RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: IDC != AntiEvolution?, Discuss...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,09:34   

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:01   

So, you're not a cdesign proponentsist, then, Joe G?

Fine. ID is science. Do some fucking science, already.  All we hear is "evolution couldn't do something, at some point, and needed some interference, somehow, by someone or something".  Or is connecting the dots too much like taking the bait?

Come on, buddy, let's see some details. Which designer did what, how did s/he do it, and when?  And your evidence for this (aside from "I don't (want to) think it could have happened by itself") is... what?

Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again?

You want ID to be the default position, so as soon as we say "We don't know yet how this happened", you jump in and somehow think this proves there's a magic pixie in the genome somewhere

You say there's ID, we say prove it.

No debate circus, just evidence.

Get your fucking hands dirty with something besides your own spooge for once and get the job done, already.

Show us the magic pixie.

Okay? Please?

edit couple typos.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:01   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:05   

It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
So, you're not a cdesign proponentsist, then, Joe G?

Fine. ID is science. Do some fucking science, already.  All we hear is "evolution couldn't do something, at some point, and needed some interference, somehow, by someone or something".  Or is connecting the dots too much like taking the bait?

Come on, buddy, let's see some details. Which designer did what, how did s/he do it, and when?  And your evidence for this (aside from "I don't (want to) think it could have happened by itself") is... what?

Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again?

You want ID to be the default position, so as soon as we say "We don't know yet how this happened", you jump in and somehow think this proves there's a magic pixie in the genome somewhere

You say there's ID, we say prove it.

No debate circus, just evidence.

Get your fucking hands dirty with something besides your own spooge for once and get the job done, already.

Show us the magic pixie.

Okay? Please?

edit couple typos.

So you are an asshole then?

If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" then it is because your head is up your ass.

What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?

Why don't you do some science already?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:35   

BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".

IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.

Now I know someone will cry that Darwin explained that.

Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:37   

Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05)
It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:38   

Quote
If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" ....


Its not like they've tried to write books on the limits of evolution, nor expressed incredulity on the evolution of eyes, flagella, Man, etc.

Quote
What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Quote
Why don't you do some science already?


Too busy teaching at my bible college and writing books for rubes.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:40   

Quote
Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.


cdesign proponentsists, Joe. Cut and Paste. Thank goodness the creationists are stupid enough to drop a wedge shaped clanger once in a while.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:40   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
Quote
If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" ....


Its not like they've tried to write books on the limits of evolution, nor expressed incredulity on the evolution of eyes, flagella, Man, etc.

Quote
What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Quote
Why don't you do some science already?


Too busy teaching at my bible college and writing books for rubes.

Richtard,

IDists write books on the limitations of the blind watchmaker.

Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

Also evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for the blind watchmaker.

IOW Richtard once again you prove to be a dolt.

Are you proud of that?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:41   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

non-sequtar.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:40)
Quote
Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.


cdesign proponentsists, Joe. Cut and Paste. Thank goodness the creationists are stupid enough to drop a wedge shaped clanger once in a while.

CREATOR Richtard.

Darwin used the wrod in a RELEASED version making the theory of evolution a creationist theory.

I can't help if you are too stupid to undersatnd that...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:42   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

non-sequtar.

Richtard,

I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed.

Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:44   

However if we hold the theory of evolution to the SAME standard then it becomes obvious that it too is a Creation theory:

Quote
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence


--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:45   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

non-sequtar.

Richtard,

I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed.

Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then...

Oh, let me play.*


That is such a homosexual thing to write, Joe. Have you fallen out with your boyfriend again? Is that why you're sad and angry?

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:48   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:45)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

non-sequtar.

Richtard,

I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed.

Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then...

Oh, let me play.*


That is such a homosexual thing to write, Joe. Have you fallen out with your boyfriend again? Is that why you're sad and angry?

Richtard,

Thank you for proving that you cannot even stay on-topic and you can't even address the opening post.

Obviously you have no idea what evolution is even though I posted a link that explains it.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:51   

Joe,

Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want?

What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work.

Thanks!

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:51   

I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:55   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:56   

Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
Joe,

Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want?

What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work.

Thanks!

Please explain what that has to do with the topic of the thread.

Or just admit that you are an asshole...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:56   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,07:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life” deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.” So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:01   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,07:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life” deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.” So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

Evolution is much more than common ancestry Gary.

ID accepts speciation via mutation Gary.

It is as simple as Dawkin's weasel- designed to evolve Gary.

I went over this in the OP Gary.

Your ignorance does not refute what I posted.

Perhaps you should actually read the OP...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:02   

What does "the blind watchmaker didit" have to offer?

That is all you have...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:04   

Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:07   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:11   

Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:12   

oh why don't we just invent all sorts of empirically equivalent ad hoc assertions about all sorts of things.  that will clear things up won't it?

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:12   

OK Joe, here is my recommended course outline for teaching ID in school:

"An unknown Designer or Designers with unknown powers at an unknown time with an unknown mechanism and unknown source of materials for unknown reasons manufactured this biological structure".

That should take all of 30 seconds to present.

Anything else you think we should add to the course?

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

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:13   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37)
Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05)
It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Let me just say, as someone who works in this field, reads, understand and writes these kinds of papers (and knows some of the authors) that you have absolutely no clue about the content of the papers you cite.

You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:18   

Joe/Tough Guy

Re the retarded question in your OP - two words

Wedge Strategy

The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory.

If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"?

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:21   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:07)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations.

It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.

:D  :D  :D

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:22   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:25   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37)
Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05)
It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Let me just say, as someone who works in this field, reads, understand and writes these kinds of papers (and knows some of the authors) that you have absolutely no clue about the content of the papers you cite.

You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

Ames go fuck yourself.

Your position can't explaijn alternative gene splicing and you know it.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:25   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:13)
You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

Actually, Joe just did a cut'n'paste from the linked creationist site/ tard mine. Obviously, he didn't read any real articles.

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 24 2010,09:27

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:26   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 24 2010,11:18)
Joe/Tough Guy

Re the retarded question in your OP - two words

Wedge Strategy

The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory.

If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"?

More stupidity.

The theory ID wants replaced is the one connected to the blind watchmaker.

Duh...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:27   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:07)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations.

It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.

:D  :D  :D

And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy.

So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:28   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:07)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations.

It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.

:D  :D  :D

And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy.

So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:29   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,11:25)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:13)
You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

Actually, Joe just did a cut'n'paste from the linked creationist site/ tard mine. Obviously, he didn't read any real articles.

Gary,

Please, by all means, tell us how your position explains alternative gene splicing.

And please provide the peer-reviewed paper(s) that support your explanation.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:30   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:27)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:07)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations.

It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.

:D  :D  :D

And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy.

So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case...

Bullshit Joe.

What is the calculated CSI value of a baseball then?

Provide the answer here, and show your work.

C'mon tough guy, show us what ya got.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:30   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:26)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 24 2010,11:18)
Joe/Tough Guy

Re the retarded question in your OP - two words

Wedge Strategy

The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory.

If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"?

More stupidity.

Yep. You just keep posting it.

Why don't you answer the question?

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:32   

Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion?

Is that too much to ask?

Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:34   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32)
Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion?

Is that too much to ask?

Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys...

Your stupidity is the discussion Joe.

But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   :D

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:35   

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.



“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.



"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.



Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message.

Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to.

Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?
(Simple, yes/no please)

Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you.

If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document.

The implication here is that you don't even understand ID.





[I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.]

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:36   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32)
Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion?

Is that too much to ask?

Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys...

Your stupidity is the discussion Joe.

But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   :D

Well when someone presents evidence for that I will discuss it.

So far you have proven to be the stupidest person here.

Not only that you are a liar, momma's boy and a crybaby.

So what else is new?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:39   

Since we're on the subject:

What is a hypothesis that ID makes?
What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis?
What evidence would falsify ID?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:40   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35)
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.



“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.



"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.



Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message.

Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to.

Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?
(Simple, yes/no please)

Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you.

If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document.

The implication here is that you don't even understand ID.





[I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.]

Ogre,

I take it that you have no idea what evolution is even though I provided a link.

Quote
Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?


No.

Quote
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?


Not sure how you are defining MN.

Also ID seeks to replace the blind watchmaker thesis ONLY.

What part of that don't you understand?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:40   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:36)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:34)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32)
Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion?

Is that too much to ask?

Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys...

Your stupidity is the discussion Joe.

But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   :D

Well when someone presents evidence for that I will discuss it.

So far you have proven to be the stupidest person here.

Not only that you are a liar, momma's boy and a crybaby.

So what else is new?

You forgot to threaten to beat me up.  Or off.  I forget which one you fantasize about the most.  :p

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:40   

Quote
And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy.


Oh! what was the answer? how many bits?

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:39)
Since we're on the subject:

What is a hypothesis that ID makes?
What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis?
What evidence would falsify ID?

Supporting ID complete with a design hypothesis.

To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:43   

So what is the hypothsis the blind watchmaker makes?

How can it be falsified?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:47   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:42)
If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

And how would you know that part, Joe? Do we know every natural mechanism? If not, then we can't do it. If we do, then I've got some physics questions for you.

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

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:50   

On June 16th, 2006 Dembski posted on UD the following...

Quote
The problem is not that evolution implies God does’t exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility.


He later added a qualifying parenthetical after the logical implications were pointed out on TalkOrigins forum.

Here is the UD link to the modified statement.

While I think you are wasting your time arguing with Joe G (aka ID Guy), I thought you might like to have this in your hip pocket in case someone tries it claim the Wedge is no longer applicable to Dembski's version of ID.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:51   

Joe G - Why are you posting here?  Why are you posting like a total asshole? And more importantly, why weren't you ever taught to properly communicate when you were younger?  Perhaps you could seek some professional guidence and help in getting along with your fellow hominids.  Your basic premise is wrong, your OP is demented, and I believe strongly that you are too.

Even your bronze-age god figurehead counsels against the behavior you are exhibiting, and if you actually believe that crap in your bible, then you, Joe G are going to be burning in hell for an eternity.  And if you actually don't believe all that crap, then in that case, you're just a ninny and a nincompoop.  And in that case, I say again, you should seek professional help.  Joe G, you are just not right in the head.  And the proof is in your posts.

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

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

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:51   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:25)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37)

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Let me just say, as someone who works in this field, reads, understand and writes these kinds of papers (and knows some of the authors) that you have absolutely no clue about the content of the papers you cite.

You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

Ames go fuck yourself.

Your position can't explaijn alternative gene splicing and you know it.

Cutting and pasting the contents of a section from Nature called "Building a Cell" doesn't constitute evidence of anything. When you read and understand the papers you cite the titles of, I'll consider discussing the science with you. Until then, you're just spewing bullshit (in the technical sense of the term).

And THAT, to answer your original question once more, is why ID cannot be permitted to be taught in public schools. Because the people who would teach it are barely competent to read the titles of the scientific literature, much less to understand any of it.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:55   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:40)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35)
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.



“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.



"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.



Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message.

Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to.

Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?
(Simple, yes/no please)

Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you.

If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document.

The implication here is that you don't even understand ID.





[I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.]

Ogre,

I take it that you have no idea what evolution is even though I provided a link.

Quote
Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?


No.

Quote
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?


Not sure how you are defining MN.

Also ID seeks to replace the blind watchmaker thesis ONLY.

What part of that don't you understand?

I'm sorry, I thought you were here to defend ID, not attack evolution.

I was actually hoping you understood ID so you could explain it to me.  I guess I'll just wait for Dembski.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:00   

The problem of ID is that its proponents don't share a common view. Some accept common descent, some don't. Some believe in a young Earth, others don't.
So, it could be argued that ID, in the broad sense, does not exclude some sort of evolution (prescribed evolution maybe)?
It's up to IDers to formulate testable hypotheses.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:08   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:22)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

Joe,

Excuse me but you mentioned about ID being taught in school in the OP. Why is wanting to know what you want to have taught off-topic?

Look Joe not only is this in your OP, it is the header.

Quote

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


So what do you want to "present" to the kids?

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:09   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:56)
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
Joe,

Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want?

What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work.

Thanks!

Please explain what that has to do with the topic of the thread.

Or just admit that you are an asshole...

When people ask you to back up what you say, you call them an asshole.  What exactly are we supposed to teach in schools again?  You have no experiments, no evidence, no math.  I think name-calling class is called recess.

So what would a typical ID class syllabus look like?  Book reports on Dembski's books?

Before you start asking to get taught in schools, why don't you guys get to work in the labs.  Fill up those journals you so easily start.  PCID, JOEI, etc.  Once you have something to teach, then you can ask politely.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:11   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:39)
Since we're on the subject:

What is a hypothesis that ID makes?
What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis?
What evidence would falsify ID?

Supporting ID complete with a design hypothesis.

To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

Still doesn't understand how science works.

"To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity."

This is not a test that has any value.  It is subjective.  You will obviously decide that everything is designed.  While others may or may not.

Here's an example (heck it's all the work done for you, all you have to do is fill in some blanks and do the calculation).

If the E. coli flagellum is designed, then we should see a specified complexity value of _.  If the flagellum is not designed, then the specified complexity value is less than (same as above).

The measurements that we will use for determining specified complexity are
1) _
etc.
(a series of structures, sequences, etc. that will be measured and values inserted into an equation (or series))

To determine the value for specified complexity, we do , and , ____ (do maths).

Thus our hypothesis (the if/then statement above) is (supported/ not supported) by our calculations.


See how easy it is?  This is what a proper science report should look like in the 6th grade.  If you want to do a real grown-up science report, then you should include the references to every paper and journal article that discuss your hypothesis, flagellum, and maths REGARDLESS of whether that paper supports your position or not and show why your results are more accurate than the ones against your position.

Then you can send this into a real peer-reviewed journal whose many reviewers will proceed to examine your work in great detail.  If it passes them, then YOU will have been the first person ever to do ID research.

Then and only then will anyone in the scientific community take ID seriously.  As far as taking you seriously, I suggest you start with a new attitude and being a little nicer.


BTW: You forgot to discuss the 'falsification' part of ID.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:12   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35)
BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".

IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.

Now I know someone will cry that Darwin explained that.

Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.

How about convince AiG that Darwin published a creationist theory.

Of course, Darwin wasn't trying to publish a textbook for public schools in a country with separation of church and state, was he?

Not that anyone is going to teach science out of OoS, any edition. You might find it in history of science, just like you will find "endowed by their Creator" in American history class.

But lets look at how well Pandas, Design of Life, and Explore Evolution are doing in the science classes of public schools of an English speaking country with a state established Christian religion - Britain.

<crickets/>

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:14   

crud, the editor took a big chunk of the middle of my post out.  So much for 'preview'.

The part that's missing is where you compare your results to an object that is of known design (like a car) and random values for your measurements.  Then you can do some statistical tests on the results and see if there is any difference.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,18:16   

Me:

Quote
Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again?


Joe:
Quote
What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?

Why don't you do some science already?


--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,20:37   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
         
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

         
Quote

           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.


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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,21:26   

Thanks Wes. What is most fun watching creationists like Joey belly flop into a dry pond is that they cannot even master the basics of their own position.

I have got to finish "Dembski's complexity gets hammered and screwed."

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 24 2010,19:34

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,10:58   

Everyone was so excited about invited GI Joe here, I was expecting something more... interesting.  Ho hum.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,18:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
           
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

           
Quote

           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:01   

And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:18   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:01)
And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

Hey, Joe? You kiss your momma with that mouth?

BTW, if you are throwing another tantrum in hopes of getting Expelled, you might ask Guts how that worked out for him.  He came here and thumped his chest and threw around the most profane insults he could muster, but he never got banned.  So, you might try pacing yourself.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:27   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,19:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:01)
And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

Hey, Joe? You kiss your momma with that mouth?

BTW, if you are throwing another tantrum in hopes of getting Expelled, you might ask Guts how that worked out for him.  He came here and thumped his chest and threw around the most profane insults he could muster, but he never got banned.  So, you might try pacing yourself.

I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:36   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:27)
I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

Well, I suppose it runs in the family.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:39   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 25 2010,19:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:27)
I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

Well, I suppose it runs in the family.

And cowardice must run in yours...

Oh well

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2010,20:08   

Can you answer questions?  This symbol '?' means that we are asking you for information.

You refusing to provide information, especially some of the politely worded requests, just makes you look like a foul-mouthed jerk.

Are you a Christian?  If so, you're setting a really horrible example.  If not, then you are still setting a really horrible example.

Now, answer some questions or go away.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,01:44   

Joe will now respond with something deep and pithy like "How about you answer my questions, asshole faggot?"

It's always "I know you are but what am I" with GI Joe.  Baseless assertions with zero evidence, zero data (wait, I think I hear GI Joe gearing up for another "I know you are but what am I").

God, you're boring, Joe.  Even Robert Byers is more fun than you.

Come on, say something concrete and testable so everyone can embarrass you.  Betcha can't.

Bore.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,02:24   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,12:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:22)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

Joe,

Excuse me but you mentioned about ID being taught in school in the OP. Why is wanting to know what you want to have taught off-topic?

Look Joe not only is this in your OP, it is the header.

Quote

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


So what do you want to "present" to the kids?

Hey Joe,

What would a class for ID teach?

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,02:33   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 26 2010,00:24)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,12:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:22)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

Joe,

Excuse me but you mentioned about ID being taught in school in the OP. Why is wanting to know what you want to have taught off-topic?

Look Joe not only is this in your OP, it is the header.

 
Quote

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


So what do you want to "present" to the kids?

Hey Joe,

What would a class for ID teach?

[li'l Joe]
Just look in any biology textbook, asshole!
[/li'l Joe]

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,05:53   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                 
Quote

                 
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

   
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

 
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

 
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

 
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

 
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

 
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
 
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

 
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,08:14   

"boom" said Chriton as he activated the device and created a solar system sized black hole.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,09:46   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,17:27)
BTW I can go on like this for years.


Well that at least has been amply demonstrated.  

Quote
So all this is just pure entertainment.


Yes, amazingly, right again! But trust me: we're getting more of it.  Oodles and oodles more.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,20:53   

Commence fisking...

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?


Having seen the NCSE files on flareups around the country and world, it is an absolute commonplace that antievolution advocates will be offered the compromise that they can have their views on origins incorporated into a "comparative religions" course. To my knowledge, the antievolution advocates have never expressed the slightest interest in this sort of alternative. They uniformly want their non-science stuff taught in science class as if it were science.

The case in Lancaster, CA of a "philosophy" inter-term elective showed that the content included a bunch of young-earth creationism arguments -- exactly the stuff at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. The decision there wasn't an affirmation for good science; it was a rejection of disguised sectarian views being injected into the public school curriculum. Simply choosing a different topic to inject the same sectarian content into doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.


Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.


IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected. The fact that IDC advocates, baraminologists, and their cheerleaders sometimes grant that certain trivial amounts of evolution might be said to occur doesn't make their movement something that "antievolutionary" would be inaccurate to apply as a description.

And, in fact, one does not have to go far to find that the "accepting" nature of IDC advocates is a Twainian exaggeration. If we took the sometime protestations that they accept "microevolution" seriously, we'd expect that the IDC literature would be free of criticism of examples at the level of evolution happening within populations. But the IDC literature is replete with criticism of examples of microevolution, whether it may be antibiotic resistance in bacteria, industrial melanism in moths, or beak size changes in finches. It seems that the relevant property of things that IDC advocates object to is not whether something falls within microevolution or macroevolution, but whether it presents a compelling example of some aspect of evolution, period.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.


Joe G. apparently hasn't opened the pages of Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", which expresses outrage over several examples of evolution that are clearly microevolutionary. Wells' book was pitched as a "wedge book" by the Discovery Institute and widely promoted by the DI. Wells is not the only IDC advocate to target microevolutionary examples of evolution, and it is not at all difficult to find such examples, which makes Joe G.'s eagerness to spew such easily-exposed falsehood a bit puzzling.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).


I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim. IDC advocates commonly target things other than mechanism, as in Rob Crowther and Casey Luskin's fairly recent apoplectic fits over the status of the Tiktaalik fossils.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.


Funny how what shows up as exposed above are falsehoods by Joe G.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.


I'll refer Joe G. to our exchanges just above and also Dembski's "The Design Inference" pages 36 and 49 for why Hurd is right and Joe G. is, again, spewing falsehoods.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?


Well, the fact that the IDC advocates take issue with just about anything (remember Wells and his icons), not just mechanism, and not giving microevolutionary examples a pass, as Joe G.'s assertions would indicate that they should. That and "cdesign proponentsists". And trying to write evolution out of the 1999 Kansas science standards. And proposing "critical analysis" as a "compromise", only to slide in the usual IDC and creation science arguments into the Ohio school curriculum. And proposing a redefinition of science whenever they comment on science standards. And many, many other reasons as well.

That should be sufficient for the fisking.

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,21:48   



--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,22:08   

Very nice Wes. Always a pleasure.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,23:54   

It's funny how whether ID is anti-evolution seems to depend on which ID advocate is talking, and who they're talking to at the time. I guess that's a side effect of not having a clear consistent definition of what the heck ID is or says.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,05:41   

I've added a link to my reply on the EF to Google Sidewiki on Joe G.'s two pages at his blogs that reference Wilkins and Elsberry 2001. Anyone going there who checks the Sidewiki content will now have a link back to here.

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

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,06:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2010,05:41)
I've added a link to my reply on the EF to Google Sidewiki on Joe G.'s two pages at his blogs that reference Wilkins and Elsberry 2001. Anyone going there who checks the Sidewiki content will now have a link back to here.

LOL. I think you have already killed Joe's "arguments" here and I am now watching you kick a corpse. Admittedly, the corpse probably does not know it is dead (and it is still amusing to watch).

Funny thing. A fair amount of UD IDiots seem to watch this site, but very few dare to comment. That could possibly be a thesis subject in psychology.

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,07:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,05:53)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                 
Quote

                   
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

     
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

   
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

   
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

 
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

 
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

 
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
 
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

 
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

We,

Nice rant.

Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.

As for your "rigorous" example- RotFLMAO!

YECs accept speciation Wes.

Do you have any examples of rigor pertaining to- for example- the alleged evolution of vision systems?

That would include the genes involved and the modifications to the genome that allowed for such a thing.

As for the EF Dembski even says that future knowledge may upset the design inference. And tat is how it is with scientific inferences.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,07:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,20:53)
Commence fisking...

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?


Having seen the NCSE files on flareups around the country and world, it is an absolute commonplace that antievolution advocates will be offered the compromise that they can have their views on origins incorporated into a "comparative religions" course. To my knowledge, the antievolution advocates have never expressed the slightest interest in this sort of alternative. They uniformly want their non-science stuff taught in science class as if it were science.

The case in Lancaster, CA of a "philosophy" inter-term elective showed that the content included a bunch of young-earth creationism arguments -- exactly the stuff at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. The decision there wasn't an affirmation for good science; it was a rejection of disguised sectarian views being injected into the public school curriculum. Simply choosing a different topic to inject the same sectarian content into doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.


Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.


IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected. The fact that IDC advocates, baraminologists, and their cheerleaders sometimes grant that certain trivial amounts of evolution might be said to occur doesn't make their movement something that "antievolutionary" would be inaccurate to apply as a description.

And, in fact, one does not have to go far to find that the "accepting" nature of IDC advocates is a Twainian exaggeration. If we took the sometime protestations that they accept "microevolution" seriously, we'd expect that the IDC literature would be free of criticism of examples at the level of evolution happening within populations. But the IDC literature is replete with criticism of examples of microevolution, whether it may be antibiotic resistance in bacteria, industrial melanism in moths, or beak size changes in finches. It seems that the relevant property of things that IDC advocates object to is not whether something falls within microevolution or macroevolution, but whether it presents a compelling example of some aspect of evolution, period.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.


Joe G. apparently hasn't opened the pages of Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", which expresses outrage over several examples of evolution that are clearly microevolutionary. Wells' book was pitched as a "wedge book" by the Discovery Institute and widely promoted by the DI. Wells is not the only IDC advocate to target microevolutionary examples of evolution, and it is not at all difficult to find such examples, which makes Joe G.'s eagerness to spew such easily-exposed falsehood a bit puzzling.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).


I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim. IDC advocates commonly target things other than mechanism, as in Rob Crowther and Casey Luskin's fairly recent apoplectic fits over the status of the Tiktaalik fossils.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.


Funny how what shows up as exposed above are falsehoods by Joe G.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.


I'll refer Joe G. to our exchanges just above and also Dembski's "The Design Inference" pages 36 and 49 for why Hurd is right and Joe G. is, again, spewing falsehoods.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?


Well, the fact that the IDC advocates take issue with just about anything (remember Wells and his icons), not just mechanism, and not giving microevolutionary examples a pass, as Joe G.'s assertions would indicate that they should. That and "cdesign proponentsists". And trying to write evolution out of the 1999 Kansas science standards. And proposing "critical analysis" as a "compromise", only to slide in the usual IDC and creation science arguments into the Ohio school curriculum. And proposing a redefinition of science whenever they comment on science standards. And many, many other reasons as well.

That should be sufficient for the fisking.

1- "IDC" exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

2- The ONLY definition of "evolution" that is anti-ID- and therefor by extension ID is anti- that specific definition ONLY- is the blind watchmaker thesis- <b>“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.</b>


3- Jonathan Wells is NOT ID. Dr Behe accepts Common Descent.

4- JW is to ID as Dawkins is to the ToE- a side show.

Otherwise it can be said that the ToE is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

So what we have is Wes, not understanding evolution, spewing his ignorance.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,07:57   

So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:09   

Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:32   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:42   

Edit- how can I edit my post?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:44   

joe is just trolling for man-meat again.  joe you and chunk should get a room and type really hateful kinky homoerotic stuff at each other, you are doing about the same thing for your cause here.

the best thing about your dribbling upthread to me is you say your damnself that ID is the null.  the default position and the burden of proof is on anyone saying otherwise to show differently.  then you deny that.  

Quote
...ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


then

Quote
Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.


hmmm "specification" huh.

what's that?

oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:49   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 02 2010,08:44)
joe is just trolling for man-meat again.  joe you and chunk should get a room and type really hateful kinky homoerotic stuff at each other, you are doing about the same thing for your cause here.

the best thing about your dribbling upthread to me is you say your damnself that ID is the null.  the default position and the burden of proof is on anyone saying otherwise to show differently.  then you deny that.  

Quote
...ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


then

Quote
Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.


hmmm "specification" huh.

what's that?

oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?

Another dick-head chimes in-

And as predicted nothing of substance and nothing to support its position.

Go figure...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:51   

Specification- the difference maker

Now you can beat that to death but that doesn't help yopu provide positive evidence for your position.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:24   

Quote
oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?


CAEK IS NOT SPECIFIED BUT CHOCKOLATE CAEK IS SPECIFIED.

SPECIFIED MEANS THE TYPE OF A THING OF A KIND, IN SCIENCE LANGUAGES.

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:37   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria.
The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules.
The result: the prediction was upheld.

The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design.
The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found.
The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?)

See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test.

BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate.

(Edit to correct typo)

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:43   

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/claims-evolution-flagella

Quote
Here is a summary of the table published in Pallen & Matzke (2006) (the table is freely available online here):

Total number of proteins listed: 42
    (this table excludes the chemotaxis proteins; there are ~10 chemotaxis proteins in standard E. coli, but the number can range from 0 to 10+ in various bacteria)

Total number thought to be indispensable in modern flagella: 23 (55%)
Total number "unique" (no known homologs): 15 (36%)
Total number of indispensable proteins that are also "unique": 2 (5%)


EDIT to add:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2010,09:24)
Quote
oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?


CAEK IS NOT SPECIFIED BUT CHOCKOLATE CAEK IS SPECIFIED.

SPECIFIED MEANS THE TYPE OF A THING OF A KIND, IN SCIENCE LANGUAGES.

Specification: Isn't that the definition of the aardvark from the English language dictionary of your Joe's choice?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,10:01   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,07:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2010,09:24)
 
Quote
oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?


CAEK IS NOT SPECIFIED BUT CHOCKOLATE CAEK IS SPECIFIED.

SPECIFIED MEANS THE TYPE OF A THING OF A KIND, IN SCIENCE LANGUAGES.

Specification: Isn't that the definition of the aardvark from the English language dictionary of your Joe's choice?

I like this one, from the blog post he linked:
Quote


The difference between a rock and artifact is specification.


So, so true.  Well, unless the artifact isn't made from a rock.  Like a wooden bow. OK, new variant of this defintion:

The difference between a stick and a bow is specification.

But then there's the bowstring, which could be made from tendon, for instance.  So:

The difference between a tendon and a bowstring is specification.
But hold on: isn't the tendon specified already?  'Cause it's from an organism, and they're "obviously" designed.

The difference between a specified tendon and a bowstring is some extra specification?

OK, fuck it: this is a wretched way of defining specification.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:30   

sigh... he's not even trying to defend his position.  Just trying to make us play his game.

Hey Joe,

When did the designer last act?
What was the designer's last act?

and I'll type this one slowly for you...

IS THERE ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE FOR SPECIFICITY (or whatever you guys call it now)?

bonus question: What unit is specificity measured in (I have a prediction regarding this answer, should you ever choose to jot yout thoughts down)?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:32   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.)

Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead').

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:40   

Quote
But hold on: isn't the tendon specified already???'Cause it's from an organism, and they're "obviously" designed.

So did the stick, in an earlier paragraph. ;)

Henry

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,13:22   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2010,09:40)
Quote
But hold on: isn't the tendon specified already???'Cause it's from an organism, and they're "obviously" designed.

So did the stick, in an earlier paragraph. ;)

Henry

See: it's even worse than I'd imagined!  Also, I probably should have noticed that....jerk.  :p

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,17:39   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,09:42)
Edit- how can I edit my post?

You need to convince Wesley you're worthy and you won't use the facility to dishonestly edit posts people have responded too. Good luck doing that!

-ETA- Because I can.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,18:00   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:42)
Edit- how can I edit my post?

Don't be a jackass.

Edited to add: Never mind, just carry on as normal. You can't change.

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 02 2010,16:01

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

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,02:58   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:42)
Edit- how can I edit my post?

Use a word processor, delete expletives, c&p to AtBC

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,06:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,11:32)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.)

Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead').

Ogre,

I take it that you are too ignorant to follow the links I provided.

Not my problem asshole.

But anyway are YOU ever going to put forth some positive evidence to support your position?

For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,06:57   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,09:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria.
The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules.
The result: the prediction was upheld.

The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design.
The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found.
The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?)

See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test.

BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate.

(Edit to correct typo)

IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes.

Got it.

Thanks.

Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,07:52   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes.

Got it.

Thanks.

Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Hi Joe,
What do you have that supports the claim that a designer exists?

Or perhaps you could tell me how you know that a designer designed the bacterial flagellum, as opposed to some unknown but natural process?

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,08:44   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,11:32)

I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.)

Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead').

Ogre,

I take it that you are too ignorant to follow the links I provided.

Not my problem asshole.

But anyway are YOU ever going to put forth some positive evidence to support your position?

For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Prediction confirmed.

Thanks Joe.  You know, you really aren't helping your case at all.  This viscious attitude is just making you look like a complete loser.  All I'm asking is that you spend a few minutes to type up the answers to my questions... which directly involve intelligent design.

Your refusal to do so (instead launching a diatribe against me) just indicates that you don't have any support and you know it.  Of course, we've known it for decades, just having confirmation from you is icing.

Now...

1) Do you have any evidence to support any proposition put forth by ID?
2) What is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID? (remember, your previous attempt wasn't testable or falsifiable)
3) When did the designed last act?
4) What value and unit is the specified complexity for an organism measured in?  Why?

Can you answer these questions or not?  I don't want a youtube link.  I don't want a link to what someone else writes.  I want to know what you think.

You've obviously got some serious emotional attachment to the idea of ID.  I want to know why.  What about ID has got you so fired up that you can't even generate a response to some simple (even basic) questions about your 'theory'?

Dude, these are honest questions.  I'm sorry if you can't see that.  But don't you see that your attitude is really hurting you cause?

Or is it just more fun to curse at people than actually hold an adult conversation?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,10:59   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:42)
Edit- how can I edit my post?

Simple - don't be a jerk.  Which is quite clearly impossible for you, so: Click

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,14:12   

Link to previous post (copied below)

Joe,

The following (link above) is commentary on a UD poster.

Quote

I see Jerry's been attending the David Berlinski school of pulling large numbers out your ass:
   [Quote ]
This also does not make sense. Are there not cleanly delineated barriers between many species. I can name a million or two that have clear delineated barriers. For example, take a fish and a fruit fly. I can name a million or two where they are not. For example, beetles. I have no idea why you brought in the concept of a designer. ID does not rule out that a large percentage of species arrived by naturalistic means. It just is not 100%


[/quote]

The original post contains a link to the original UD post/comment.

So the questions are:
1) Do you agree with Jerry's claims?
2) If not, why not and what does Jerry have wrong?
3) If so, what percentage of organisms do have natural evolutionary histories and how did you arrive at that figure?
4) Are organisms that do not have natural evolutionary histories direct results of the designer?
5) Can you (or Jerry) name one organism that does not have a natural evolutionary history?  (not a group, not a genus, but a species)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,20:32   

Quote
2) What is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID? (remember, your previous attempt wasn't testable or falsifiable)

Even if somebody produced one, what fraction of ID advocates would agree that the hypothesis follows as a necessary logical consequence of the concept that life was in some way deliberately engineered?

Henry

  
Cubist



Posts: 466
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,02:07   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
(P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong."
Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,10:26   

Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 04 2010,00:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
(P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong."
Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design?

I was wondering when someone would get around to this.

GI Joe?

Okay, we're in a parallel universe.

There is no theory of evolution.

Your go.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,10:35   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 04 2010,10:26)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 04 2010,00:07)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
(P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong."
Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design?

I was wondering when someone would get around to this.

GI Joe?

Okay, we're in a parallel universe.

There is no theory of evolution.

Your go.

IDiot Joe isn't coming back anytime soon. olegt killeded him here.

olegt counted much coup that day. There must be some reward for that kind of complete rhetorical tardemolition (other than a handsomely-framed LOLCAT from carlsonjok...which I admit can brighten any room in the house).

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,11:30   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:35)

Quote
BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".


But not in editions 1-5?

Quote

IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.


Right.

Is it your opinion that non-IDC claims (i.e., evolutionary claims) can make it into textbooks without having to have gone through the 'normal' process of having had been vetted through the peer-review process and been considered established science first?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,11:33   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:37)
Read the commentary here

You refer to a commentary by a computer technician creationist with a documented history of distorting facts?

Whatever.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,11:43   

Quote
I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile(sic) thereof, is just an illusion?


What success is that?

What Design has been detected in biological entities using the EF that does not rely on using analogies as the foundational basis?

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,12:53   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,09:37)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria.
The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules.
The result: the prediction was upheld.

The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design.
The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found.
The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?)

See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test.

BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate.

(Edit to correct typo)

IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes.

Got it.

Thanks.

Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Joe: Scientists do not go looking for evidence to support hypotheses. They look for evidence to refute hypotheses. They talk about a hypothesis having been supported if they fail to find evidence to refute it. The problem (or rather, one of the problems) with ID is that there is no possible evidence that would refute it ('possible' in the sense that if the evidence existed, it could be found).

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2010,13:00   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2010,13:41   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

They don't have to.   It's so obviously the default position, that anything else has to be proven.  They need to proof, just faith.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2010,16:12   

Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2010,17:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2010,17:12)
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

I don't know, not just anyone has the balls to sit in his mom's basement and type "I'll kick your ass, you assfaced asshole" into the comment box on a blog, like Joe does almost every day.  That takes some serious guts, you have to admit.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2010,18:25   



--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,00:34   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:50)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,05:53)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
             
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                         
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                         
Quote

                           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

             
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

           
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

           
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

         
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

         
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

         
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
         
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

         
Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

         
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

We,

Nice rant.

Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.

As for your "rigorous" example- RotFLMAO!

YECs accept speciation Wes.

Do you have any examples of rigor pertaining to- for example- the alleged evolution of vision systems?

That would include the genes involved and the modifications to the genome that allowed for such a thing.

As for the EF Dembski even says that future knowledge may upset the design inference. And tat is how it is with scientific inferences.

Joe, you should direct your attention to p.49 of Dembski's "The Design Inference". Dembski gives his argument about specification being a way to eliminate chance there in first-order predicate logic. Notice premise 6: reg(E) V ch(E) V des(E). That's Dembski's claim that regularity, chance, and design form a partition of causal categories. Where specification does its work is in Dembski's Premise 4, which is the claim that specified events of small probability do not occur by chance. All specification does is provide a means to conclude, in Dembski's argument, that chance is excluded as a causal category for an event. With Premise 5, that regularity is not a cause for the event, that means that by Premise 6, an event that is neither due to regularity nor due to chance must be concluded to belong to the sole remaining category, due to design, by default. This application of Premise 6 follows after where specification is applied in the argument. Don't blame me, this is exactly what Dembski has laid out. And he did it in first-order predicate logic, so there isn't any wiggle-room left there to argue out of it. So, Joe G., which is it: did you not read Dembski, or not understand Dembski?

Some YECs may accept speciation as occurring, but not all of them do, and it is quite commonplace to find people in these discussions who dispute that there is any evidence of speciation having occurred. Joe G. asked for an example of rigor supporting "whatever" my views were, and got one. I think one airily dismissed example going down the line of a digression is enough.

Does Dembski say that future knowledge can overturn a design inference? Dembski says something to that effect on p.14 of "No Free Lunch", but it only goes so far as to show that Dembski is being inconsistent on this issue. Dembski stated clearly quite the opposite before. I provided it once already, but I guess I had better do it again in the hopes that maybe this time Joe G. will bother to read it:

   
Quote

 [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

  Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

  What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]

  -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.


I've bolded the part that Joe G. should pay particular attention to; it shows that Dembski did intend his "design inference" to be a final arbiter whenever it actually labeled an event as being due to design. If we believe Dembski on p.14 of NFL, he changed his mind about the reliability of his design inference, and we are right back in the bad old days of biologists worrying over premature and incorrect attributions of design. But... flip forward in NFL just another 10 pages to the bottom of p.24 and top of p.25, and we can find Demsbki again saying that we can trust his design inference to only yield "design" as a cause when it is actually the case. Or flip back 8 pages to p.6, where one finds a lightly edited version of the text that I quoted above. So we not only have Dembski being serially inconsistent, but also simultaneously inconsistent. I view Dembski's one statement of concession on p.14 of the NFL as a convenient falsehood to blunt a critique of his work that is not indicative of his actual stance on the reliability of his "design inference", especially since he repeats his claims of reliability in multiple places in the very same work.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 08 2010,06:33

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2010,01:37   

Wes, I am not going to "quote" the last post because I want to save the poor electrons.

Of course I agree with you.

Joe Gizzum has also missed Dembski's definition of "specification" as it is related to biology as exclusively  "function."

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,08:23   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,08:25   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2010,16:12)
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

Ogre-  Say it with me- Even if ID and Creation are 100% bunk that still does not mean your sad position is in any way correct.

Now I have provided you with links that have my words defending the design inference.

Apparently you are too stupid to follow those links.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,09:51   

So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,09:55   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)

 So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

Care to back that up by using the EF and showing your working? Otherwise it's just a claim with no substance. You say "if we use the EF" like it's something you've done 100's of times before. I don't believe you.
 
Quote

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Oh? Perhaps if you could work through an example of the EF you could show that in action.
 
Quote

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

What's the value of the CSI in a salt crystal?
 
Quote

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

Again, these issues would be clarified if you would walk us through an example of the EF in action.

Can you do that? If not, on what basis do you have for claiming that the EF is useful at any level?

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:00   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)

 So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

Care to back that up by using the EF and showing your working? Otherwise it's just a claim with no substance. You say "if we use the EF" like it's something you've done 100's of times before. I don't believe you.
 
Quote

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Oh? Perhaps if you could work through an example of the EF you could show that in action.
 
Quote

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

What's the value of the CSI in a salt crystal?
 
Quote

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

Again, these issues would be clarified if you would walk us through an example of the EF in action.

Can you do that? If not, on what basis do you have for claiming that the EF is useful at any level?

assface- how do you think scientists determine design?

Do you think they flip a coin?

I bet if you look close enough you will see the EF.

and BTW there isn't any CSI in a salt crystal

But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:03   

Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:05   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:00)


assface- how do you think scientists determine design?

They use the EF right? Then it should be easy for you to walk us through an example of it in use.

Or is that beyond you?
 
Quote

Do you think they flip a coin?

I don't know, perhaps they just make a claim "the bacterial flagellum is designed" and when they are asked for more details they respond "assface".

From your behaviour, that seems to be the method, as far as I can tell.
 
Quote

I bet if you look close enough you will see the EF.

It's you that is making the claim, therefore the burden of proof rests with you. Why don't you try "looking close enough" and then report back to me.
 
Quote
and BTW there isn't any CSI in a salt crystal

So CSI in salt crystal = 0.

Now we're getting somewhere!

 
Quote

But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance

Then educate me, oh wise ID guru.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:07   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:15   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,05:07)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
   
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

Joe,

I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You are the one claiming the EF can be shown to work. You don't want me suspecting you of bluster, do you? Do what Doug Axe can't. Demonstrate how the EF works on a real-life example.

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:19   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,05:07)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
   
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

Joe,

I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You are the one claiming the EF can be shown to work. You don't want me suspecting you of bluster, do you? Do what Doug Axe can't. Demonstrate how the EF works on a real-life example.

Alan,

You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.

How do you think scientists determine design?

Do you think they flip a coin?

And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

What part of that don't you understand?

And you do realize that bashing ID does not support your position?

Why is it that you just don't jump in with the scientific data that supports your position and therefor refutes ID?

THAT is all YOU have to do.

Yet you don't.

I say it is because you can't- all you can do is bash ID with your ignorance.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:23   

Quote
You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.
You could at least think up your own insults, Joe.

So am I to take it you are unable to demonstrate the use of the EF?

ETA orthographe

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:24   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:19)
And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

BZZT! Wrong again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8516319.stm
Quote
Scientists say that a meteorite that crashed into Earth 40 years ago contains millions of different carbon-containing, or organic, molecules.
Although they are not a sign of life, such organic compounds are life's building blocks, and are a sign of conditions in the early Solar System.
...
Scientists believe the Murchison meteorite could have originated before the Sun was formed, 4.65 billion years ago. The researchers say it probably passed through primordial clouds in the early Solar System, picking up organic chemicals.
Dr Schmitt-Kopplin hopes the findings might contribute to the debate over how life on Earth originated.

Oh dear.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:25   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:23)
Quote
You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.
You could at least think up your own insults, Joe.

So am I to take it you are unable to demonstrate the use of the EF?

ETA orthographe

Alan,

You can take it up your ass- as you like it- for all I care.

You obviously can't demonstrate the methodology used to determine living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes.

So you HAVE to bash ID- it is all you have.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:27   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:19)
And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

BZZT! Wrong again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8516319.stm
 
Quote
Scientists say that a meteorite that crashed into Earth 40 years ago contains millions of different carbon-containing, or organic, molecules.
Although they are not a sign of life, such organic compounds are life's building blocks, and are a sign of conditions in the early Solar System.
...
Scientists believe the Murchison meteorite could have originated before the Sun was formed, 4.65 billion years ago. The researchers say it probably passed through primordial clouds in the early Solar System, picking up organic chemicals.
Dr Schmitt-Kopplin hopes the findings might contribute to the debate over how life on Earth originated.

Oh dear.

oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:39   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:27)
oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

Can't you? Then I guess it must be my imagination that there are several models for the natural origin of nucleotides. And zero models for the creation of nucleotides by intelligent design.

Still, when you say "building blocks" instead of something more specific you have to take what answers you get given.

No matter what model is presented we all know you'll simply claim "Nature cannot be explained by Nature" thus "winning" any argument (in your mind) by default.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:41   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:27)
oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

Can't you? Then I guess it must be my imagination that there are several models for the natural origin of nucleotides. And zero models for the creation of nucleotides by intelligent design.

Still, when you say "building blocks" instead of something more specific you have to take what answers you get given.

No matter what model is presented we all know you'll simply claim "Nature cannot be explained by Nature" thus "winning" any argument (in your mind) by default.

It is imagination as such models do not exist.

There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:47   

Quote
There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.


Just one would be enough. Bring it on.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:48   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

Flasks were designed, therefore any experiment that makes use of a flask proves ID.

It's the last gasp argument of an ID proponent that's got nothing else.

As long ago as 1997, if not before, the generation of nucleotides in open space has been discussed.
Link

Here's something with nice big letters dicussing UV light and nucleotides
Link

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

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

Flasks were designed, therefore any experiment that makes use of a flask proves ID.

It's the last gasp argument of an ID proponent that's got nothing else.

As long ago as 1997, if not before, the generation of nucleotides in open space has been discussed.
Link

Here's something with nice big letters dicussing UV light and nucleotides
Link

I viewed that link on my computer. My computer was designed, therefore ID.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,10:56   

Giovanna Costanzo, Samanta Pino, Fabiana Ciciriello and Ernesto Di Mauro
2009 “Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 284, 33206-33216, November 27

Nuevo, Michel, Stefanie Milam, Scott Sandford, Jason Dworkin, Jamie Elsila
2009 “Formation of Uracil from the Ultraviolet Photo-Irradiation of Pyrimidine in Pure Water Ices,” Astrobiology vol. 9 no. 7, Oct. 1.

S N Rodin & A S Rodin “On the origin of the genetic code: signatures of its primordial complementarity in tRNAs and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases” Heredity aop, (2008) | doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6801086.

Ronald Breslow, Zhan-Ling Cheng
"On the origin of terrestrial homochirality for nucleosides and amino acids" PNAS June 9, 2009 vol. 106 no. 23 9144-9146

Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland,"Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009)

Philipp Baaske, Franz M. Weinert, Stefan Duhr, Kono H. Lemke, Michael J. Russell, and Dieter Braun
2007 "Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems" PNAS | May 29, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 22 | 9346-9351

Egholm M, Buchardt O, Nielsen PE, Berg RH:
1992  "Peptide nucleic acids (PNA). Oligonucleotide analogs with an achiral peptide backbone." J Am Chem Soc  114:1895-1897.

Cohn CA, Hansson TK, Larsson HS, Sowerby SJ, Holm NG.
2001 "Fate of prebiotic adenine." Astrobiology. Winter;1(4):477-80

There is a lot more, but you get the idea.

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

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

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,12:28   

I see Joe is still drivin' that Dodge.

Grand National, of course.  :)

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,16:21   

I used to participate here often, but as life gets busy, the whole IDC thing has taken a back seat to more pressing issues in my life.  I've dropped by and glanced a couple of threads over the last couple of years but that's about it.  

Today I had some time and wanted to catch up on the tard inspired IDcreationist scam and I found this thread.  What a freaking bounty for a gawker like me.

JoeG, I love you man.  You're like an intellectually stunted Davescot and I was so sad that he got the boot here. It's refreshing to see some quality tard in the forum like this.  Keep up the work, JoeG!  No doubt you have changed the minds of many scientists and atheists (and left handed people) here already!  

Praise jeebuz!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,16:37   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 11 2010,16:21)
I used to participate here often, but as life gets busy, the whole IDC thing has taken a back seat to more pressing issues in my life.  I've dropped by and glanced a couple of threads over the last couple of years but that's about it.  

Today I had some time and wanted to catch up on the tard inspired IDcreationist scam and I found this thread.  What a freaking bounty for a gawker like me.

JoeG, I love you man.  You're like an intellectually stunted Davescot and I was so sad that he got the boot here. It's refreshing to see some quality tard in the forum like this.  Keep up the work, JoeG!  No doubt you have changed the minds of many scientists and atheists (and left handed people) here already!  

Praise jeebuz!

Welcome back  ;)

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,16:53   

Richard, add a few more like JoeG and I'll be here every day!

Nice to see you guys keeping the flames of tard burning!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,17:16   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,17:58   

Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,22:51   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2010,01:10   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was  it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?  

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,13:05   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,17:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,13:39   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 11 2010,23:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

This is grossly unfair to Joe.  He also has the "I know you are but what am I, assface" schtick.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,16:40   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:05)
Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

So basically, if the person using it wants to see design, the EF will 'detect' design regardless of the inputs.

Really useful scientific tool there.  :p

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:06   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 29 2010,16:40)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:05)
Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

So basically, if the person using it wants to see design, the EF will 'detect' design regardless of the inputs.

Really useful scientific tool there.  :p

Wrong again you ignorant fuck.

With science it has to be repeatable- that is someone else has to be able to verify that inference.

However you being an ignorant fuck wouldn't understand that.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:09   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 11 2010,22:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

Asshole it is you and your ilk who have nuthin'.

If you had something you would just present it.

But you can't because you don't have anything.

You do realize that the only way ID will go away is if you fucknuts start substantiating the claims of your position.

The way to demonstrate living organisms are not designed is by demonstrating they can arise via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

You can erect as many ID strawmen as you want but you still wouldn't have any positive evidence for your position.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:11   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 13 2010,01:10)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
     
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was  it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?  

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?

Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

Can evolution be quantified?

IOW is there a way to measure it?

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?

No, then how can it be considered science?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:54   

SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,11:47   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:11)

Quote
What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?


1) More organisms are born than can possibly survive in the environment.
2) Each organism is (sexual reproduction)/ may be (asexual reproduction) different from it's parent and siblings.
3) Any of the differences may confer an advantage to survival of the organism.
4) Organisms that survive tend to have more kids that look more like them than those that don't survive.

It's called evolution... learn what it is before trying to discredit it.

Quote
Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

whales, horses, humans

Quote
Can evolution be quantified?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
IOW is there a way to measure it?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
No, then how can it be considered science?


Because it is observable, repeatable and falsifiable... unlike whatever tripe you promote.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,12:37   

I remembered there was a measurement unit called the "Darwin".   So I did a quick Google Scholar search and found a recent paper titled Rates of Evolution
 
Quote
Haldane (1949) calculated rates of evolutionary change two ways, first in factors of e (base of the natural logarithms), and second in phenotypic SDs. He marked time in years and in generations. Haldane coined the rate unit “darwin” to represent “increase or decrease of size by a factor of e per million years” (Haldane 1949, p. 55). The rates of horse evolution that he calculated were on the order of 40 millidarwins (40 × 10?9; a darwin is a factor of e per million years,and 1/1000 of that is a factor of e per billion years). These were calculated on timescales of 5– 16 million years.

Haldane wrote that “the use of the standard deviation as a yardstick has a certain interest because, on any version of the Darwinian theory, the variation within a population at any time constitutes, so to say, the raw material available for evolution” (p. 52). He calculated that horses changed by about one SD per 200,000 generations, or 5 × 10?6 SD per generation on a timescale of about 1–3 million generations.

I don't expect this will have any positive affect on Joe G (aka ID Guy).  I will be surprised if he even bothers to read the paper.

The point isn't there isn't a known metaphysically correct way to measure evolution (we don't know the Truth) but there are scientific ways which are understandable even by those who disagree with their validity.

EDIT - fixed link, minor edit

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:28   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,11:47)
[quote=Joe G,April 03 2010,08:11][/quote]
Quote
What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?


1) More organisms are born than can possibly survive in the environment.
2) Each organism is (sexual reproduction)/ may be (asexual reproduction) different from it's parent and siblings.
3) Any of the differences may confer an advantage to survival of the organism.
4) Organisms that survive tend to have more kids that look more like them than those that don't survive.

It's called evolution... learn what it is before trying to discredit it.

Quote
Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

whales, horses, humans

Quote
Can evolution be quantified?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
IOW is there a way to measure it?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
No, then how can it be considered science?


Because it is observable, repeatable and falsifiable... unlike whatever tripe you promote.

Wow it looks like you are going to teach baraminology.

Or at least you shouldn't have any problem with it being presented.

And that whales, horses and humans exist does not mean they evolved from soemthing that wasn't a whale, horse or human.

There isn't any genetic evidence that the transformations requires are even possible.

It has never been observed.

It cannot be repeated.

And if it cannot be measured how can it be science?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:30   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,12:37)
I remembered their was a measurement unit called the "Darwin".   So I did a quick Google Scholar search and found a recent paper titled Rates of Evolution
 
Quote
Haldane (1949) calculated rates of evolutionary change two ways, first in factors of e (base of the natural logarithms), and second in phenotypic SDs. He marked time in years and in generations. Haldane coined the rate unit “darwin” to represent “increase or decrease of size by a factor of e per million years” (Haldane 1949, p. 55). The rates of horse evolution that he calculated were on the order of 40 millidarwins (40 × 10?9; a darwin is a factor of e per million years,and 1/1000 of that is a factor of e per billion years). These were calculated on timescales of 5– 16 million years.

Haldane wrote that “the use of the standard deviation as a yardstick has a certain interest because, on any version of the Darwinian theory, the variation within a population at any time constitutes, so to say, the raw material available for evolution” (p. 52). He calculated that horses changed by about one SD per 200,000 generations, or 5 × 10?6 SD per generation on a timescale of about 1–3 million generations.

I don't expect this will have any positive affect on Joe G (aka ID Guy).  I will be surprised if he even bothers to read the paper.

The point isn't there isn't a known metaphysically correct way to measure evolution (we don't know the Truth) but there are scientific ways which are understandable even by those who disagree with their validity.

OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:32   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:44   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:59   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

It's your position.  If your position is supportable, then you can teach me how to use the tools.

Unless you're scared.
Unless you can't because you don't know how they work.
Unless you can't because they don't exist like I say they do.

Let me try this again Joe.  No one in science has to show shit to you.  You won't believe it regardless of what we show you.  

So, here's your chance to show us how your side works.  

Unless you're chicken.
Unless you can't.
Because you know that your side doesn't have dick.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:28   

Hi Joe G,
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:30)
OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?


Did you bother to try to follow the link I provided?

(The link was broken but, somehow, I doubt you were being polite by not mentioning it.)

From...
Rates of Evolution

Quote
Modern mammals span something like 10^2 SD or 10^3 0.1 SD units (comparing the least shrew to the great blue whale), and these diverged from each other something like 10^7 generations ago (Gingerich 2001, p. 141). At H0 = 0.1, a rate found commonly in rate studies, a mammal could conceivably change from the size of a shrew to the size of a whale in 10^3 generation...


The paper is only 16 pages of explanations on the very subject you are asking about.

Remember that "level playing field" we were discussing long ago?

Would you now provide a number, any number, describing the Specied Information of a spherical rock with the same radius as a baseball laying on a couch beside a broken window?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,09:10   

Joe can't perform his measurements and he knows it.  All he has is bluster.  Chicken

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:05   

Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,14:44)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance

Frank,

You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:07   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,15:28)
Hi Joe G,
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:30)
OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?


Did you bother to try to follow the link I provided?

(The link was broken but, somehow, I doubt you were being polite by not mentioning it.)

From...
Rates of Evolution

Quote
Modern mammals span something like 10^2 SD or 10^3 0.1 SD units (comparing the least shrew to the great blue whale), and these diverged from each other something like 10^7 generations ago (Gingerich 2001, p. 141). At H0 = 0.1, a rate found commonly in rate studies, a mammal could conceivably change from the size of a shrew to the size of a whale in 10^3 generation...


The paper is only 16 pages of explanations on the very subject you are asking about.

Remember that "level playing field" we were discussing long ago?

Would you now provide a number, any number, describing the Specied Information of a spherical rock with the same radius as a baseball laying on a couch beside a broken window?

TP,

The Darwin unit doesn't tell us if the transformations required are even possible.

It assumes they are.

What the theory needs is an objective measurement pertaining to genetics- as in how many mutations does it take to get X?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:19   

Quote
What the theory needs is an objective measurement pertaining to genetics- as in how many mutations does it take to get X?


Actually, that's the focus of a lot of research.

Since ID is premised on the notion that a designer can anticipate the effects of a change, it would be interesting to see a theory of how you could do that.

Not just the immediate biochemical effects, but the effects on reproductive success within an ecosystem. At a particular time in history.

Evilutionists just plod along assuming you try everything and let selection sort it out.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2010,09:41   

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:05)
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,14:44)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?
Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance
Frank,

You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

No Joe,

I won't use a "divining rod" to look for water as that is crap science.  I won't use EF or CSI either as that is crap science.

Again, let's say that evolution is wrong.  It does not stand that ID nor creationism are right.  You are going to have to show that your postulate (what verifiable predictions does ID make?  What have been tested?) has merit.

The ball is in your court to show EF and CSI have merit.  I don't have to disprove anything about EF and CSI is a proponent such as yourself is unable to make it work.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2010,10:41   

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:05)
You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

Who's worrying about ID?  A handful of morons gather on the web and discuss how evolution is on its way down.  They produce no output except barely read books.  They can't even keep enough steam to publish in the many journals they start then soon abort.  Evolutionary science meanwhile churns out massive amounts of new research every day around the globe.  It's full of positive evidence.  And if you had the ability to comprehend any of them you'd see this.  

Ignorance is one thing.  Your proud, stubborn ignorance is shameful.

When are you going to get elected to a school board?  I'd love to see you introduce your pseudo-science into public schools again!

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2010,18:24   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:11)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 13 2010,01:10)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
         
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was  it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?  

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?

Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

Can evolution be quantified?

IOW is there a way to measure it?

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?

No, then how can it be considered science?

I am starting to think that you are as thick as a whale sandwich. You made some claims, I asked you to expand upon them and you just retort with nonsense. But hey-ho, I will attempt to answer your questions; I doubt that you will reciprocate.

What would I teach in an evolutionary class? That lifeforms are related, that species group into nested hierarchies etc.

Can evolution be quantified? That would depend on the specific example, some things can, such as relational closeness of species, genome size or time lines etc.

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

How can it be considered science? Assuming you still mean evolution. Because it is based upon evidence, it has been tested, it makes accurate predictions, it explains the diversity of life and makes a good argument about why animal testing of human medicine makes sense (amongst others).


I bet you do not return the courtesy I have shown you. Yet you made the original claim. Meanwhile you think that you inhabit the moral high-ground because you believe in something that you have no evidence for.  







Well done!

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2010,22:46   

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

We can do quite a bit better than guess. We can calculate upper and lower bounds.

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 994
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2010,02:46   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 09 2010,17:46)
 
Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

We can do quite a bit better than guess. We can calculate upper and lower bounds.

I've tried to do some of these calculations. The calculations are certainly, certainly not hard, but they're interesting. I stopped at 50,000.</twiddles pen pompously>

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

  
  178 replies since Feb. 24 2010,09:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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