RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 >   
  Topic: Biological Information: New Perspectives, The Springer Book Flap< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2013,14:55   

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 06 2013,14:35)
I'm reading one of Mark's chapters. In it he writes
Quote
Information of two disjoint events should be additive. That is, if the word “stuttering” conveys information I1 and “professor” conveys information I2, then “stuttering professor” should convey information I1 + I2.

To me disjoint events are ones that cannot both happen, so there would be no such thing as a "stuttering professor". In engineering, is "disjoint" often used to mean "independent"?

A disjointed idea is one that lacks logical continuity or contains irreconcilable contradictions.  A non sequitur is a form of disjointed construction.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Henry J



Posts: 5063
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2013,14:56   

But "stuttering" and "professor" aren't events; they're descriptions of people.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2271
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2013,15:28   

Quote (Henry J @ June 06 2013,14:56)
But "stuttering" and "professor" aren't events; they're descriptions of people.

*sigh*

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

   
sparc



Posts: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2013,21:22   

Tom English's comment on BI:NP.

--------------
"[...] 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: 250
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2013,06:10   

Quote (olegt @ June 06 2013,08:12)
Quote (sparc @ June 05 2013,23:16)
They've finally made it: {snip of details}

It's usually the other way around: World Scientific has to convince you to write a book. Every time I give a talk at a visible conference, they send me their CD with Nobel lectures and prod me to write a review. Their requests promptly end up in trash.

World Scientific's journals that I know are crap.

Is this a vanity press?

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2013,07:54   

Quote (fusilier @ June 07 2013,06:10)
Is this a vanity press?

No, it's a real publisher. It's just that the journals it puts out are not exactly coveted by scientists, at least in my field. They are at the bottom of the pecking order. Some articles are OK, most are crap.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2013,09:24   

Disjoint?  ETA: The intersection of disjoint sets contains elements?

Jebus effing xmas,  that man needs to visit Intelligent Reasoning and learn himself some set theory.

Edited by midwifetoad on June 07 2013,11:24

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

  
sparc



Posts: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2013,21:28   

If one considers what the IDiots would have made out of Biological Information: New Perspectives back in 2005 one can only conclude that UD and the whole ID business is dead. Judging from the comments over there the troops went back to pure creationism which is understandable: Why choose a tasteless surrogat meal if you can have the real Christian beef.

edited for spelling

Edited by sparc on June 08 2013,04:38

--------------
"[...] 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: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2013,14:08   

Tiggy has opened a new Biological Information: New Perspectives thread at TheologyWeb  
Quote
Clucky and the Tooters “Creation Science” available online!
Last year about this time the Discovery Institute began crowing about their science-shaking Cornell Symposium in Biological Information and its coming publication by prestigious science publishing house Springer. The Disco Tooter crowd included the usual Creationist IDiot suspects – Behe, Dempski, Marks, Sanford, Wells, Gitt – as well as our own Clucky Fraudnandez.

Only problems were, 1) the symposium had nothing to Cornell except that’s where the Tooters rented some space, and 2) Springer had been misled into thinking this was a conference on Information Theory, a legitimate mathematical topic.

Springer soon found out the truth and canceled the publication while Cornell didn’t take too kindly to having its name associated with such pseudo-scientific claptrap and threatened heavy duty legal action. Bottom line is the Tooters took all their “Cornell” name-dropping offline beat a hasty retreat.


It took some time but after plinythedumber asked  
Quote
Where is Jorge? (Not that I care much).
Clucky Fraudnandez couldn't hold back any longer and provided his views for why Springer didn't publish the book:
Quote
As for the two papers that I co-authored, plus the many others that were part of the symposium, I challenge anyone to point out how they could be called "Creationist" or "Religious". They were pure science and WSPC
agreed. Springer merely folded in the face of financial considerations, said financial considerations brought about by those that would have EXPELLED Springer. As I once wrote, EXPELLED is both a threat and occurs at many levels.
(emphasis mine)

Edited by sparc on June 10 2013,14:08

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2013,14:39   

Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2755
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2013,15:10   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,14:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

That would be Jorge Fernandez, a rather clueless and obnoxious YEC who posts regularly at TheologyWeb and who co-authored some of the BI:NP papers.   Think Joe Gallien but without the obscenities.

He has such a reputation for chickening out and running from all attempts to get him to back up his YEC bluster the regulars often refer to him as "Clucky".

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

  
fusilier



Posts: 250
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2013,08:02   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2013,08:54   

Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,08:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.

That would be an interesting link to include in a review.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3053
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2013,11:52   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 11 2013,06:54)
Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,08:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.

That would be an interesting link to include in a review.

Filed under "things to ask Joe about on a slow Friday afternoon".

--------------
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"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2013,12:30   

Well, someone illustrious to carry the banner for ID alongside Dembski and Behe deserves a Best Of.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2166
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2013,20:36   

Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,06:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.

Well, when I was 19 and stoned, that made some sort of sense.

43 years later, it is just stupid.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 5063
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2013,23:13   

Maybe to somebody who's never heard of Einstein or relativity?

Prior to that insight, it might well have been considered common sense.

Henry

  
fusilier



Posts: 250
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2013,07:50   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 11 2013,09:54)
Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,08:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.

Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.

That would be an interesting link to include in a review.

Like at UD, inconvenient posts disappear on a fairly regular basis.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2013,14:12   

I just left the following review at the German Amazon pages:  
Quote
I had the chance to read the online version of the chapter "Biological Information — What is It?" by Werner Gitt, Robert Compton and Jorge Fernandez. It seems to be a short version of their book "Without Excuse" which is also availble at Amazon.com. They refer to their book 17 times while the other 13 reference together are mentioned 18 times. Unfortunately, "in Biological Information — What is It?" the authors kept quiet about the main conclusion they draw in their book namely (cited from the Amazon blurb of "Without Excuse"):
Quote
"With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this Universal Information (real information) from things often mistakenly called information, and shows how ultimately all biological information comes from God."


--------------
"[...] 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: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2013,23:27   

Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his DiEBlog.

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

   
Arctodus23



Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2013,23:57   

Quote (sparc @ June 13 2013,14:12)
I just left the following review at the German Amazon pages:  
Quote
I had the chance to read the online version of the chapter "Biological Information — What is It?" by Werner Gitt, Robert Compton and Jorge Fernandez. It seems to be a short version of their book "Without Excuse" which is also availble at Amazon.com. They refer to their book 17 times while the other 13 reference together are mentioned 18 times. Unfortunately, "in Biological Information — What is It?" the authors kept quiet about the main conclusion they draw in their book namely (cited from the Amazon blurb of "Without Excuse"):  
Quote
"With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this Universal Information (real information) from things often mistakenly called information, and shows how ultimately all biological information comes from God."

There's ought to be a lot of down votes.

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

   
sparc



Posts: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2013,22:57   

Granville Sewell has to remind Barry Arrington not to  leave the party line:
Quote
Barry,
Please don’t refer to the Cornell proceedings as an “ID-oriented” book. I was at the conference, and while a majority (but certainly not all) of the presenters were ID proponents, I don’t recall that ID was ever mentioned by any of the talks.

However, as DiEB points out it's too late already:
Quote
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Biological information–new perspectives : proceedings of a symposium held May 31, 2011 through June 3,
2011 at Cornell University / Robert J. Marks II, Baylor University, USA, Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University,
USA, William A. Dembski, Discovery Institute, USA, Bruce L. Gordon, Houston Baptist University,
USA John C. Sanford Cornell University, USA.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-9814508711 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Genomics–Congresses.
2. Molecular genetics–Congresses.
3. Cell interaction–Congresses.
4. Mutation (Biology)–Congresses.
5. Intelligent design (Teleology)–Congresses. I. Marks, Robert J., II (Robert Jackson), 1950–QH426.B58 2013 572.8’629–dc23


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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2013,09:40   

Quote

7
Granville SewellJune 30, 2013 at 5:19 pm
DiEb,
I don’t know who included the ID tag, I didn’t have anything to do with the Library of Congress tags for any of my books, perhaps the publisher (World Scientific) did write this. But it is an inaccurate tag, whoever added it. I guess any paper that criticizes Darwinism, without including an alternative materialistic theory of evolution, is automatically tagged as ID.


Derp!

   
sparc



Posts: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2013,14:33   

Barry Arrington gets mad about the fact that Springer decided not to publish BI:NP in several posts and of course he couldn't resist to play his usual Nazi card:
Nick Matzke – Book Burner?
Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”?
It Gets Even Better

What I really enjoy though, is seeing Granville Sewell being pissed off because when I wrote to Springer to ask them if they were serious I choose him as an example of what they were going to publish and pointed out that his article is unlikely to match their usual standards. I wrote:
Quote
E.g., the talk "A second look at the second law of thermodynamics" is likely by Granville Sewell who has published the same story under similar titles at least three times, partially self-plagiarized. The last time the editors of Applied Mathematics Letters retracted the article (Unfortunately, they agreed to pay Sewell's legal fees in the aftermath). You will find some information on this on the Pandasthumb.org and on retractionwatch.com.


--------------
"[...] 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: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2013,15:07   

Quote
98 julianbre July 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Dr. Liddle, you said “As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them. And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference.” The book had been peer reviewed by two reviewers at Springer and was ready for publication. You think Springer publishes books, especially ones that cost over $100.00 with out even reading them? Really?
If they hadn't ban me I would ask UDists for the names of these reviewers. I am afraid we will neither learn who they were nor who suggested them. In addition, it would be interesting to know if the same two peers reviewed the book for World Scientific again. Or will World Scientific publish it without being peer reviewed?
 
Quote
Springer pulled the book after the panda people contacted them and threatened a boycott of their company if they went ahead with the publication of Biological information–New Perspectives.
Does this IDiot really think that Pandasthumb has so much power?  
 
Quote
How is that not censorship since Nick and his buddies had never read the book and had no idea what was in it.
Did he not read the Nick's post? Nick and the commenters concluded from the titles of the different chapters who would be the most likely author and what they would most likely be writing about. Based on experience nothing much new was to be expected and it turned out that we were right. The only news was that they managed to not mention the designer. At least they claim so.

--------------
"[...] 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: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2013,15:19   

Meanwhile Nick keeps calm and asks about onions.

--------------
"[...] 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: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2013,23:08   

Quote (sparc @ July 01 2013,14:33)
Barry Arrington gets mad about the fact that Springer decided not to publish BI:NP in several posts and of course he couldn't resist to play his usual Nazi card:
Nick Matzke – Book Burner?
Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”?
It Gets Even Better

What I really enjoy though, is seeing Granville Sewell being pissed off because when I wrote to Springer to ask them if they were serious I choose him as an example of what they were going to publish and pointed out that his article is unlikely to match their usual standards. I wrote:  
Quote
E.g., the talk "A second look at the second law of thermodynamics" is likely by Granville Sewell who has published the same story under similar titles at least three times, partially self-plagiarized. The last time the editors of Applied Mathematics Letters retracted the article (Unfortunately, they agreed to pay Sewell's legal fees in the aftermath). You will find some information on this on the Pandasthumb.org and on retractionwatch.com.

Rather than discuss with Liddle in the comments section of his first post Barry Arrington prefers to act as the loudspeaker in the ceiling and fills UD's front page declaring victory:

Liddle doubles down
Liddle Finally Comes Around (Kind of)

(edited to separate fused links)

Edited by sparc on July 02 2013,11:54

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

   
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2013,06:09   

Does anyone know who did write to Springer?

Bob O'Hara did, I know.

Sparc?  Did you post the text of your letter and/or the response?

I don't see where Nick did.  Anyone?  And what about that boycott?

Not accusing people, I just like facts.

And yes, the irony of being accused of being a fascist and a censor, goaded with jeers of "Arbeit macht frei" in the same thread/topic as I am simultaneously accused of NOT censoring a post at TSZ in which OMagain responds to Kairosfocus's likening of Alan Fox to a German Nazi enabler, and which he noted Kairosfocus' anti-homosexuality was also a Nazi agenda, is not lost on me.

Or, at, any rate, renders any irony meter within a few million miles non-functional.

As Tom Lehrer said, when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize: satire is dead.

  
sparc



Posts: 2001
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2013,06:49   

Quote (Febble @ July 02 2013,06:09)
Does anyone know who did write to Springer?

Bob O'Hara did, I know.

Sparc?  Did you post the text of your letter and/or the response?

I don't see where Nick did.  Anyone?  And what about that boycott?

Not accusing people, I just like facts.

And yes, the irony of being accused of being a fascist and a censor, goaded with jeers of "Arbeit macht frei" in the same thread/topic as I am simultaneously accused of NOT censoring a post at TSZ in which OMagain responds to Kairosfocus's likening of Alan Fox to a German Nazi enabler, and which he noted Kairosfocus' anti-homosexuality was also a Nazi agenda, is not lost on me.

Or, at, any rate, renders any irony meter within a few million miles non-functional.

As Tom Lehrer said, when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize: satire is dead.

The quote is part of the mail I wrote to Springer in which I asked them if they were aware of what they are publishing.
I don't feel accused and I still think I was right in doing so. They could have easily published the articles at UD if they were feeling being censored. But they kept quiet until they managed to get it published by World Scientific.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10960
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2013,09:38   

Quote (sparc @ July 01 2013,15:33)
Barry Arrington gets mad about the fact that Springer decided not to publish BI:NP in several posts and of course he couldn't resist to play his usual Nazi card:
Nick Matzke – Book Burner?
Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”?
It Gets Even Better

What I really enjoy though, is seeing Granville Sewell being pissed off because when I wrote to Springer to ask them if they were serious I choose him as an example of what they were going to publish and pointed out that his article is unlikely to match their usual standards. I wrote:  
Quote
E.g., the talk "A second look at the second law of thermodynamics" is likely by Granville Sewell who has published the same story under similar titles at least three times, partially self-plagiarized. The last time the editors of Applied Mathematics Letters retracted the article (Unfortunately, they agreed to pay Sewell's legal fees in the aftermath). You will find some information on this on the Pandasthumb.org and on retractionwatch.com.



We Can Haz FullText?

   
  297 replies since Mar. 05 2012,07:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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