Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 470 471 472 473 474 [475] 476 477 478 479 480 ... >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:55    Quote (Maya @ Aug. 19 2009,11:47) SNIP Seriously, shouldn't this be raised with the IEEE editors? should you so desire Quote Editor-In-Chief     Witold Pedrycz Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, T6G 2G7 Canada Tel: +1 804 924 5393 Fax:+1 804 982 2972 Email: pedrycz@ece.ualberta.ca Quote Associate Editors Julie Adams   Andrzej Bargiela   Ellen Bass Gautam Biswas Erik Blasch Giuseppe Calafiore Caroline Cao Jose Carmena Mehmet Celenk Hsinchun Chen Jian Chen Shyi-Ming Chen Michael Dorneich Liping Fang Maria Pia Fanti Debasish Ghose Fernando Gomide William A. Gruver Stephanie Guerlain Louise Gunderson Ron Hess Keith Hipel Kaoru Hirota Lakhmi Jain Greg Jamieson Adam Janiak MuDer Jeng Qiang Ji David Kaber Mohamed Kamel Alex Kirlik Andrew Kusiak Jim Lambert Jae Lee John Lee T.H. Lee Charles Michael Lewis Yingzi Lin Yili Liu Anthony Maciejewski Joachim Meyer John Miller Manuel Mora Shozo Mori Y. Narahari Sundaram Narayanan Christopher Nemeth Mohammad Obaidat Emily Patterson Hoang Pham Robin Qiu H. Raghav Rao Ling Rothrock Nadine Sarter Raj Subbu Toshio Tsuji René van Paassen Bharadwaj Veeravalli Fei-Yue Wang Yingxu Wang Jonathan Wu Yan Xiao J ian-Bo Yang Nong Ye David Zhang MengChu Zhou -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:57    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature I'm a bio student and, as one of my Chinese-American high school math team co-members told me, "White girls can't do math.", so I could be wrong, but isn't Dembski misusing the NFL theorems here?  On the very first page of the paper, he says: Quote "{U}nless you can make prior assumptions about the . . . {problems} you are working on, then no search strategy, no matter how sophisticated, can be expected to perform better than any other" If my understanding of the NFL theorems is correct, what he quotes is technically true but misleading (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you).  The NFL theorems talk about performance across all possible domains.  It is entirely possible for a particular strategy to perform very well on a particular domain or set of domains, but do correspondingly poorly on other domains.  Since the strategies of evolutionary theory clearly work well in the problem domain of life on Earth, Dembski's conclusions seem . . . unwarranted. Am I missing something?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:01    The slap-down begins on his blog. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:04    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 19 2009,10:46) Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature I see that Dembski and Marks persisted with the erroneous assertion that Dawkins' "weasel" was a "partitioned search", despite years worth of repeated notice that it was not. Another thing to do after the move. This strikes me as of the same tactic as inviting Dembski to be a post-doc at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab at (or at least near) Baylor.  They are sneaking Dembski in the backdoor hidden from anyone who knows him and his history.  If they are successful, they can shout from the rooftops about the great victory for ID.  If they get called on their sneaky ways, they shout from the rooftops about how they are being oppressed by the Darwinian Establishment. So, assuming the critiques of this paper actually make it into publication, how soon will Dembski and Marks be boo-hooing about their treatment at the hands of the Institute of Egregious Evolutionary Expellers? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:09    I don't think it's worth raising an issue with the editors.  There's a better way. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A. publishes comments and author's replies.  See this paper, for example.  Someone knowledgeable might want to fisk DrDrD and Gloppy in print. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:14    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Is it Friday already? Start saving comments to preserve in the Obliviation thread. -------------- "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

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:20    Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2009,10:54) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake         Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. He actually looks at both the latched and unlatched (or is that quasi-ratcheted?) versions, although not by name.  And he only associates WEASEL with the latched version. The underlying message is the same one that's been discussed before - one can measure the difference in success between a blind search an a particular search algorithm as "active information", and this should be used to characterize search algorithms. There's no real criticism of Dawkins, but we know how this is going to be used... ETA: The only link in the article is that D&M cite The Blind Watchmaker as a reference for a partitioned search.  Complaining to the editors will look a bit anal, I suspect. Agreed.  My only point was that his citation is false, and that he is deliberately obfuscating what WEASEL is, and what Dawkins said about it.  This is not actually fundamental to his paper.   The larger point is that this paper is worthless.  As Good Math / Bad Math pointed out, it follows this form: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/05/dembski_responds.php Quote But that's not what Dembski is claiming to say. Dembski is saying that the program implicitly contains the solution. Why does it implicitly contain the solution? Because Dembski says so. Seriously - that's what his argument reduces to. He defines the active information in a system in terms of how that system performs in a search. Then he shows that the amount of information that results from doing the search is equal to the amount of active information in the search algorithm. It's a trick of definitions, obscured by a lot of pointlessly complex math. In essence, it reduces to making a blind assertion: information is conserved; therefore any system that can in any sense produce information must contain that information.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:27    Quote 4 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:09 am Sal Gal: “He definitely did not present it as that.” Quite right, he did not present it — as in portray it – as a targeted search. But in his articulation, it was a targeted search and our critique applies. Squatney: I would re-read the paper. I know your side has quibbled about our characterization of Dawkins’ algorithm (which he did not clearly lay out in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER) as to whether it locks in correct characters or allows for their random alteration after they’ve been achieved. As I showed here, it doesn’t really matter. and he sends you to the 16 march 2009 post "Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?" where he does not show anything of the sort.  In that post he claims that Dawkins manipulated the code for the video in order to make it look 'unlatched'.  of course this is what spawned Gordon Mullings to have an apoplectic fit in which he spewed out the character count equivalent of 7 dissertations, and the content count of the back of a cereal box. Dembski has found new lows!  for this we should rejoice!  but i do believe i would rather see more flash animation than him attempting to do what he cannot possibly do, that is use science to justify his religious beliefs.  Stay Clowny, b-b-b-b-b-b-bill!!!! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:32    Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,11:09) I don't think it's worth raising an issue with the editors.  There's a better way. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A. publishes comments and author's replies.  See this paper, for example.  Someone knowledgeable might want to fisk DrDrD and Gloppy in print. The problem is that they don't really say much, which (IIRC) is what Mark Chu-Carroll said earlier. Of course, they do confuse two definitions of information: Quote Computers, despite their speed in performing queries, are thus, in the absence of active information, inadequate for resolving even moderately sized search problems. Accordingly, attempts to characterize evolutionary algorithms as creators of novel information are inappropriate. I'm sure Wes is shocked by this. -------------- 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)

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:33    PeaRoast: -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:37    LH responds Quote I do not see where you show, or even attempt to show, that “it doesn’t really matter.” Nor do I see where you refute, or attempt to refute, the careful analyses in that thread that showed that your assumptions were unwarranted. It may be that you don’t need to do that, if the distinction truly doesn’t matter, but where have you established that? Ouch -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:48    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,12:37) LH responds   Quote I do not see where you show, or even attempt to show, that “it doesn’t really matter.” Nor do I see where you refute, or attempt to refute, the careful analyses in that thread that showed that your assumptions were unwarranted. It may be that you don’t need to do that, if the distinction truly doesn’t matter, but where have you established that? Ouch i can't believe Wild Bill left the comments open on that thread.  He is probably sitting there with the ban button cued up. and Clive,baby is nowhere to be seen.  I'm suspicious. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:54    Dembski: Quote Hand: “Doesn’t matter” in the sense that the algorithm has the target sequence embedded in it, checks proxmity to it, and converges quickly to the target. Locking or non-locking doesn’t affect any of these. Gentlemen/Ladies, methinks you are quibbling about minutiae and missing the bigger problem, which is that the information needed to drive evolution does not derive from evolution. Where oh where does it derive from Dr Dr Dr? -------------- 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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,11:57    Oh well, that thread has lasted a couple of hours!     Quote 9 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:46 am NS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime. I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. And Bill, no, a general relativity textbook would not be "devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry."  There would be physical content on top of the math.  Like, you know, clock synchronization, perihelion precession, models of the Universe etc.  Science isn't math. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

ERV Posts: 329 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:03    "Weary of quibbling"!  Oh dear!  Im certainly glad UD doesnt get any more traffic than they do-- Some of my comment threads have gotten, like 20 comments!  Dembski would faint! Best UD stay a glory-hole-in-the-wall blag.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:04    Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,12:57) Oh well, that thread has lasted a couple of hours!     Quote 9 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:46 am NS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime. I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. hahahhahahahha the others   Quote 6 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:34 am Hand: “Doesn’t matter” in the sense that the algorithm has the target sequence embedded in it, checks proxmity to it, and converges quickly to the target. Locking or non-locking doesn’t affect any of these. Gentlemen/Ladies, methinks you are quibbling about minutiae and missing the bigger problem, which is that the information needed to drive evolution does not derive from evolution.   Quote 7 notedscholar 08/19/2009 11:39 am Not to burst your bubbles, but this isn’t actually a pro-ID article. It’s more about math than anything else. NS http://www.sciencedefeated.wordpress.com   Quote 8 ppb 08/19/2009 11:43 am The information needed to drive evolution is provided by the environment the organism finds itself in. Consider it a proximity search towards the optimal conditions for survival.   Quote 9 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:46 am NS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime. ppb: And the environment creates the information required for evolution to successfully locate a target how? Lots of environments lack the active information to conduct successful targeted searches. I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. I'm beginning to wonder if d-d-d-d-d-doctor is incapable of understanding that living things vary in heritable traits and vary correspondingly in reproductive success.  surely no one is THIS dishonest?  just plain old homemade stupid?  I give up you tell me. Carlson that is a frikkin wonderful hack job.  See if you can get the pics his wife took where he is wearing a girdle and her underwear -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:04    Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,11:57) Oh well, that thread has lasted a couple of hours!       Quote 9 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:46 am NS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime. I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. And Bill, no, a general relativity textbook would be "devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry."  There would be physical content on top of the math.  Like, you know, clock synchronization, perihelion precession, models of the Universe etc.  Science isn't math. I hacked into WmAD's webcam and captured this picture of him. Note that his choice of sweaters is impeccable, as usual. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

DiEb Posts: 312 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:07    Quote 1 DiEb 08/19/2009 10:36 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. Your critique of Dawkins is very subtle, as you don’t mention Dawkins’s name in your paper and you don’t use Dawkin’s algorithm – in fact, the only thing reminding of Dawkins is the weasel phrase. Quote 6 DiEb 08/19/2009 11:15 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. I would think that it does matter: Dawkins’s algorithms depends very much on the size of the population. In fact, with a population size of one, it’s just a random search… I suppose I'm moderated for all eternity...

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:07    Dr Dr D states the bleedin' obvious: Quote Gentlemen/Ladies, methinks you are quibbling about minutiae and missing the bigger problem, which is that the information needed to drive evolution does not derive from evolution. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T, YOU FUCKING MORON!  It derives from the environment in which evolution occurs.  Nothing to adapt to -> no piggin' evolution.  Jesus Christ on a fucking mortorbike. I think I see the strategy here. 1.  Dembski publishes tard. 2.  Scientists read tard. 3.  Scientists' brains explode. 4.  WATERLOO! -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:09    I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. - WmAD Translation - "Dang, that peer review thing is brutal. I'm gonna stick to books from now on!" -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:16    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 19 2009,13:09) I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. - WmAD That's truly sig-worthy -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:21    "quibbling" lolololol what a sad cunt -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:23    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 19 2009,12:09) I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. - WmAD Translation - "Dang, that peer review thing is brutal. I'm gonna stick to books from now on!" Not just weary of quibbling, but weary of "*these* quibbling. " Of course, it would be quibbling to point out the piddling fiddling there. One quibble, many quibbles. One quibbling, two quibblings. Grammar on a par with mathiness. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:26    Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 19 2009,12:07) Dr Dr D states the bleedin' obvious:   Quote Gentlemen/Ladies, methinks you are quibbling about minutiae and missing the bigger problem, which is that the information needed to drive evolution does not derive from evolution. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T, YOU FUCKING MORON!  It derives from the environment in which evolution occurs.  Nothing to adapt to -> no piggin' evolution.  Jesus Christ on a fucking mortorbike. I think I see the strategy here. 1.  Dembski publishes tard. 2.  Scientists read tard. 3.  Scientists' brains explode. 4.  WATERLOO! People have been telling him this for years and he seems incapable of seeing the points raised. Morton's Demon, anyone? ETA: I was being generous in attributing this to Morton's Demon. Others might simply say "inherent dishonesty." -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

someotherguy Posts: 398 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:33    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:43) Hedge:     Quote I think that, right now, what the ID movement needs most is some sort of online, social networking site aimed at interesting young people in ID theory and teaching them about the holes in Darwinism. Something like that could go a long way toward “disarming Darwinism in the general culture” and would, I bet, prove quite popular too. Perhaps we should help them think of a name! How about... http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/ ? Something (call it intuition) tells me that Hedge might be aware of OD already.   :D -------------- Evolander in training

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:40    while we are waiting for the shooting to start over there... i had forgotten how hilarious noted scholar is.  man that is a good read.   carry on. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:40    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 19 2009,12:09) I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. - WmAD Translation - "Dang, that peer review thing is brutal. I'm gonna stick to books from now on!" OMFG.  What a gutless prick dishonest wimp.  (Self-censoring in case mom is reading.)

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:44    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 19 2009,19:27) Quote 4 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:09 am Sal Gal: “He definitely did not present it as that.” Quite right, he did not present it — as in portray it – as a targeted search. But in his articulation, it was a targeted search and our critique applies. Squatney: I would re-read the paper. I know your side has quibbled about our characterization of Dawkins’ algorithm (which he did not clearly lay out in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER) as to whether it locks in correct characters or allows for their random alteration after they’ve been achieved. As I showed here, it doesn’t really matter. and he sends you to the 16 march 2009 post "Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?" where he does not show anything of the sort.  In that post he claims that Dawkins manipulated the code for the video in order to make it look 'unlatched'.  of course this is what spawned Gordon Mullings to have an apoplectic fit in which he spewed out the character count equivalent of 7 dissertations, and the content count of the back of a cereal box. Dembski has found new lows!  for this we should rejoice!  but i do believe i would rather see more flash animation than him attempting to do what he cannot possibly do, that is use science to justify his religious beliefs.  Stay Clowny, b-b-b-b-b-b-bill!!!! One wonders why Billy didn't cite Mullings and I'm sure Gordo hisself will be wondering the same. After all Billy boy and him are peers and teh new way of ID for thrith in science and resurection of culture needs all the logos of men like Mullings and his mission to save No Free Information for the likes of Jerry etc. Expect a new cancer cure from cutting edge Dembski genetic algorithms....if he can figure out what they are. If you have a tumor on you hair ID tells you chances are better than 10-150 that it's designed and a dilute solution of peroxide will remove the hair tumor and your finger prints too if you don't use gloves. Read all about it in "Hair Dressers Monthly" or tune into "Days of Our Lives" for a charged look at "Intelligent Design" in action, or heavy petting...whateva. Dense can raffle free copies of Billz book for the first creative use of Billies new paragim. ............yawn. -------------- "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

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,12:47    Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2009,12:32) Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,11:09) I don't think it's worth raising an issue with the editors.  There's a better way. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A. publishes comments and author's replies.  See this paper, for example.  Someone knowledgeable might want to fisk DrDrD and Gloppy in print. The problem is that they don't really say much, which (IIRC) is what Mark Chu-Carroll said earlier. Of course, they do confuse two definitions of information: Quote Computers, despite their speed in performing queries, are thus, in the absence of active information, inadequate for resolving even moderately sized search problems. Accordingly, attempts to characterize evolutionary algorithms as creators of novel information are inappropriate. I'm sure Wes is shocked by this. DDrr.. Dembski should warn these guys about the inadequacy of evolutionary algorithms. Especially since they appear in the same issue as his article! Quote A Multiobjective Evolutionary Programming Algorithm and Its Applications to Power Generation Expansion Planning Ceciliano Meza, J. L.; Yildirim, M. B.; Masud, A. S. M. Page(s): 1086-1096 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSMCA.2009.2025868 AbstractPlus  | Full Text: PDF (524 KB) Rights and Permissions    Evolutionary Sampling and Software Quality Modeling of High-Assurance Systems Drown, D. J.; Khoshgoftaar, T. M.; Seliya, N Page(s): 1097-1107 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSMCA.2009.2020804 AbstractPlus  | Full Text: PDF (217 KB) Rights and Permissions   -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,13:01    Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2009,19:32) Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,11:09) I don't think it's worth raising an issue with the editors.  There's a better way. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A. publishes comments and author's replies.  See this paper, for example.  Someone knowledgeable might want to fisk DrDrD and Gloppy in print. The problem is that they don't really say much, which (IIRC) is what Mark Chu-Carroll said earlier. Of course, they do confuse two definitions of information:   Quote Computers, despite their speed in performing queries, are thus, in the absence of active information, inadequate for resolving even moderately sized search problems. Accordingly, attempts to characterize evolutionary algorithms as creators of novel information are inappropriate. I'm sure Wes is shocked by this. As with the word "intelligence" which is a cultural projection anyway their use of the word "information" bastardises the Shannon comms engineering tool to bend it into a metaphysical theological plea to a higher power's functioning in the temporal world. In other words the finger of god is the functioning part of the required function to be explained at the whim of the calling party. Dembski faith test algorithm: Code Sample begin: Test faith Query X number of [deaths|or other missfortune] by [Insert plea against personal missfortune here] Accept: Query explained as gods will. Fail: Exit as athiest //god must exist because user chooses to Repeat Test faith //Endless loop write crap books rest of life. Exit as atheist:get free debauchery card -------------- "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

Pages: (500) < ... 470 471 472 473 474 [475] 476 477 478 479 480 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard