quote
How many papers did Bio-Complexity manage to publish this year? A grand total of four! Why, that's 1/8th of a paper per member of the editorial team. By any measure, this is simply astounding productivity. They can be proud of how much they have added to the world's knowledge!

Looking a little deeper, we see that of these four, only one is labeled as a "research article". Two are "critical reviews" and one is a "critical focus". And of these four stellar contributions, one has 2 out of the 3 authors on the editorial team, two are written by members of the editorial team, leaving only one contribution having no one on the editorial team. And that one is written by Winston Ewert, who is a "senior researcher" at Robert J. Marks II's "evolutionary informatics lab". In other words, with all the ideas that ID supporters are brimming with, they couldn't manage to publish a single article by anyone not on the editorial team or directly associated with the editors.


--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,12:08   

Here we are, 2/3 of the way through 2015, and Biocomplexity has an outstanding -0- publications.

30 or so editors, the work of the full-time research staff of the Biologic institute.......

  
Henry J



Posts: 4787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,13:30   

I guess there were complications?

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,14:25   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 29 2015,13:30)
I guess there were complications?

Such as the complete collapse of ID, which has left the little scientific facade they created dangling in the breeze?

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,06:40   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 29 2015,12:08)
Here we are, 2/3 of the way through 2015, and Biocomplexity has an outstanding -0- publications.

30 or so editors, the work of the full-time research staff of the Biologic institute.......

But as of June they do have a new editor in chief. I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed - us for not noticing, or them for being so irrelevant that nobody noticed, not us and not UD either.

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,08:36   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 31 2015,06:40)
Quote (REC @ Aug. 29 2015,12:08)
Here we are, 2/3 of the way through 2015, and Biocomplexity has an outstanding -0- publications.

30 or so editors, the work of the full-time research staff of the Biologic institute.......

But as of June they do have a new editor in chief. I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed - us for not noticing, or them for being so irrelevant that nobody noticed, not us and not UD either.

I wonder if Editor Marks will bring back his "Galapagos Finch" character he used to post as on UD.  That would make their phony science rag almost worth reading.  Almost.   :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,15:31   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 31 2015,04:40)
   
Quote (REC @ Aug. 29 2015,12:08)
Here we are, 2/3 of the way through 2015, and Biocomplexity has an outstanding -0- publications.

30 or so editors, the work of the full-time research staff of the Biologic institute.......

But as of June they do have a new editor in chief. I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed - us for not noticing, or them for being so irrelevant that nobody noticed, not us and not UD either.


Hmm, there have been no publications in 'Bio-Complexity' this year, including since Marks became editor-in-chief, so what is editor-in-chief Marks chiefly editing? And what was the former editor-in-chief chiefly editing?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,16:13   

Quote
And what was the former editor-in-chief chiefly editing?


I'm guessing fart noises.   It's what he's qualified for.
And Barry A and Gordo are certainly qualified to put their noses to the grindstone on this for the Honor & Glory That is ID.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Henry J



Posts: 4787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,16:30   

Maybe notpologies?

  
Leftfield



Posts: 107
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,18:53   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2015,16:30)
Maybe notpologies?



Notractions?

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

  
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,19:11   

Quote (Leftfield @ Sep. 01 2015,02:53)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2015,16:30)
Maybe notpologies?



Notractions?

Well as a vanity publication peer review free, it's mainly missing vanity.

--------------
"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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,22:30   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 31 2015,17:11)
Quote (Leftfield @ Sep. 01 2015,02:53)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2015,16:30)
Maybe notpologies?



Notractions?

Well as a vanity publication peer review free, it's mainly missing vanity.

And publication.
???

   
Henry J



Posts: 4787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2015,22:42   

Wonder how many submissions they rejected?

  
  120 replies since May 13 2010,21:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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