Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,13:41

Notice that Dembski makes it about Dawkins in his blog.

Quote

William Dembski: 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.

And this is the big roll-out for his peer-reviewed paper.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twiceâ€”for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Chayanov

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,13:51

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 20 2009,13:41)

Notice that Dembski makes it about Dawkins in his blog.

Quote

William Dembski: 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.

And this is the big roll-out for his peer-reviewed paper.

Not understanding how evolution works, and then lying about it. Wow, it really is about ID.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,14:08

Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2009,12:18)

With all due respect, Mr. Erasmus, sir, it seems to me that Dembski will get more benefit from being a martyr than being the author of an article that will never be referenced by anyone outside of the ID cesspool.

Perhaps he left the misrepresentation of Dawkins work in on purpose! (Okay, okay, I'll go sit in the corner with my tinfoil hat now.)

No hat necessary. This is the exact point I was trying (poorly) to make here.

--------------
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!)

Maya

Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,14:34

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 20 2009,14:08)

Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2009,12:18)

With all due respect, Mr. Erasmus, sir, it seems to me that Dembski will get more benefit from being a martyr than being the author of an article that will never be referenced by anyone outside of the ID cesspool.

Perhaps he left the misrepresentation of Dawkins work in on purpose! (Okay, okay, I'll go sit in the corner with my tinfoil hat now.)

No hat necessary. This is the exact point I was trying (poorly) to make here.

I thought you were just suggesting that Dembski is a backdoor man, there.

:O

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,15:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 20 2009,12:10)

i love it when Frill has thoughts.

ETA oooh jerry too

from "graffiti"

Quote

73

jerry

08/20/2009

12:09 pm

R0b,

You have set yourself up as an expert on this so I have a suggestion. Namely, that you take your insight to the journals that have published his articles and publish a letter or article telling the world what you know and that you claim Dembski is lying. Lying would be the appropriate term if “his points are false as a simple matter of fact.”

So step up and back your accusations. Otherwise there is a religious expression that applies.

careful jerry, that is gonna happen and d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dr dembski ain't gonna like it.

I'm already thinking ahead to writing a response to the paper, as I said I would several months back when the drafts were posted.

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

Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,15:06

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,10:35)

Latest blog poster is Niwrad. Darwin backwards. How imaginative.

They could have at least used an anagram!

You mean like:

"Warn ID" or "Raw Din" or "In Ward"?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,15:08

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 20 2009,16:00)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 20 2009,12:10)

i love it when Frill has thoughts.

ETA oooh jerry too

from "graffiti"

Quote

73

jerry

08/20/2009

12:09 pm

R0b,

You have set yourself up as an expert on this so I have a suggestion. Namely, that you take your insight to the journals that have published his articles and publish a letter or article telling the world what you know and that you claim Dembski is lying. Lying would be the appropriate term if “his points are false as a simple matter of fact.”

So step up and back your accusations. Otherwise there is a religious expression that applies.

careful jerry, that is gonna happen and d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dr dembski ain't gonna like it.

I'm already thinking ahead to writing a response to the paper, as I said I would several months back when the drafts were posted.

MATERIALIST!!!!1!!

--------------
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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,15:28

A short note at my blog.

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,15:35

from metaprogramming and dna

fresh meat (gi-stu wa-tali ha)

Quote

In your analysis of your recent IEEE paper, you suggest that the environment contains no inherent information to select towards, and thus cannot effectively be used as the endpoint of a search algorithm. To this, I would like to respond with the following quote, taken from Wikipedia, describing an interaction between Gerald Sussman and Marvin Minsky of the MIT AI lab:

In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.
“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe”, Sussman replied.
“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.
“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.
“Why do you close your eyes?” Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

What I actually said was, “If you wire it randomly, it will still have preconceptions of how to play. But you just won’t know what those preconceptions are.” –Marvin Minsky

the socks at UD are so much more interesting than the regular commenters. i appreciated the zen, bunny! thanks!

--------------
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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,15:50

atom claims that only humans are intelligent

Quote

80

Atom

08/20/2009

2:15 pm
<snip>
So it seems we need to posit a source of functional information, that can create it directly. From experience, we know that humans regularly generate large amounts of functional information, even if we cannot yet explain how they do so. But the empirical fact remains that functional information is consistently associated with intelligent agency.<snip>

swing and miss. my bold. he doesn't seem to grasp the significance of his redefinition

Quote

Intelligence is the only cause we know of capable of generating large amounts of functional information.

again, Atom, you say "intelligence" when you apparently mean to say "Human intelligence". Because that is all you have brought up so far.

Atom seems like one of the nicer folks over there. I would like to see him correct his misunderstandings of his own position.

clive,baby however is a waste of time.

Quote

82

Clive Hayden

08/20/2009

3:23 pm

R0b,

I’ve pointed out many times on this blog that intelligent agents cannot find a target in an informational void any better than anything else,

Intelligent agents don’t design informational voids for their designing purposes, only evolution has this incontrovertible problem.

are you fucking kidding me? that is content-free. the dumbest thing you could say without actually saying anything. clearly this Tard has not read his genesis, for it says that exactly.

i would like to see Clive,baby fight ebola

--------------
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

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,16:38

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 20 2009,15:50)

atom claims that only humans are intelligent

Quote

80

Atom

08/20/2009

2:15 pm
<snip>
So it seems we need to posit a source of functional information, that can create it directly. From experience, we know that humans regularly generate large amounts of functional information, even if we cannot yet explain how they do so. But the empirical fact remains that functional information is consistently associated with intelligent agency.<snip>

swing and miss. my bold. he doesn't seem to grasp the significance of his redefinition

Quote

Intelligence is the only cause we know of capable of generating large amounts of functional information.

again, Atom, you say "intelligence" when you apparently mean to say "Human intelligence". Because that is all you have brought up so far.

Atom seems like one of the nicer folks over there. I would like to see him correct his misunderstandings of his own position.

Atom is the only one at UD that seems to be able to think logically. He strikes me as someone who was thoroughly indoctrinated in that old time religion from an early age and is trying to justify what he "knows" with what he knows. I wish him luck.

That being said, has he ever defined "functional information" or is he just handwaving like the rest of the CSI / FCSI / FSCI blatherers?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,16:41

Atom never came through with the request to add a "FSCI level indicator" to his Weasel simulations. I wonder why...

Perhaps he should be reminded!

--------------
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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,17:10

Jerry ends a rambling comment with

Quote

My guess is the non latching was introduced later when the embarrassingly fast convergence was pointed out to him.

Guess? Jerry, that's the difference (PM Ras) between you and everyone rational. They looked at the evidence. You guess based, presumably, on gut feeling.

Sun go round earth much Jerry?

EDIT: In the same comment Jerry says

Quote

It would be a bizarre thing if it was not latching given the published results showing no changes once selected and Dawkins’ published views on evolution.

Dawkins' published views happen to include an opinion on if Weasel latched or not (via Wes). It not latched.

Again, I don't have an account at UD at the moment, but somebody want to point Jerry in the direction of those published views?

--------------
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: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,17:45

just because that comment is too frakking beautiful to ignore in its entirety

Quote

59
jerry
08/20/2009
4:50 pm
“It’s possible that Dawkins incorporated latching as well as selection, but there is no evidence of this and it would be a bizarre thing to do. Evolutionary models do not have mechanisms that protect certain genes from mutating. Fitness is always evaluated at the organism level.”

No evidence. Now that is something that is truly bizarre. It would be a bizarre thing if it was not latching given the published results showing no changes once selected and Dawkins’ published views on evolution. Also ns does not reject genes very readily once they have been selected so the normal thing to assume is that once a gene is selected it will be very, very, very difficult to lose that selection. You seem to want to use a distorted view of what Dawkins said but he is the one who pushes the selfish gene idea so according to him it is even more unlikely it will mutate out at the same rate as one mutates in. Extremely, extremely unlikely. Oh, and is not very likely either.

So both these things point to a latching mechanism as well as the extremely fast rate at which they converged on the solution. So I think you should apologize to Dr. Dembski and exhibit some modesty when discussing some things you seem to readily misconstrue.

My guess is the non latching was introduced later when the embarrassingly fast convergence was pointed out to him

loloolololol

--------------
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

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,17:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,17:10)

EDIT: In the same comment Jerry says

Quote

It would be a bizarre thing if it was not latching given the published results showing no changes once selected and Dawkins’ published views on evolution.

Dawkins' published views happen to include an opinion on if Weasel latched or not (via Wes). It not latched.

Again, I don't have an account at UD at the moment, but somebody want to point Jerry in the direction of those published views?

If I am not mistaken, the published results only showed the most fit child in every tenth generation. Not, every child in every generation. Without seeing that level of detail, Jerry is basically auditioning for a role in Dembski's next flash animation.* This was also pointed out numerous times to Gordon back when he was twisting in the wind over Weasel.

* If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

--------------
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!)

Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,18:07

I think it's telling that the last comment by Dembski before squelching discussion was in answer to ppb's statement, which clearly struck a nerve:

Quote

The information needed to drive evolution is provided by the environment the organism finds itself in.

Dembski answers by illogically twisting pbb's statement:

Quote

Dembski: 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 quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.

Of course, ~~pbb~~ [ppb] never mentioned a target, ~~a search~~, or creation of information, and "lots of environments" is totally non-sequiter, as if that has anything to do with the environment.
Yet this statement, taken from the IEEE paper, clearly identifies environmental selection as the source of "active information"

Quote

In evolutionary search, a large number of offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced [selected] as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search, giving rise to active information.

So since natural selection by the environment is the application of "external knowledge" and the source of "active information", it follows from his own writing that the (presumably unintelligent) environment is the "natural" source of the specified information contained in the genome.
So much for "only purposeful intelligence can create specified information" unless his definition of "purposeful intelligence" is expanded to include the environment (i.e. everything).

No wonder he shut down discussion. He realizes his whole ID argument is screwed.

(edited to reflect ppb's comments. thanks ppb)

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,18:37

Dembski's pulling a Paul Nelson here:

"Lots of environments lack the active information to conduct successful targeted searches."

Dembski continues (in my dreams): I've got a list of those environments right here in my pocket. Oh, damn-a-nella sam-a-nella, I left me list in me 'otel room. I'll runs off and gets it ...

*patter patter patter patter ... fade to black*

Two years later: crickets

Committed Creationist Coward Dembski knew the next question was going to be, "Oh, yeah? And what environments are those?"

Caught in an obvious LIE, Dembo beat a Nelsonian retreat.

Moron.

ppb

Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,18:51

Quote (sledgehammer @ Aug. 20 2009,19:07)

I think it's telling that the last comment by Dembski before squelching discussion was in answer to ppb's statement, which clearly struck a nerve:

Quote

The information needed to drive evolution is provided by the environment the organism finds itself in.

To be honest, I did use the word "search" in my next sentence. Maybe not the best choice of words on my part. I thought it slimy of him to ask a question without permitting a response.

Also, while I like to think my comment was what did him in, I think I actually slipped in under the gate just as it was closing. His initial comment didn't include a response to me. He added that in a later edit.

--------------
"[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

Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,18:56

Oh I'm sure he could conjure up a mathematical "environment" that gives rise to a fitness function that is completely flat everywhere except at the "target", or one that is completely random everywhere (like the ones that lead to the "No Free Lunch" theorem).
Of course neither look anything like the real world.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,19:43

I was amused to see, in the IEEE paper, that the main section IV titled "IV. CRITIQUING EVOLUTIONARY-SEARCH ALGORITHMS", contains a single section: "A. Monkey at a Typewriter", and proceeds to analyze a blind search. No mention of evolutionary algorithms anywhere in the entire section, except the first sentence:

Quote

A “monkey at a typewriter” is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search.

"often" by whom? Marks and Dembski?
"random" obviously used here to obfuscate "evolutionary".
Could this be more disingenuous?
I guess this shows the extent of their ability to critique "evolutionary-search algorithms".

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,21:35

Since we were just talking about weaseling and latching:

--------------
"[...] 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: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,22:26

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 21 2009,05:35)

Since we were just talking about weaseling and latching:

That's a squirrel

This is a weasel

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

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,22:48

Quote

That's a squirrel

This is a weasel

I am fully aware of that fact. Still, the question remains if it just weaseled in or if it is the result of latching.

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

Ptaylor

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Aug. 20 2009,23:39

Clive hits back at PZ Myers in defence of Dr^2 Dembski and the other guy. Sample:

Quote

A bit of advice PZ, the argument presented by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks is very sophisticated PZ, your mud slinging isn’t PZ, you need to step it up PZ. I know this new stuff isn’t ez, but you may want to consider a response that has actual content PZ. Your argument against this peer-reviewed paper is still in its infancy, or, more accurately, still in the pharyngula stage, embryonic in its development.

Is that meant to be rap?

--------------
We no longer say: â€œAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ We now say: â€œAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Aug. 21 2009,00:32

I read somewhere (possibly here at ATBC) that the fastest way to increase your citation count is to publish something with a blatent error in it. I think Dembski's count is going to go way up.

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 21 2009,00:58

Before they go:

Quote

1

DiEb

08/20/2009

11:31 pm
Dr. Dembski has opened his defences as he stated at Uncommonon Descent that he used Dr. Dawkin’s weasel-algorithm as an example, though the search described in his paper differs from the search Dawkins proposed.

This is the point Dr. Myers exploits.

2

yakky d

08/20/2009

11:54 pm
Clive,

Given his argument, he doesn’t know how to measure the cost of success, yet claims that Dr. Dembski doesn’t understand selection.

Well, I think it’s fair to ask why Dr. Dembski again erroneously asserts that the weasel algorithm involves “latching”, in view of the fact that he calls special attention to this part of the paper in his post.

I won’t comment on anyone’s understanding of “selection”, but it seems to me any evolutionist would agree that latching 1) is unnecessary and more importantly 2) would make the algorithm even more biologically unrealistic than it is to begin with. Mutations are supposed by evolutionists to be random wrt fitness; latching completely contradicts this principle.

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

dvunkannon

Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

Posted: Aug. 21 2009,01:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,12:29)

Gil "has a thought"

Quote

I’ve had a thought somewhat along the lines of the OP. Much of what has been proposed as junk DNA involves redundant or repetitive nucleotide sequences. Computer programs often use repetitive or iterative code (for example, for(), do(), and while() loops), the number of iterations of which are either specified or controlled by other code.

Er, and now what Gil? I think you forgot the next paragraph where you note how you'd go about testing that, what any potential results would indicate and all that other fancy stuff generally falling under "work" rather then "armchair scientist".

And anyway, in a computer program you can have a loop that runs 1000 times and you don't need 1000 loops in the source code. You just use a counter. So if junk DNA has lots of repetitive section then it's exactly unlike a computer program in that regard. So WTF Gil, did you think about that one for all of a second?

Linky

I think the idea Frill was groping towards is loop unrolling, as is done in some optimizatons.

--------------
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

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Aug. 21 2009,01:38

Mark C-C has a brief response up. Basically, it reiterates his earlier critiques (he provides linkys).

And over at Pharyngula, some IEEE members state their objections -- which can't be expressed at UD, of course, since Wee Billy cut off comments.

This should be amusing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Ptaylor

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Aug. 21 2009,02:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2009,17:58)

Before they go:
<snip>

...add to that BillB's comment:

Quote

PZ’s critisism concerns the representation of Dawkins WEASEL algorithm in Dembski and Marks paper. Dembski and Marks represent the algorithm incorrectly.

If D and M want to claim that WEASEL actually includes extra components that Dawkins never included in his description, then they need to make these claims clear in their paper, and provide some argument or evidence to support them.

As it stands the description of WEASEL in their paper misrepresents Dawkins algorithm. A reader who is familiar with Dawkins book, or who follows up the reference, will also see that is is misrepresented, and that can cast doubt on the validity of D and M’s conclusions. A bit more checking and it would become clear that D and M have had this pointed out to them prior to publication, and yet they never corrected the mistake, or acknowledged that their representation was unorthodox.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to misrepresent other peoples work. Dembski and Marks are providing a very good reason for readers doubt or dismiss their papers conclusions so they really haven’t done themselves any favours.

Clive (hi Clive!) has essentially reopened comments for Dr Dembski's closed thread, in a well thought out plan.

--------------
We no longer say: â€œAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ We now say: â€œAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007