Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,06:38

Gildo:

Quote

Nick,

I’ll tell you what. I’ll take a course in comparative genomics and you take a course in computational fluid dynamics (which is real science, not speculation pretending to be science). We’ll both take the exit exams and see what happens.

Actually, in order to pass the comparative genomics exit exam all I’d have to do is memorize what I’ve been told and sold, and regurgitate it. This would require nothing but memorization. I’m pretty good at that, but I prefer to use that capability for something useful, like memorizing mathematical formulae that are applicable in my job as an aerospace R&D software engineer.

I’ll write a CFD program that can be demonstrated to accurately reflect reality through empirical testing. How will you demonstrate that comparative genomics has empirically verified that evolution came about in tiny steps as opposed to profound discontinuities (the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record), and that the mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection produced sophisticated computer code with error-correction algorithms and the machinery required to implement them?

You won’t be able to, and that is why the two main claims of Darwinism — incremental gradualism and computer code evolved through natural selection of random errors — have nothing to do with legitimate science.

TARD.

Oh, Gildo, if the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record shows no "tiny steps" then your use of the word overwhelming indicates that there nonetheless exists such "tiny steps" evidence, however small in comparison to the "overwhelming testimony" of the fossil record.

Only one example is required. And you yourself, however deluded you otherwise are, can't help but admit it exists. Which undermines your attempted "proof" rather neatly.

You lose and I hardly lifted a finger.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,07:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 28 2011,14:38)

Gildo:

Quote

Nick,

I’ll tell you what. I’ll take a course in comparative genomics and you take a course in computational fluid dynamics (which is real science, not speculation pretending to be science). We’ll both take the exit exams and see what happens.

Actually, in order to pass the comparative genomics exit exam all I’d have to do is memorize what I’ve been told and sold, and regurgitate it. This would require nothing but memorization. I’m pretty good at that, but I prefer to use that capability for something useful, like memorizing mathematical formulae that are applicable in my job as an aerospace R&D software engineer.

I’ll write a CFD program that can be demonstrated to accurately reflect reality through empirical testing. How will you demonstrate that comparative genomics has empirically verified that evolution came about in tiny steps as opposed to profound discontinuities (the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record), and that the mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection produced sophisticated computer code with error-correction algorithms and the machinery required to implement them?

You won’t be able to, and that is why the two main claims of Darwinism — incremental gradualism and computer code evolved through natural selection of random errors — have nothing to do with legitimate science.

TARD.

Oh, Gildo, if the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record shows no "tiny steps" then your use of the word overwhelming indicates that there nonetheless exists such "tiny steps" evidence, however small in comparison to the "overwhelming testimony" of the fossil record.

Only one example is required. And you yourself, however deluded you otherwise are, can't help but admit it exists. Which undermines your attempted "proof" rather neatly.

You lose and I hardly lifted a finger.

WAIT A MINUTE, HOMO!

GILDO HAS JUST CLAIMED THAT FLUID DYNAMICS DOESN'T RELY ON TINY CHANGES OVER TIME.

IN FACT HE CLAIMS IT'S JUST A JUST SO STORY

MARY WAS GOD'S MOTHER AND TEH FLOOD OBEYED CHANCE AND IMPOSSIBLY LARGE RANDOM RAININGS.

IF GILDO HAD ANY INTEGRITY HE WOULD DENY FLIGHT AS THE RESULT OF FLUID DYNAMICS AND EAT HIS CHILDREN IF HE COULD ACTUALLY GET OFF HIS ASS HAT AND FUCK SOMETHING WITH A PULSE.

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

Seversky

Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,08:56

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 28 2011,06:38)

Gildo:

Quote

Nick,

I’ll tell you what. I’ll take a course in comparative genomics and you take a course in computational fluid dynamics (which is real science, not speculation pretending to be science). We’ll both take the exit exams and see what happens.

Actually, in order to pass the comparative genomics exit exam all I’d have to do is memorize what I’ve been told and sold, and regurgitate it. This would require nothing but memorization. I’m pretty good at that, but I prefer to use that capability for something useful, like memorizing mathematical formulae that are applicable in my job as an aerospace R&D software engineer.

I’ll write a CFD program that can be demonstrated to accurately reflect reality through empirical testing. How will you demonstrate that comparative genomics has empirically verified that evolution came about in tiny steps as opposed to profound discontinuities (the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record), and that the mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection produced sophisticated computer code with error-correction algorithms and the machinery required to implement them?

You won’t be able to, and that is why the two main claims of Darwinism — incremental gradualism and computer code evolved through natural selection of random errors — have nothing to do with legitimate science.

TARD.

What Gil is doing is applied science or technology or even just engineering, not frontier science. He craves the security of working with what is already tried and tested by others, the relative certainty of mathematical calculations which can be compared immediately with the results of test procedures.

He is like a tourist who believes taking a vacation in an African safari park is equivalent to - or even better than - the expeditions of the first explorers who ventured into the area when it was still largely unknown jungle or bush. They risked failure and even death to open up regions that later tourists are able to enjoy in relative comfort and safety.

Gil did not develop the concepts of computational fluid dynamics or the equations which embody them. The real scientists were the people who did.

Real science is done when researchers venture beyond the boundaries of what is known to explore what lies beyond. They risk making mistakes, they risk failure because that is how we learn. There is nothing wrong in getting it wrong if it points us towards how to get it right.

The cargo-cult scientists at <i>Uncommon Descent</i> gloat over the apparent failures of mainstream science and pour scorn on its wilder speculations. They are like armchair spectators jeering at the mistakes of athletes on the field. It's a lot easier and safer to criticize a game than to play it.

They also fail to understand that there is nothing wrong with speculation - however fanciful - provided it is not presented as anything more certain. As others have pointed out, we need a rich soil of ideas, fertilized with whatever evidence we can glean, in which to grow good hypotheses and theories. What UD wants is a nice safe little window-box of approved and easily-managed concepts provided by the local garden center, not digging the ground and planting their own to see what comes up.

Patrick

Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,10:17

Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 28 2011,09:56)

As others have pointed out, we need a rich soil of ideas, fertilized with whatever evidence we can glean, in which to grow good hypotheses and theories.

At least they have the fertilizer bit down.

Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,10:44

Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 28 2011,14:56)

Real science is done when researchers venture beyond the boundaries of what is known to explore what lies beyond. They risk making mistakes, they risk failure because that is how we learn. There is nothing wrong in getting it wrong if it points us towards how to get it right.

The cargo-cult scientists at <i>Uncommon Descent</i> gloat over the apparent failures of mainstream science and pour scorn on its wilder speculations. They are like armchair spectators jeering at the mistakes of athletes on the field. It's a lot easier and safer to criticize a game than to play it.

They also fail to understand that there is nothing wrong with speculation - however fanciful - provided it is not presented as anything more certain. As others have pointed out, we need a rich soil of ideas, fertilized with whatever evidence we can glean, in which to grow good hypotheses and theories. What UD wants is a nice safe little window-box of approved and easily-managed concepts provided by the local garden center, not digging the ground and planting their own to see what comes up.

I slaved through the new Meyer and Nelson "article". There could be a lot said about it, but it isn't really worth it. Basically, they're just taking Koonin's criticism of the stereochemical model and exaggerate everything. They do a bit of misrepresenting and I think their criticism of the statistical methods Yarus used is at least in parts plainly wrong (although I might be wrong about that, myself). It is obvious that they do not have the background to critically discuss Yarus' work.
(For giggles and probably edumacation, look at their references and then look at the references Koonin used for his critical review, and compare how they are used differently in the articles. Koonin uses them to give a source for factual statements, Meyer and Nelson use them for soundbites; their factual statements are mostly unsourced.)

But what fits exactly to what Seversky is saying is how they end the article:

Quote

One could argue, of course, that the inability to make progress on the longstanding problem of the origin of the code merely indicates that more work is needed. One might argue that given more time, models based solely on the interplay of undirected chance and necessity [26] will eventually solve this problem, and thus that chance and necessity should be left standing as the sole framework for inquiry.
Given, however, the repeated failures to account for the origin of the code within this essentially materialistic framework, it may well be time to consider other approaches.
We see three reasons for doing so:

You "see three reasons for doing so"? I'd expect, you know, you'd actually consider other approaches. What is your hypothesis and what could be done to test it? How do YOU want to tackle the problem, one that Koonin called "the most formidable problem of all evolutionary biology" (see, I can quote Koonin, too)?

Quote

If the genetic code as an effect gives evidence of irreducible semantic or functional mappings—i.e., if what we see operating in cells is not like a code, but genuinely is a code—then we should seek its explanation in the only cause “true and sufficient” to such effects: intelligence. Moreover, we should expect that hypotheses employing causes other than intelligence will collapse under the weight of unexplained data. Anything that does not actually cause x, cannot explain x.

That's all there is. Conclude that "'twas intelligence what did it" and let others do the science stuff.

To top it all they commit the GilD fallacy:

Quote

Recognizing this problem, Yarus et. al have carefully engineered their aptamers to ensure that they attach to the side groups of their corresponding amino acids, rather than only to the ?-amino and ?-carboxyl groups, where peptide bonds form. This engineering clearly represents intelligent design, and thus does not simulate an undirected stereochemical origin of the genetic code, but rather its opposite.

eta: speling

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,12:05

It's a well known fact that chemistry done in the laboratory cannot be extrapolated to the real world.

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

Seversky

Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,13:32

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-universe-is-too-big-too-old-and-too-cruel-three-silly-objections-to-cosmological-fine-

tuning-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-397768]NR[/URL] on kf:

Quote

But it looks like it is you who are misinterpreting.

I’m a mathematician. Probability theory is part of my area of knowledge. I have taught classes on statistical inference.

I am only pointing out the limitations as to what conclusions you can draw on the basis of probability.

Heh! I love the sound of a pompous ass being squelched first thing in the morning.

Seversky

Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,13:41

...and I find it very annoying when the board software breaks a URL :angry:

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,16:09

Ask Gil if computational fluid dynamics involves iterative approximations.

Ask him if solutions are absolute or approximate.

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

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,17:44

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 28 2011,16:09)

Ask Gil if computational fluid dynamics involves iterative approximations.

Ask him if solutions are absolute or approximate.

Don't forget to ask if you'll be banned before or after the comment makes it through moderation.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,19:45

Ask him whether the solution is smuggled into the algorithm that computes it.

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

Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,20:06

Did anyone read the latest Halloway post? He slowly and cruelly tortures logic and coherence to an agonising death.
A few choice bits:

Quote

Wealth is created by the creation of new information in the form of complex, specified inventions. [...] According to ID, individual intelligent agents are the creators of this information. Thus, an economic system that incentivizes individuals to create new inventions to fulfill useful functions is strictly better than a system that does not. In a centrally planned economy, there are only a few empowered information creators, who decide how resources are divided amongst the populace. However, in a decentralized economy, all individuals are empowered to create information.[...]
But how are materialistic assumptions at play in modern economic theory? The impact of materialism primarily has to do with the notion of wealth.[...]
The added concept you need to see how this applies to economics is that when an event occurs due to a final cause, then at this point information is created. So, conversely, if there is no such thing as a final cause, as materialism claims, then no information is ever created. And, if information is tied to wealth creation, then the further implication is that wealth is not created. In which case, wealth is no longer tied to inventions, but is instead tied to resources. Since there are only a limited number of resources in the world, economics becomes primarily concerned with the proper distribution of these resources amongst the population, instead of being concerned with allowing the creation of greater amounts of resources. [...]
As discussed above, ID further implies that wealth is better created through a decentralized than through a centralized economy.

This is all totally obvious. Philosophical materialism precludes people from inventing complex things and you end up with centrally planned economy. ID on the other hand supports a free market. Why am I not surprised.

Nick Matzke pokes him with a long stick:

Quote

But, even if ID worked, your anti-Keynesian logic wouldn’t follow. ID’s skepticalness about natural selection and other self-organization processes would, if ID people were being consistent, lead to skepticism about the invisible hand of the market. Unintelligent processes can’t produce anything but noise and damage, only intelligence can produce coherent and effective function, right? Therefore, clearly, economies would work better if intelligent designers were making command decisions about how they work, rather than just leaving it up to the auto-regulation of the market.

[heads explode across the ID movement]

Which leads to even more tortured logic and ad hoc ramblings:

Quote

Also, ID provides a coherent basis for the invisible hand of the market. Since the market is the conglomeration of intelligent design by intelligent agents, ID implies that there would be an emergent order and economy to its behavior. However, ID also provides a significant and very important caution in this regard. At the point where the agents in the market cease to behave rationally, and instead merely follow the crowd or indulge in groundless speculation we know that the market is headed for a bust.

So, one interesting application of Dembski’s CSI metric would be to measure the amount of CSI being produced in the market. As long as a market segment demonstrated CSI production, we could invest in said market with a fair amount of confidence. But, our confidence should plummet if we noticed CSI drop off.

An additional point is that our market is likewise in trouble the more that trading becomes automated. The more it is automated the less CSI is being contributed.[...]
Perhaps our recent economic woes are indicative of this dilemma, since the vast majority of the current trades are accomplished by algorithms.

Yeah, that's probably true. Trading algorithm can not produce new information, therefore no new wealth is generated -> financial crisis. THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE!!!!
StephenB:

Quote

Eric,

Good work. You appear to be blazing a new trail by describing the similarities among disciplines from an ID perspective. Trailblazing requires a lot of hard thinking and a willingness to be original, both of which are inseparable from the willingess to take risks. It is one thing to speak of new information in principle, but it is quite another to provide it. The good news is that you have managed to be creative and stay on solid ground at the same time, a rare feat.

Somehow, I don't think he really buys it.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,23:01

Quote

An additional point is that our market is likewise in trouble the more that trading becomes automated. The more it is automated the less CSI is being contributed.

We can use this quote next timw GilDodgen claims that any automation requires some programming by some intelligent agent.

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

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Aug. 28 2011,23:47

O'Leary, a convert to Catholicism, discovers the reason for the Reformation:

Quote

The this-worldly rewards of helping the sufferers are not always evident. Many priests died during the Black Death in Europe in the late 14th century, as a result of giving the last rites to sufferers. That had a major effect on the mediaeval Church: The committed priests died; the slackers who didn’t attend the dying lived. Scholars* think that fact played a role in hastening the corruption the resulted in the Reformation and the Counterreformation.

*ID scholars, that is. Chiefly Gil Dodgen who states that it is obvious. Ilion was trending in the same direction, but his opinion no longer counts since he grew tired of UD and voluntarily** stopped posting.

** Voluntarily under UD rules, that is.

paragwinn

Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,04:19

Quote (JLT @ Aug. 28 2011,18:06)

Did anyone read the latest Halloway post? He slowly and cruelly tortures logic and coherence to an agonising death.
A few choice bits:

Quote

Wealth is created by the creation of new information in the form of complex, specified inventions. [...] According to ID, individual intelligent agents are the creators of this information. Thus, an economic system that incentivizes individuals to create new inventions to fulfill useful functions is strictly better than a system that does not. In a centrally planned economy, there are only a few empowered information creators, who decide how resources are divided amongst the populace. However, in a decentralized economy, all individuals are empowered to create information.[...]
But how are materialistic assumptions at play in modern economic theory? The impact of materialism primarily has to do with the notion of wealth.[...]
The added concept you need to see how this applies to economics is that when an event occurs due to a final cause, then at this point information is created. So, conversely, if there is no such thing as a final cause, as materialism claims, then no information is ever created. And, if information is tied to wealth creation, then the further implication is that wealth is not created. In which case, wealth is no longer tied to inventions, but is instead tied to resources. Since there are only a limited number of resources in the world, economics becomes primarily concerned with the proper distribution of these resources amongst the population, instead of being concerned with allowing the creation of greater amounts of resources. [...]
As discussed above, ID further implies that wealth is better created through a decentralized than through a centralized economy.

Now, who was it that took ID critics to task for "speak[ing] outside of their realm of expertise"? Let me think...on the tip of my tongue...something to do with pot and kettle....wait, dont help me here...

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,05:14

Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 29 2011,10:19)

Quote (JLT @ Aug. 28 2011,18:06)

Did anyone read the latest Halloway post? He slowly and cruelly tortures logic and coherence to an agonising death.
A few choice bits:

Quote

Wealth is created by the creation of new information in the form of complex, specified inventions. [...] According to ID, individual intelligent agents are the creators of this information. Thus, an economic system that incentivizes individuals to create new inventions to fulfill useful functions is strictly better than a system that does not. In a centrally planned economy, there are only a few empowered information creators, who decide how resources are divided amongst the populace. However, in a decentralized economy, all individuals are empowered to create information.[...]
But how are materialistic assumptions at play in modern economic theory? The impact of materialism primarily has to do with the notion of wealth.[...]
The added concept you need to see how this applies to economics is that when an event occurs due to a final cause, then at this point information is created. So, conversely, if there is no such thing as a final cause, as materialism claims, then no information is ever created. And, if information is tied to wealth creation, then the further implication is that wealth is not created. In which case, wealth is no longer tied to inventions, but is instead tied to resources. Since there are only a limited number of resources in the world, economics becomes primarily concerned with the proper distribution of these resources amongst the population, instead of being concerned with allowing the creation of greater amounts of resources. [...]
As discussed above, ID further implies that wealth is better created through a decentralized than through a centralized economy.

Now, who was it that took ID critics to task for "speak[ing] outside of their realm of expertise"? Let me think...on the tip of my tongue...something to do with pot and kettle....wait, dont help me here...

And he's threatening us with more!

EH

Quote

Please post here any areas where you’d be interested to see ID applied. I have a few more in mind, but would also like to motivate my readers to start expanding their ID horizons.

BTW, EH responded to Joe Felsensteiner's response to the post you linked here. Joe Felsensteiner's response to that is in the comments of his original post.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

beluga

Posts: 4
Joined: June 2008

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,06:28

Quote

The this-worldly rewards of helping the sufferers are not always evident. Many priests died during the Black Death in Europe in the late 14th century, as a result of giving the last rites to sufferers. That had a major effect on the mediaeval Church: The committed priests died; the slackers who didn’t attend the dying lived. Scholars* think that fact played a role in hastening the corruption the resulted in the Reformation and the Counterreformation.

Natural selection?

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,06:34

Laughing my ass off department. Johnnyb wrote an exceptionally stupid piece a few days ago on "Intelligent Design and the Education Crisis" O'Leary added her two cents in a second post, "For JohnnyB: How intelligent design can help with the education crisis"

You see, education "...is a tax-funded compulsory enterprise. One inevitable outcome is the throngs of mediocrities and failures that infest the system, spending hours each day with your kid." (You have to wonder what O'Dreary's school was like.)

And it's not just the edumacation system, either: "Look, it’s the same in the criminal court system. Slack employees are common because the accused can’t take his business elsewhere."

You can't buy humor like this.

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,08:30

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 28 2011,17:44)

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 28 2011,16:09)

Ask Gil if computational fluid dynamics involves iterative approximations.

Ask him if solutions are absolute or approximate.

Don't forget to ask if you'll be banned before or after the comment makes it through moderation.

I would rather like to know if he is still hanging around most of his time.

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

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,08:33

Math is a theory and not at all what the Bible tells us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....2CFTSWU

I get this for my sig line

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

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,11:43

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 29 2011,04:34)

You see, education "...is a tax-funded compulsory enterprise. One inevitable outcome is the throngs of mediocrities and failures that infest the system, spending hours each day with your kid." (You have to wonder what O'Dreary's school was like.)

I think I know what the English and science departments were like.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,13:38

It's interesting how quickly these guys threw the free market and Adam Smith under the bus.

"There isn’t a “national balance of supply and demand".

I suppose they didn't read Darwin's autobiographical note about how natural selection was inspired by Malthus and the Scottish economists.

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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,17:34

Quote

2011 Barry Arrington of Uncommon Descent negotiates an apology from a Darwinist prof who humiliated a doubting University of Colorado student (other terms confidential)

Hmm.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,19:47

Fixed that for you:

Quote

I must admire the technique of reducing ~~“distribution of fitness effect”~~ “complex specified information” to an abbreviation, ~~DFE~~ CSI. It makes it sounds so routine, giving the impression that someone, somehow, has a clue how ~~fitness effects are distributed~~ specified information is calculated, and ~~says it so much~~ does it so frequently that he needs a shorter way to say it.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Patrick

Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,20:13

Quote (JLT @ Aug. 29 2011,20:47)

Fixed that for you:

Quote

I must admire the technique of reducing ~~“distribution of fitness effect”~~ “complex specified information” to an abbreviation, ~~DFE~~ CSI. It makes it sounds so routine, giving the impression that someone, somehow, has a clue how ~~fitness effects are distributed~~ specified information is calculated, and ~~says it so much~~ does it so frequently that he needs a shorter way to say it.

Nicely done!

Note to self: Make sure to enter "applause" and not "clap" into Google images next time.

Hermagoras

Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 29 2011,21:53

In all seriousness, I've got to give Joe G a big "attaboy" for his responses to Barry Arrington's spelling-challenged piece on why My God is Better than Your God. Comments like this:

Quote

Have you read the Bible lately? Or ever? Physical violence has been an accepted (and even mandatory) course of action for the settlement of disputes about doctrine and belief.

Here Joe is pointing out that the God of the Bible has just as many homicidal temper tantrums as Allah.

Not bad, Joe!

At this moment, Joe reminds me of DaveScot in his occasional periods of lucidity.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 30 2011,02:23

DeNews has news. Blogs are now legacy media:

Quote

In a world where science increasingly means that sort of thing, it is inevitable that the legacy media would be running stories on how popular political candidates are mostly anti-science. Like this one from Discover Mag’s “Bad Astronomy” blog (August 29, 2011:

Because Phil Plait has a journalism degree and everything. Really.

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

Woodbine

Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 30 2011,03:04

She only started calling it 'legacy media' when she realised she couldn't get a decent gig outside blogging.

Woodbine

Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 30 2011,03:11

GilTard....

Quote

ID advocates are held to an extraordinarily high standard of perfection. One false step and we are told that we have lost our minds, are anti-science, ignorant, or want to impose a theocracy. However, Darwinists are the ones who have lost their minds, are anti-science, ignorant, and want to impose an anti-theocracy.

Damn you anti-theocracists!

Sigh....

Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008